Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nintendoga

Microsoft's Super All Stars Smash Bros. Battle Royal? Nope.

Recommended Posts

So I can't have an opinion on gameplay footage? Isn't that the point of gameplay footage, to see if you're interested in it. I'm looking at the gameplay and everything about the movement of the characters, the way they're hit, the way they attack, the way they roll, the double jumps, eveything looks exactly like Brawl. That's what it looks like to me. You can't claim to say it's different from Brawl when you can't even back it up. You keep saying my arguments are flawed or, when you don't have any.

Saying something like Skywards Swords controls are broken before you play it, that's a flawed argument. Saying it looks cool or it looks bad from footage isn't flawed.

No. Don't even attempt to play the "it's my opinion so it can't be wrong" card.

"It looks cool" or "it looks bad" are subjective statements, which is why you can make them based on footage and are absolutely what you can have an opinion on. "This game is a carbon copy of Smash Brothers" is an objective statement of fact, which is far, far closer to the former bit of your last sentence than the latter. As such, you better well fucking support it when anyone who even paid a passing glance to the developers talking about how it plays (or, hell, simply gone to the damn Wikipedia page) would know it isn't true (as Chooch pointed out above).

Edited by Tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're blind and deluded because you didn't read my post from the previous page. You just went on and said the same thing over and over again, saying Sony is lazy and unoriginal.

That's my opinion. Carbon copying something is laziness to me. You can't even back up your statements.

But I did my research. You clearly didn't. That's what differs between you and me. You probably just saw one gameplay video for probably 10 seconds and like typical Nintendo fanboy, shouts "SONY COPIED SMASH BROS! OMG OMG!"
What research is that? Why don't you explain it. And there you go assuming I only watched 10 seconds of footage. I can assume stuff about you too. I can call you a Sony fanboy trying to desperately defend this game from being called a ripoff.

It's better to keep your opinions to yourself at this point because you clearly have no idea what's going on in this game.
Why don't you keep your half baked arguments to yourself. You keep repeating these tedious arguments without backing anything up. I'm judging the footage from what I've seen and you're getting mad at me calling sony lazy and calling it identical to Brawl.

Those are the AP bars that build up for level 1-3 supers. You can't even kill people in this game by knocking them off the stage like in Smash Bros! You have to build meter for supers by attacking and damaging opponents and then killing them with supers. That alone makes the gameplay radically different from Smash Bros.
That still isn't enough to me to call it "radically" different. It still looks too similar to Brawl to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a game's a rip-off of another game, it depends to a certain degree if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

Sony' All-Stars, yes, it's using the Smash Bros. Concept, and even they've admitted it. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Nah. Do you know how many fans have asked for a Sony Smash Bros-like game in the past? Lot's of times, after seeing how popular Smash Bros. was after all. Sony saw Smash's success and wanted to not only capitalize some of it, but also give the fans what they've wanted as well.

Sony fan's don't want a crossover with everyone playing golf or drinking tea or shaking their booty's at a nightclub. They want to beat the shit out of each other while having fun. And Smash is the perfect way for them to do that. But is it an exact clone? No, here's some big differences from Brawl's gameplay,

Lead combat designer, Paul Edwards, says that, for starters, PlayStation All-Stars doesn’t involve you knocking people off the stage like in Smash Bros. There are no life bars either. Instead, the only way to kill someone is to hit them with a Super attack. Supers can be used at the cost of a Super metre, which is built up by landing normal attacks with the Square, Triangle, and Circle buttons.

There are three levels of Super metre, and each subsequent level is more powerful than the one before it. For example, level 1 Supers are usually only capable of killing a single opponent. Level 2 Supers may be able to kill two opponents, and level 3 Supers three opponents. That having been said, advanced players will be able to learn to do more with less, and eventually kill multiple opponents using just a level 1 Super. More novice players, however, might require level 3 supers to achieve the same results.

Also, at the start of a match in PlayStation All-Stars, players will be able to move freely around the stage before the match actually kicks off, giving them the ability to position their characters in advance. Positioning, Edwards says, is an important part of the game’s combat system. Additionally, wind conditions also have a bearing on fights. Each stage in PlayStation All-Stars is a mash-up of different Sony worlds. For example, the Hades (God of War) stage sees Hades’ world being invaded by Patapon, and you’ll be able to see the two at war with each other in the background.

Only small part of the tons of differences between the two series. Is the gameplay going to be the exact same? No, are the characters and stages and items the same? No. People say that it is an exact clone and copy when all it's really using is the Smash Bros. Concept of "Four players battling each other on a stage freely".

