All-stars competition?

[lordvaati]

@ Johnny

exactly. it's like the PSP vs. the DS-Sony clearly had the disadvantage,but they still managed to have a stable life cycle and provide competion (and the Monster Hunter wild card, but yeah.)

hopefully tomorrow at EVO we can see more of the game's features.

 

[soviet prince]

toro and a tekken character was revealed

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I've talked about this before, but of course people are going to draw comparisons and have their expectations altered from what Title Fight does bad or well, regardless of how long it will take SSB4 to come out afterwards. Competition in the sense that it will reduce sales? Unlikely, considering the time gap, and the fact that one represents Sony characters and the other Nintendo characters. People aren't going to go, "Nah, I don't need SSB4 because I have Title Fight." If people don't buy SSB4, it is because they don't like the game, and they will stick with 64/Melee/Brawl or just play whatever.

 

[soviet prince]

I've talked about this before, but of course people are going to draw comparisons and have their expectations altered from what Title Fight does bad or well, regardless of how long it will take SSB4 to come out afterwards. Competition in the sense that it will reduce sales? Unlikely, considering the time gap, and the fact that one represents Sony characters and the other Nintendo characters. People aren't going to go, "Nah, I don't need SSB4 because I have Title Fight." If people don't buy SSB4, it is because they don't like the game, and they will stick with 64/Melee/Brawl or just play whatever.

yeah the only way that I will not buy the next smash is if they change the game to something totally different like make it a 3d fighting game. One reasion I did not get mario party 9 is because they changed it to a totally different game.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Although off-topic to address this, MP9 is pretty decent if you don't count the endangered status of it's strategy against it. Good to play with the younglings so they may have some sort of hope of winning.

Hopefully SSB4 relies on handicap settings, an enhanced Special mode that individually alters characters, asymmetric gameplay, etc. in order to help the younger audience so all the others modes can cater to the hardcore. But this is off-topic as well (well, less so than the above part).

 

[---]

I don't really see it. Smash 4 isn't coming out for quite a while (at least a year), while All Stars will be out in about 4 months so they won't be competeting against each other in the market at the same time. Not to mention the core gameplay mechanics are entirely different, All Stars is closer to Rumble Arena than Smash.

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Johnny
exactly. it's like the PSP vs. the DS-Sony clearly had the disadvantage,but they still managed to have a stable life cycle and provide competion

PSP vs. DS wasn't even a competition. For a while it was, but then the DS Lite murdered the PSP, and continues to murder it. Heck, the PSP is already basically dead, and the Vita (which was released way too early) seems to be a dead handheld console walking. The gap between PSASBR and SSB WiiU/3DS will be a bigger than the gap between in the PSP and DS in terms of sales, depth, and reception.

PlayStation All-Stars has a minute number of people who have worked on fighting games, and probably none who have worked on a platform-esk fightin game. These are mostly fighting game rookies. To put into context as to what to expect, Game Arts, after making Brawl (as rookie fighting game developers), made TMNT Smash, a mediocre smash clone that has no competitive depth. That's what I expect from PlayStation All-Stars, especially since it looks like a somewhat low budget title like TMNT Smash, compared to Smash WiiU and 3DS, which are gonna have huge budgets (probably at least $40 million).

To put it realistically: Smash WiiU and 3DS vs. PlayStation All-Stars isn't a competition, unless you consider a minor league baseball team vs. an MLB All-Star team "competition."

I don't see why Nintendo should care about any similarities the game has with Super Smash Bros. Care to explain?

If PSABR copied Smash in a big way (ie: if a character stole Mario's moveset, for example), there is grounds for Nintendo to sue. That's all I meant by my previous statement.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Is Nintendo the type of company that would sue? The only time I remember them being involved with the courts was when they were being sued by Universal Studios for naming a character "Donkey Kong" and Nintendo ended up getting a lot of money out of the ordeal.

At least, that is what I think happened.

