Topic: PlayStation All Stars: Better than Super Smash Bros Brawl!

[broodwars]

Why does the art style need to be standardized anyway? Have you ever seen the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit? In that movie there were cartoons interacting with live action people. Why can't there be a video game just like that? Leave the cell shaded characters as they are, and leave the realistic looking characters as they are. Just put them together but don't standardize their art.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't want Sony to standardize the look of these characters, because the last time they tried it it turned out terribly.  I just noted that they tried it before, and if they could do something that dumb before I could see them trying it again.

[Chozo Ghost]

I know. I'm just asking why does the art style have to be standardized in video games? Seems like that's how it always goes. Is there some technical reason that makes it difficult or impossible to pull off, or do video game makers just feel like this is how they have to do it and don't consider doing it any other way?

[Ian Sane]

The graphics engine might be such to make clashing art styles difficult.  If it's just polygon models with different textures on them it would probably be no problem but if there are extra tricks and such it might not work correctly.  Lighting effects for example might look all goofy.

I'm just surprised that it took THIS long for Sony to go with an SSB ripoff.  SSB came out in 1999!  Maybe Sony was just waiting to develop some notable characters but I figured we would have seen the Crash Bandicoot SSB ripoff in early 2000.

[S-U-P-E-R]

While we're all here, I need to get this off my chest: Brawl was a letdown and I really, really want someone to make a new, good free-for-all fighter that will catch on.

[nickmitch]

=^O

[S-U-P-E-R]

Just trying to stir the pot!! But honestly Brawl had a few pretty horrible design decisions and I don't think I even have to name names.
 
I mean, ****, people are making homemade patches for that game. Maybe there is a demand for a newer, better game...

[TJ Spyke]

Other than Samus being nerfed in the game, I thought it was just fine. Online was good for the first couple of months (before my Wii broke), when I came back a few months later it had gotten shitty. Subspace Emissary was meh, but not too bad. The actual gameplay was really good though. I would still be playing the game now, but when I re-bought the game I got a copy that had the problems that require me to send my Wii to Nintendo and I am too lazy to do that.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Well, I submit that the online play was consistently awful and oh god let's not even talk about the balance can of worms.
 
So I'm thinking... what would a new 4-player fighter need to be better than any before it? I got some ideas, but first, I'm curious as to what some of you guys think.

[TJ Spyke]

I played dozens of hours of online its first month of release, and only had problems 2 times. I don't know what happened after that to screw up the online play because when I got my Wii back I couldn't even play 1 match online.

[Spak-Spang]

Actually Smash Brothers games have dropped in quality ever since the first game.

The first game was brilliant.  The second great, but had some flaws...mostly because the design didn't really improve much over the first game in features.  Finally, Brawl was just not fun.  Story mode is horrible, and the multiplayer was chaotic, but didn't feel as refined as in Melee...which was a letdown to me from the first.

Yes, the first game is the most basic, but it also feels the best.  It just gets it right.

[broodwars]

So I'm thinking... what would a new 4-player fighter need to be better than any before it? I got some ideas, but first, I'm curious as to what some of you guys think.

Well, I think Brawl showed that the stages have to be uniquely designed and full of all sorts of scenarios and obstacles that make it interesting.  Brawl had way too many lame stages or ones that seemed designed for the "no items, Final Destination" crowd with their flat layouts and minimal interaction between the characters and the environment.

I think Brawl and Melee also showed that all the characters need to be unique with their own play styles and moves.  I don't buy the excuse that the Smash Bros. games needed all those clones because they just "couldn't" play differently, not when Capcom's MvC3 series has a fairly large cast of characters and apparently none of them are clones, not even the ones added in the "Ultimate" version of that game.

I also think the Smash Bros. games have showed the desperate need for these games to have a good Single-Player component as well as a strong multiplayer one.  Subspace Emissary wasn't horrible, but it was incredibly mediocre and I've never felt the desire to replay it once I finished it.  And as my friends are rarely around and I don't play online multiplayer, there's only so much multiplayer vs. CPUs you can play before you just get bored of it all.  I haven't touched Brawl in years.