Now Lounge and -L-, I get what you're trying to say, but you have to realize something. Yes it's 2012, ripping off games is not cool, but only if it's too a certain extent. I can name tons of games this generation that has used another game's concept, (Like games using Bayonetta's or COD's concepts) yet is still a fun game with enough differences and unique changes to make it it's own game. Sony is changing the way we play Smash Bros, but for Playstation players. In due time over these months I'm sure we'll all see how different they are.

And if for some reason you're worried that this game will "crush" Smash Bros, don't. Both are doing different things and only by glances or not knowing about the game will you say "Oh look, they both use the same type of gameplay, cool". In fact, doing so may even ignite Nintendo to do better with the next Smash Bros., which will ignite Sony to be even better in the next All Stars (if there is one). It might even get to the point where we'd all have one huge ass game involving Sony and Nintendo characters in a big-ass brawler (Holy shit, I'm going off topic into my dreams. One day gamers, one day.....)

Point is it's not an exact clone, so don't knock it till ya try it! (Or at least research it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you keep your half baked arguments to yourself. You keep repeating these tedious arguments without backing anything up.

Oh, okay.

Well, in the interests of you not being a massive hypocrite, then perhaps you'll bother explaining this:

That's my opinion. Carbon copying something is laziness to me. You can't even back up your statements.

Since now we're going on 6 times and you still haven't bothered.

What research is that? Why don't you explain it.

There are, however, differences in how opponents are defeated. During the game, players damage other players to receive orbs that build up a power meter at the bottom of the screen. Earning enough power allows players to use one of three levels of super moves which can be used to defeat opponents and earn points.

Linky.

Wow. Pretty straining bit of effort, there.

I can assume stuff about you too. I can call you a Sony fanboy trying to desperately defend this game from being called a ripoff.

I like how you said this in the exact same post where you ignored the greater implication of what Chooch said.

That still isn't enough to me to call it "radically" different. It still looks too similar to Brawl to me.

...

Let me get this straight. The game is a carbon copy of Brawl. We know you think this, since you keep saying it without making it clear why you think so. So when it is pointed out that the entire goal of the fighting engine is different, and that huge point that you just tried to use to dump on the game for being a copy was horseshit, it's still too similar? And is still a carbon copy?

And you still don't see why people are assuming you have no idea what you are talking about?

Edited by Tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight. The game is a carbon copy of Brawl. We know you think this, since you keep saying it without making it clear why you think so.

Without making it clear why I think so? I've said so many times. The way characters are hit, the rolling, the way the characters move, jump, the physics look identical, the graphics, the special power moves, the creatures popping out from stages. The only difference that somebody finally said was how you kill your opponents. You can't throw them in pits anymore. I still feel that's not enough of a difference to be called a "Radically Different Fighting Engine."

I never said you can't have fun with the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me just say that a Microsoft crossover shooter like Cheese suggested earlier would certainly be an insta-buy for me in a heartbeat. It's a lot more appealing to me than a fighter (I'm terribad at anything that's not a beat 'em up), and it would be the closest thing I would get to being able to off Soap and his comrades with a member of the Squirrel High Command.

Edited by Nepenthe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now that that little spot of stupidity is over with, I'd like to go back to a previous argument.

Granted, but Banjo's more an exception than a rule and, frankly, those areas felt strange and out of place next to the rest of the game IMO.
I was actually joking for that bit, but in hindsight I probably should've expected the delivery to fly overhead.

In a word, it's easier to take guns out of characters hands than give them one. It's much simpler to grant characters in Smash Bros. a colorful range of movesets and properties because fisticuffs lends itself more to anarchic and asymmetric interaction than guns, which are less personal and more tactical.
Easier in what sense? Just on a technical sense it's a hell of a lot easier just to shove guns in everyone's hands just by virtue of how much it saves them in the animations dept (in that a full brawling moveset takes more effort than a looking mechanic and a bunch of jumping animations).

But I'm gonna assume you were talking about the personalization factor when it comes to individual characters. I'm not gonna lie, I think it would be pretty freakin' hilarious to see Conker with a GoW Lancer or the Chief wielding Kazooie as a shotgun, but if it turns out that mix/matching inventory detracts from a character's individuality, then it's as simple as putting weapon pickups into, say, a bunch of generic boxes that gives the character a specific type of weapon class from their own franchise. Say for example, you want a rapid fire weapon in a specific spot of the map - If Fenix picks it up, he gets his Lancer. If Conker finds it, he gets his dual SMGs. The Chief gets his classic AR, and so on and so forth. I guess you could also take the Counterstrike/Halo Reach approach and pick your weapons before spawning, but I feel there's just more appeal in finding them on the field.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the characters need not be defined simply by their arsenal. Hell, I know I said it should be primarily a shooter, but not all the characters really even need to play like one - as long as they work in a 3D environment, anything's game, really. Trying to take down Ryu fucking Hayabusa from a first person perspective would be pretty damn intense.