 

[Johnknight1]

Nah, what I meant is something that was blatantly a copy and paste of something from Smash Bros.

The example I gave (a character in PSASBR, for instance, having Mario's moveset [from any smash game]) would definitely be grounds for suing. However, Sony isn't that stupid. Maybe some other lesser known smash clone developers are, but not Sony. Sony knows their legal stuff, which is why I presented it as such an oddball idea!

Although truth be told, if a lesser known "smash-esk" fighting game did anything like what I described, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[SmashChu]

On the topic, I doubt there is any competition from this game. The more they show, the worst it gets. It's less of an insult to Smash and more of an insult to Sony. This is also one of the few games that can't do character reveals. Their trailers are so boring.

Brawl reveal
Marvel vs Capcom[/URL[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bvzWMvW0Q"]More
Street Fighter X Tekken

And now
Sony All Stars

It's just so dull. No excitement.

The other problem is no variety to the roster. Smashed used both old and new characters and some lesser known. It seems this game will only go for the well known. Third party characters also suck cause their everywhere. Snake and Sonic were fun because they were out of the blue. They were different and they didn't over burden the cast. This game doesn't do that.

 

[Oasis_S]

It seems this game will only go for the well known.

"Well known."

You sure about that. I mean, maybe Kratos and Nathan Drake. Sackboy too assuming he'll be there.

 

[SmashChu]

"Well known."

You sure about that. I mean, maybe Kratos and Nathan Drake. Sackboy too assuming he'll be there.

Smash was good about going though their catalog to find interesting characters. The only one these guys pulled out is Parappa.

 

[Oasis_S]

HMMM in terms of variety I think they're doing OKAY for what they have to work with. Killzone guy seems super boring though. I'd say a poor choice. Though I've never played a game in the series. Doesn't look like much more than "guy with gun." And while I'm sure Nathan Drake is a cool guy he doesn't seem like much more than "guy." THOUGH AGAIN, never played Uncharted. Nathan Drake being a sort of "normal" guy is good though. Would you agree that something so boring amongst an interesting cast is in a way refreshing in itself? Kind of how I feel about Little Mac. Especially considering both of them are so popular that it's like a free pass that ignores how boring they are. Oh, like Toad too.

Though my point was that Sony has very few characters you could say are well-known to begin with. The others seem more like ...cult favorites? Very niche? Well-known among nerds, I guess. Probably why they need third-parties. Though Tekken guy seems like a poor choice.

 

[lordvaati]

1v1 gameplay.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I'm probably not going to get PSA, but I really hope it turns out well. No, really; if SSB has a solid competitor, it would have given SSB a reason to strive to get better and not just be a shallow button-masher. Sadly, this doesn't look like it will be the case; only being able to kill via supers looks like a terrible idea, and I can only imagine matches dragging on and on. So disappointing.

 

[Big-Cat]

Smash was good about going though their catalog to find interesting characters. The only one these guys pulled out is Parappa.

Considering that the Playstation came out ten years after the NES and that they didn't really start doing first party games until mid-last gen, it's not surprising that their roster has a lot of recent characters.

 

[Johnknight1]

@ SmashChu
I agree with pretty much everything you said. (going off what you said), with smash, all of the characters gel, and only about 5% of the Brawl roster was 3rd party characters (both of who "fit" despite sticking out, and added something new). So far, the only 3rd party character they added was Big Daddy, who (no offense to BioShock fans) isn't the most interesting character, but has some cool moves. And even with that, those unique moves don't look amazing.

Another problem with Sony is that a lot of their "original" star characters (from the Spyro and Crash universes) are not owned by them.

Smash was good about going though their catalog to find interesting characters. The only one these guys pulled out is Parappa.

Yeah, Sony has few "overlooked" IP's. Sack Boy from LBP is another character like Parappa who will be "overlooked," but after that, nothing.