[S-U-P-E-R]

I played dozens of hours of online its first month of release, and only had problems 2 times. I don't know what happened after that to screw up the online play because when I got my Wii back I couldn't even play 1 match online.

I think maybe you were getting matched with people in your town early on, and later as the online player base thinned out, you only got matched with people further away?
 

Actually Smash Brothers games have dropped in quality ever since the first game.

The first game was brilliant.  The second great, but had some flaws...mostly because the design didn't really improve much over the first game in features.  Finally, Brawl was just not fun.  Story mode is horrible, and the multiplayer was chaotic, but didn't feel as refined as in Melee...which was a letdown to me from the first.

Yes, the first game is the most basic, but it also feels the best.  It just gets it right.

I'm agreeing here more than I thought I would. The production values and general shininess of the games have gotten better, yeah, but the actual design has shifted more towards AIDS garbage. Although I think Melee was probably better...
 

Well, I think Brawl showed that the stages have to be uniquely designed and full of all sorts of scenarios and obstacles that make it interesting.  Brawl had way too many lame stages or ones that seemed designed for the "no items, Final Destination" crowd with their flat layouts and minimal interaction between the characters and the environment.

Yeah, but I really have to wonder, why did they keep Hyrule Temple? That **** is the worst

[nickmitch]

Finally, Brawl was just not fun.  Story mode is horrible, and the multiplayer was chaotic. . .

I personally thought the chaos was part of the fun. If you're not paying attention, you could get eaten by a giant fish. It's hilarious. To me, that's Smash Bros. The first game was like that due to the novelty of having all these mascots smack the piss out of eachother and then Jiggly Puff shows up. Melee was better because it had more stuff, but to me Brawl is better because it just gets absolutely Gwen Stefani bananas.

Brawl didn't lend itself well to being a serious fighter, but that shouldn't make it any less of a game.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Oh yeah, **** unlocking characters and stages, that is the worst thing. In a predominantly multiplayer game, it just inconveniences people and gets in the way of fun. Other fighting game developers have figured this out already. If you must have unlockables, limit it to cosmetic and gallery type stuff, pleeeeeeeease.
 

Brawl didn't lend itself well to being a serious fighter, but that shouldn't make it any less of a game.

You could say the same about Chutes & Ladders. I think Chutes & Ladders is a pretty bad game...

[nickmitch]

Don't get me wrong, I like unlocking ****. That's fun too. When I said "serious" I meant in an overly competitive setting with the kind of people who logs dozens of hours just mastering a 72 hit combo in Street Fighter. I don't really like those people.

[S-U-P-E-R]

That makes you a bad person!

Also, the idea that a fightman game can't be fun for both casual button mashers and grizzled tournament jerks is a myth.

[broodwars]

Yeah, but I really have to wonder, why did they keep Hyrule Temple? That **** is the worst

If you're talking about the map I think you're talking about (the Zelda stage from Melee, which was itself a modified stage from the N64 game), I liked that stage.  The map is reasonably large without being too large, and there are enough different areas of it to have varying viable strategies.  The two stages that do really bother me are the Twilight Princess stage (which is literally just a flat plane with a rider occasionally dropping a large timed bomb) and the Mother 3 stage (where the stage is soooooooo huge that you can't actually see your characters).  There are other poor stages as well, but those are the two that really bother me.

And I like the wanton chaos in your average Brawl match.  It keeps things interesting and makes the playing field even enough to make it feel like every player has a chance to win.

[nickmitch]

That makes you a bad person!

Also, the idea that a fightman game can't be fun for both casual button mashers and grizzled tournament jerks is a myth.

Not saying it can't, but I think one group is going to be a lot tougher on a game than the other group. I don't really like fighting games, but I love Smash Bros. Brawl had some stuff that annoyed me, but I'd never call it a letdown.

[S-U-P-E-R]

If you're talking about the map I think you're talking about (the Zelda stage from Melee, which was itself a modified stage from the N64 game), I liked that stage.  The map is reasonably large without being too large, and there are enough different areas of it to have varying viable strategies.