In general, shooters are actually a pretty niche genre
What.

- not as niche as the RTS but games like Smash Bros. and Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing work because they have mass market appeal and a low learning curve, but manage to tap into the hardcore market all the same due to the popularity of their characters. With the possible exception of Team Fortress 2, shooters aren't exactly built for that sort of thing. Most that try to do that end up like MW2. The problem isn't the hurdle of transitioning the characters involved to the genre, it's the paradox presented by trying to bring a genre that relies on tactics and know-how to a market that's more interested in the blunt action that entails and the characters involved.
I dunno about you, but pointing at something and squeezing the trigger isn't exactly an elaborate concept either, even when you do account for an inventory of weapons to choose from. But I really don't understand the need to appeal to a market that almost none of these franchises have in common. Nearly all fans of Smash Bros will probably attest they're into platforming games to some degree, so it only makes sense that platforming play a big part in the game - in that same sense, most fans of the franchises represented in a Microsoft brawler will already understand the basic mechanics of a shooting game, so I honestly don't see the need to dumb it down or put it into a completely different genre for people who, in all likelihood, probably wouldn't have given a shit anyway.

Rareware franchises aside, of course. I know we've been using examples of them hypothetically, but even if a crossover did come to chance I think we know the chances of any of them showing up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier in what sense? Just on a technical sense it's a hell of a lot easier just to shove guns in everyone's hands just by virtue of how much it saves them in the animations dept (in that a full brawling moveset takes more effort than a looking mechanic and a bunch of jumping animations).

Easier from a character design standpoint. What's the point of a character-centric game if you're only going to see your character's hands the whole time? Unless your talking about a third person shooter in which case you'll only see your character's ass? You won't even get much of a clear view of your opponents in the distance during the split second it takes to kill them or vice versa. Part of the fun of playing brawlers like Smash Bros. is that you get to see characters from your favorite game beat each other up in a gratuitous showdown, each exemplifying their individual powers and capabilities. A shooter only shows off how itchy each character's trigger finger is; sure, that works for Master Chief, but for other possible contenders like, say, Horstachio from Viva Pinata or War from Darksiders, that's kind of a limiting criteria that doesn't let them show off the abilities and actions their known for. A brawler doesn't create that exclusivity; hell, characters that are known for guns can keep them, just like Fox and Samus. But to give them to ones that don't need them? I don't see the point. I mean, if it was a game JUST for characters who are already in shooters, like Master Chief, Commander Shepard or the guy from Crysis... it could work, but that kind of restricts the market to just people who play shooters, where Smash Bros., and presumably All-Stars, are built for the gaming community at large. It could work, but it wouldn't be a strong analog.

Easier in what sense? Just on a technical sense it's a hell of a lot easier just to shove guns in everyone's hands just by virtue of how much it saves them in the animations dept (in that a full brawling moveset takes more effort than a looking mechanic and a bunch of jumping animations).

But I'm gonna assume you were talking about the personalization factor when it comes to individual characters. I'm not gonna lie, I think it would be pretty freakin' hilarious to see Conker with a GoW Lancer or the Chief wielding Kazooie as a shotgun, but if it turns out that mix/matching inventory detracts from a character's individuality, then it's as simple as putting weapon pickups into, say, a bunch of generic boxes that gives the character a specific type of weapon class from their own franchise. Say for example, you want a rapid fire weapon in a specific spot of the map - If Fenix picks it up, he gets his Lancer. If Conker finds it, he gets his dual SMGs. The Chief gets his classic AR, and so on and so forth. I guess you could also take the Counterstrike/Halo Reach approach and pick your weapons before spawning, but I feel there's just more appeal in finding them on the field.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the characters need not be defined simply by their arsenal. Hell, I know I said it should be primarily a shooter, but not all the characters really even need to play like one - as long as they work in a 3D environment, anything's game, really. Trying to take down Ryu fucking Hayabusa from a first person perspective would be pretty damn intense.