 

[lordvaati]

well, on the Q/A panel going on now they said they would be happy totakefeedback and advice from competitive Smash Players.

TO SUPERBOT WITHYOU ALLL! *insert 60s Batman theme*

 

[Johnknight1]

@ vatti
Who is "they"=??? The PSASBR panel, or the Namco Bandai Games=???

If it's the latter, they know who to ask: the best players in the world through Smash Boards, which isn't too hard. Just looking at the list of top smash bros. players who contributed to play testing, ideas, etc. for mods of Brawl, a lot of top players are willing to help. Heck, probably more are willing to help who didn't help with all of that.

Edit: You got a link vatti=???

 

[lordvaati]

http://www.twitch.tv/srkevo3

 

[Johnknight1]

I like how a Tekken character (Heihachi Mishima) is appearing in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale. I forgot about that!

That's more proof that Sony isn't willing enough to dig "deep" into their IP's to find characters, and they are trying to appeal towards fans of 3rd parties companies as much as fans of their 1st/2nd party IPs. Seriously, Microsoft could make a decent roster for a fighting/crossover game like that.

@ vatti
Thanks for the link. I caught the tail end of it. Now I get the sense that their panel is "stuck" between a smash bros-esk fighting game and a Street Fighter-esk fighting game.

Hopefully I am wrong, or that they find/set into stone the game's "identity" soon. That and delay the game, because this game IMO still looks like it could use a lot of balancing.

 

[lordvaati]

well, at least with Heihachi, it wasn't out of the blue, as tekken was a major franchise for them in the PS1 days.

I'm just hoping they upload the rest of the panel on youtube soon, because it had oher neat things like character breakdowns(Heihachi can wavedash! Toro is a stance fighter!), their thoughts on the game's competitive future, and a combo exhibition.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

To be fair, the reason Sony has so many third parties in this game is that most of the well-remembered games on the various PlayStations were made by 3rd parties. MGS,SOTN, the Final Fantasies, and Tekken are probably more well-regarded than anything Sony has ever put out(except maybe the ICO stuff).

 

[Johnknight1]

Of course Heihachi would be the character that wavedash, since wavedashing comes from Tekken, and is in quite a lot of Tekken titles.

I wonder if Namco Bandai Games possibly suggesting that might mean wavedashing could be in Smash WiiU and 3DS.

As for Sony, they have a lot of minor 1st/2nd party characters they aren't gonna use. And I mean A LOT!!! It almost seems like they are afraid to tap into their "retro" franchises (aside from maybe Crash, Spyro, and Jak & Daxter), which is disheartening.

And if a Final Fantasy characters gets in this, it's you-know-who. And let it be known that those fangirls/boys will destroy the internet with their idiotic fangasms.

 

[DarkSouls]

I'm hoping it will be good, although the KO system scares me both as a fan of traditional fighters and as a Smash Bros fan. I don't think it'll ever be as good as Melee, but from the direction Brawl took, it doesn't look like another Smash Bros will ever be as good as Melee.

Of course Heihachi would be the character that wavedash, since wavedashing comes from Tekken, and is in quite a lot of Tekken titles.

As far as I can recall, wavedashing has been in games before Tekken. Tekken just popularized it.

 

[soviet prince]

The way the devs look at it is if you were on a playstation system and contirubted to the sony brand then you have the potential to be a playstation allstars. I agree with them there are some 3rd party characters that are very iconic to sony that make since in this type of game.

snake( most of the metal gear games remained on ps platforms and i believe the 4th one is still ps exclusive)
crash ( was big p1 era)
spyro(same)
cloud( final fantasy has had history with playstation and nothing could rep better then cloud)
tekken ( already has a character but was sony exclusive until the 6th one)
lara croft( tomb raider was big back in the days for playstation)

I am sure I missed a few as well

as far as first party characters go they have plenty uncharted is a great franchise, Little big planet is a great game that seen lots of success, twisted metal is good, and there is plenty more.


also ppl wanting videos of last night panel

http://gamingeverything.com/24282/10-minutes-of-playstation-all-stars-new-characters/

 

[SmashChu]

@ vatti
Thanks for the link. I caught the tail end of it. Now I get the sense that their panel is "stuck" between a smash bros-esk fighting game and a Street Fighter-esk fighting game.