All that goes out the window when you can perpetually run away due to the loop. There is only one viable strategy if you're playing to win. It's the worst stage.

And I like the wanton chaos in your average Brawl match.  It keeps things interesting and makes the playing field even enough to make it feel like every player has a chance to win.

Fast-paced shenanigans are great, but... fightman games should really discriminate on the basis of skill instead of giving babies welfare wins. I mean, it's fun for a whlie, but dumb gameplay hurts the longevity of the game, and I don't mean just for tournament jerks.
 

Not saying it can't, but I think one group is going to be a lot tougher on a game than the other group.

Tough love, baby <3

[NWR_insanolord]

I like Hyrule Temple well enough, but I mostly play stock matches so running away isn't really a viable strategy unless you're just trying to be a dick. And almost anything that isn't skill based can be avoided via the item switch and stage selection.

[broodwars]

Like Insanolord, I pretty much only ever play Stock Matches on no time limit, so there's no point really to ever running away unless you're trying to get to an item.

As for chaotic matches "ruining things" for the "skilled player", the way I see it is that the stages are indiscriminate.  On any given stage, if a Smash Ball pops up everyone has an opportunity to try to grab it.  If the "baby" manages to grab it instead of the "skilled player", that doesn't say much about the "skilled player", does it?  When an environmental hazard happens, everyone has the opportunity to avoid or get hit with it.  So the fact that even the "skilled players" can get screwed over by the environment, or that "baby" players have a chance to come from behind keeps it interesting.

Besides, people who play Smash Bros. "to win" rather than to just "have fun" probably want to re-evaluate the fighting game they're playing.  Smash Bros. has never seemed intended to be a "serious" game, and I don't think I'd like it if it ever did.  We have enough of those.

[S-U-P-E-R]

As for chaotic matches "ruining things" for the "skilled player", the way I see it is that the stages are indiscriminate.  On any given stage, if a Smash Ball pops up everyone has an opportunity to try to grab it. If the "baby" manages to grab it instead of the "skilled player", that doesn't say much about the "skilled player", does it?  When an environmental hazard happens, everyone has the opportunity to avoid or get hit with it.

No. Items appear at random times/places, like next to player X and far away from player Y. Everyone does not have an opportunity to grab it. It's dicerolling. Oh, and slips.

So the fact that even the "skilled players" can get screwed over by the environment, or that "baby" players have a chance to come from behind keeps it interesting.

I would say it makes it less interesting when you're removing skill and mindgames from the equation.

Besides, people who play Smash Bros. "to win" rather than to just "have fun" probably want to re-evaluate the fighting game they're playing.  Smash Bros. has never seemed intended to be a "serious" game, and I don't think I'd like it if it ever did.  We have enough of those.

You know what? They have. Those players quit and went back to Melee or moved on to newer and better fighters.

And this is the myth coming up again. Brawl didn't have to be so stupid - you could take out really nasty random factors like slips and bob-ombs appearing right in front of you mid-swing and you would still have a great game for wet 'n wild casual mashfests as well as something you could have an elitist fighting game spacelord national competition in. They're not mutually exclusive!!

[broodwars]

No. Items appear at random times/places, like next to player X and far away from player Y. Everyone does not have an opportunity to grab it. It's dicerolling. Oh, and slips.

And those same items could randomly appear in front of you so you can dominate the less-skilled players.  That's the nature of the system: everyone has an equal chance of getting rewarded or screwed-over by the system.  And just because an item appears in front of you, that doesn't mean it's good or that you'll effectively make use of it.  Skill still dictates the match.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Just so we're absolutely clear here. You're telling me that skill dictates a match where the computer randomly gives a person a game-winning item. Because everyone has an equal chance.

[NWR_insanolord]

Over the long haul everybody gets helped out and screwed over by the system equally. Individual matches can be dictated by it, though. Still, it's better than something like Mario Kart that gives you more and more help the more you suck.