If 3D is the issue, I'd find something like Anarchy Reigns much more agreeable than a shooter. As a genre, shooters are better at putting emphasis on the player's personality and playstyle than the character's; when I play Half-Life, I'm thinking more about the world around me than Gordon Freeman himself. In fact, this represents a major trope of western versus eastern game design; Western games like to give control to the player where Japanese games like to give it to the ingame character; it's why JRPGs are often linear while WRPGs are more open world and choice driven. And if you notice, Japanese games generally make weapons as an extension of the player character (i.e. Megaman's Megabuster or Samus' Arm Cannon) where Western games define them as a tool that grants the player dominance over his surroundings (i.e. Guns, grenades and rocket launchers.) By that standard, a shooter is probably the kind of game I imagine Microsoft would TRY to make for this kind of idea, but if they want the game design to be character driven rather than player driven, I think Smash Bros. or Power Stone is a better model than Halo or Gears. By making basic weapons a separate artifact rather than an intrinsic part of the character (power-ups aside), that makes the character defined more by the player than the character his/herself. Which is for the best in some cases, but for the kind of game that tries to answer the question "who would win in a fight? X or Y?" I'd prefer characters use skills they're specifically known for rather than limiting it to one kind of combat.

What.

I dunno about you, but pointing at something and squeezing the trigger isn't exactly an elaborate concept either, even when you do account for an inventory of weapons to choose from. But I really don't understand the need to appeal to a market that almost none of these franchises have in common. Nearly all fans of Smash Bros will probably attest they're into platforming games to some degree, so it only makes sense that platforming play a big part in the game - in that same sense, most fans of the franchises represented in a Microsoft brawler will already understand the basic mechanics of a shooting game, so I honestly don't see the need to dumb it down or put it into a completely different genre for people who, in all likelihood, probably wouldn't have given a shit anyway.

Rareware franchises aside, of course. I know we've been using examples of them hypothetically, but even if a crossover did come to chance I think we know the chances of any of them showing up again.

If shooters were as simple as "pointing and pressing the trigger" I'd agree, but most favored shooters are much more intricate than that; they require familiarity with the map, an understanding of character classes/perks and lots and lots of practice. Shooters where any scrub can just waltz and beat experienced veterans by haphazardly running around with dual shotguns aren't ones most people want to return to. On the other hand, games like Smash Bros. have the luxury to be much more lenient with their balance because they're built to be more of a casual, social experience with close friends than an open, competitive one. So again, Microsoft COULD make a crossover shooter, but it would use a completely different aesthetic and aim for a completely different market. And even so, making a crossover just for the characters to shoot each other doesn't seem worth the time; I'm far more interested in seeing if Commander Shepherd could overwhelm Master Chief with his biotics than to see if an Avenger IV is a better gun than a Needler.

Also, I wouldn't say for certain Rare's franchises are out of the question. At least for the fighter game; if they were to aim for the same market as Smash Bros., most of their worthwhile stock for that is in Rare's history. That and Twisted Pixel.

Edited by SuperStingray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm far more interested in seeing if Commander Shepherd could overwhelm Master Chief with his biotics than to see if an Avenger IV is a better gun than a Needler.
Who says we can't do both? It seems strange that you insist on suggesting there's nothing to differentiate shooters besides guns, even after I actually advocated exactly to the contrary and gave examples in my first post. I guess I should elaborate further on that then.

So we've obviously got the Chief to consider first, yeah? The first thing people think when it comes to him is the regenerating shield, and even that alone would be enough to differentiate, but then you have to consider the more subtle parts of his gameplay - namely, his balancing with grenades (in contrast to Fenix, who has to pull out a grenade in place of his gun) and melee attacks (which a lot of shooter characters don't even have, much less readily available as a face button). What that makes him is a pretty good all-rounder who can get right into the thick of the action, take a few hits, dish out some nasty melee punishment if required and still get out relatively un-punished if he gets back to cover in time. Not to mention his absolutely bullshit powerful rocket launcher.

Then there's Marcus Fenix. Pretty much the guy who invented the third person cover-based mechanic, or at the very least the guy who made it popular. Obviously that means a guy who can take shots at people without even putting himself in harm's way, as long as there's an obstacle between himself and his target. If you let him keep the third-person perspective, that in itself can also prove to be an advantage just for the better awareness of surroundings, and he has that arc reticule that lets him throw grenades with ridiculous accuracy (at the aformentioned cost of not being able to hold a gun at the same time). A chainsaw Lancer instakill would be pretty neat to have too, if you can have it without going over the top with gore and such.

If we may get into the hypotheticals again, consider Riddick (yes I know Dark Athena had a PS3 port shut up). Guy who can disappear in shadows, backstab people, and reverse melee attacks on themselves, but can only partially regenerate health. Conker? Infinite ammo, can get around real good with high jumps and the helicoptery tail thing, but has fuck all health to begin with. Ryu Hayabusa? Can get around even better with crazy wallrun/walljump shenanigans and block bullets, but doesn't even have a gun and his shuriken act as a distraction at best. It's amazing how much more interesting character metagame can get once you apply Kid Radd logic to it.

Edited by The Cheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.