Hopefully I am wrong, or that they find/set into stone the game's "identity" soon. That and delay the game, because this game IMO still looks like it could use a lot of balancing.

That is defiantly a huge problem with the game. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to both competitive players and everyone else. it's why Smash dropped wavedashing.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

The problem with the game isn't that they're trying to appeal to casual and competitive gamers; imo, it's that they're trying to make a Smash game while at the same time trying to make it feel as little like Smash as possible. That and it feels rushed - some of the ideas seem interesting, but the execution is just off, and the result is a game that so far honestly looks very meh.

Also, it's not impossible to make a game for casuals and have it be competitive- both Smash 64 and Melee did a great job doing this...but that's not what this thread is about, is it.

 

[Oasis_S]

That is defiantly a huge problem with the game. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to both competitive players and everyone else. it's why Smash dropped wavedashing.

Of course you can because casuals will just eat up whatever you give them right??? That's why you design games for MASTERS first and ******* second.

I kind of want you to be a pirate instead of a sheriff so I can be a parrot on your shoulder.

Squawk.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

^^^^^ What Oasis said, you can most definitely please both casual and competitive players. In fact, with a fighting game, I'd feel that is especially easy.

 

[El Duderino]

That is defiantly a huge problem with the game. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to both competitive players and everyone else. it's why Smash dropped wavedashing.

Sure you can, Melee found a pretty happy medium. Brawl's changes had less to do with how well Melee appealed to all audiences and more with staying on target with Nintendo's expanded audience message. In retrospect, changes like tripping, easier/safer recovering, less combo possibilities, and a large move buffer were there to be easier on newcomers to the series. Those changes were not for the prior non-competitive smash players, an idea people mistakenly latched onto.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I feel like even Brawl did as well in ways, it's just Brawl had a lot of issues with hit stun, some balancing, etc. Problems with the fighting in general.

 

[Johnknight1]

That is defiantly a huge problem with the game. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to both competitive players and everyone else.

Yes, clearly something can't be competitive and for everyone at the same time. Clearly only professional basketball players play basketball and, nobody else plays basketball. Clearly only professional politicians care about politics or have political opinions. Clearly only competitive Melee players enjoy playing Melee, and why all of the other 7 million owners of Melee are competitive players. Clearly. Really, Melee found the perfect medium, which is why most Smash Bros. fans continue to call it the best in the series.

Brawl's changes had less to do with how well Melee appealed to all audiences and more with staying on target with Nintendo's expanded audience message. In retrospect, changes like tripping, easier/safer recovering, less combo possibilities, and a large move buffer were there to be easier on newcomers to the series. Those changes were not for the prior non-competitive smash players, an idea people mistakenly latched onto.

QFT. That's also why so many great series that went to the Wii were dumbed down. Mario Kart Wii (too random), Super Mario Galaxy 1&2 (linear as hell), Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword (IMO easier than the Wind Waker), etc. Heck, that's why the average PS3 and 360 owners owns twice as many games for those consoles as owners of the Wii. Too much dumbed down, unplayable garbage that requires no skill.

 

[Big-Cat]

Hey, don't hate on SMG and Skyward Sword. SMG's linearity has to do more with how they were trying to appeal more to the Japanese which preferred the 2D Mario games and I still think it was well done in the end. Skyward Sword made combat less derpy.

 

[Johnknight1]

Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were easier than the Wind Waker, with a lot less to do, a lot of less quests, and an even "emptier" feeling world. The Wind Waker felt that same way when compared to Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time (those games were easy, too). So, in many ways, it feels like the Zelda series is "de-evolving." Maybe that's why sales for the series keep dropping in Japan, and why perhaps in the near future Zelda will only be big outside of Japan (much like Metroid).

Brawl felt like the same thing with Smash Bros as the 2 Wii Zelda games did.

As for Super Mario Galaxy, I don't mind the linear levels, but when everything is linear, it takes away a lot of the elements that make 3D Mario 3D Mario. I mean, just imagining a Super Mario Galaxy level or 2 that was as "wide open" as some of the worlds in Super Mario 64 is imagining a beautiful thing. They should have at least made such a level in Super Mario Galaxy 2, other than the ported levels from Super Mario 64. Really, just four or five wide open levels to explore would be nice. Don't always tell us what we need to do and show us, but rather, let us figure it out for ourselves. We have brains. "Wii would like to play" a game that requires more use of the old noggin.

 

[BirthNote]

Wind Waker, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were all easy.

 

[Johnknight1]

Every Zelda game since Link's Awakening have been really easy.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Not going to lie, an open world Super Mario game would be so amazing. No more hubs of levels or Worlds, for once give us a living, thriving Mario universe to platform with. It's funny how Mario is like the king of platforming, and yet it doesn't fully give us a platforming experience. That being said, the Galaxy games were great, and while most of it was easy, I recall some of the purple coin challenges and a galaxy or two as fairly challenging. Granted, such a small part...

Oh, and Zelda games need mode modifiers, as in, when creating a file, you are prompted to select either: Fairy (Very Easy), Beginner (Easy), Hero (Normal), Master (Hard), and Legend (Very Hard). Normal can be right about where we have it. Give kids the Very Easy and Easy, Master can be like a Master Quest application, and Legend can do the Skyward Sword Hero Mode "enemies deal twice as much damage and hearts don't come up" on top of Master Quest.

Holy crap this is not even close to the topic.

 

[SmashChu]

^^^^^ What Oasis said, you can most definitely please both casual and competitive players. In fact, with a fighting game, I'd feel that is especially easy.

I think oasis was joking.

Sure you can, Melee found a pretty happy medium. Brawl's changes had less to do with how well Melee appealed to all audiences and more with staying on target with Nintendo's expanded audience message. In retrospect, changes like tripping, easier/safer recovering, less combo possibilities, and a large move buffer were there to be easier on newcomers to the series. Those changes were not for the prior non-competitive smash players, an idea people mistakenly latched onto.

Smash was ALWAYS suppose to be easier. From Sakurai.

I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years,

Due note that Melee didn't become competitive until late in it's life. Competition really took off around 2004. There was also a large amount of backlash to competitive Smash 9and still is). It's a case of not having your cake and eating it too.

Yes, clearly something can't be competitive and for everyone at the same time. Clearly only professional basketball players play basketball and, nobody else plays basketball. Clearly only professional politicians care about politics or have political opinions. Clearly only competitive Melee players enjoy playing Melee, and why all of the other 7 million owners of Melee are competitive players. Clearly. Really, Melee found the perfect medium, which is why most Smash Bros. fans continue to call it the best in the series.

Basketball is more watched than played, is as most sports. Politics is also a career, not a video game.

In the world of videogames, making a competitive minded game tends to lead to bad sales. Starcraft 2 couldn't beat Starcraft 1's sales (although close) and less than 20% of people still play it. Even Melee had some drop as it's the worst selling game of the 3.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That means it just isn't hardcore exclusive, which was the point.

Also, I think 64 sold the least by far. Melee probably sold less because unlike the Wii, few people bought Gamecubes. The ratio of Gamecube owners that owned Melee was significantly higher than that of Wii owners who owned Brawl.

Those that owned a GCN: 21.74 Bought Melee: 7 Wii owners: 89.36 Brawl owners: 9.48.

1/3 of GCN players had Melee, 1/10 of Wii owners had Brawl.