Smash Bros vs. Playstation All Stars

[SmashChu]

wow you guys are still fighting, its been like a week.

Trying not to fight, actually.

How many more possible ways can you reiterate ad nauseam that Smash has currently sold more units than PSABR has? Never mind all the other statements that you've tangentially "proven" citing this as a reason.

Most of the discussion isn't that it sold better, we both agree on that point. It's more other factors. I guess "impact," is important.

I can tell you don't like sales discussions.

Justin bieber makes mad bank off every one of his albums. The music is still ****ty.

That's an opinion. I don't like it either, but some people do.

 

[flyinfilipino]

I can tell you don't like sales discussions.

It's not that; I don't agree with a lot of the ways you interpret the raw numbers and try to pass it off as strictly talking about sales. Or alternatively, the way you put forth arguments and try to solidify them using sales as "absolutes". I think you and I both know what I'm talking about (and it goes beyond this thread), but I just want to clear that up.

 

[El Duderino]

Does anyone honestly care if Smash has a monopoly or not? Doesn't change much of anything, and certaintly not anyone's enjoyment of either game.

 

[Big-Cat]

Does anyone honestly care if Smash has a monopoly or not? Doesn't change much of anything, and certaintly not anyone's enjoyment of either game.

To a certain extent, I do. Without competitors, Smash Bros. would have no competition for a quality title of its type and thus wouldn't have to explore its potential. PSABR, just existing as a quality game (or so I hear) prevents this.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

i got both. i am a big fan of both. frankly i see bigger possibilities for Battle Royales future than i do for smash at the moment.

Why? The killing mechanic is stupid

 

[MarioNPinkie]

i do like both games but i do like smash more over all but i do agree that the killing mechanic in PSABR is pretty stupid but i think PSABR has some potential to make a big splash

 

[SmashChu]

It's not that; I don't agree with a lot of the ways you interpret the raw numbers and try to pass it off as strictly talking about sales. Or alternatively, the way you put forth arguments and try to solidify them using sales as "absolutes". I think you and I both know what I'm talking about (and it goes beyond this thread), but I just want to clear that up.

If you want to analysis it another way, be my guest. I'll even provide the numbers.
0.22 -Sales of PASBR
11.37-Brawl

The thing you have to remember is that a sale is a customer. Every number of the sales chart is a person who bought it. Products have to appeal to people. It has to serve their needs. If a product doesn't do then, it wont sell (least not for long). Sales and people are one in the same. The role of the businessman is to make people happy so they keep giving him money (which makes him happy). Talking with other successful investors, I've learned the best deal makes everyone happy.

As an aside, Sony Smash seems like it's moving up the charts. It still is below the 60th game, but it's improving. I'm looking at VGChatz and they don't report sales below #30. Also, all of the games below it have been on the charts for a long time. We'll see the change when the numbers come in. I think by February, we'll know if it has made any improvement.

To a certain extent, I do. Without competitors, Smash Bros. would have no competition for a quality title of its type and thus wouldn't have to explore its potential. PSABR, just existing as a quality game (or so I hear) prevents this.

This is a good example of what a Monopoly in video games looks like. I doubt it would happen because Smash is one type of game and has many competitors (I'm comparing the two games for another reason).

As an aside, the reason no one has bested Smash is because no one tries to understand what made Smash successful. I can tell SuperBot didn't and tried to be different. I do wonder if anyone will beat it one day.

 

[Vkrm]

Smash outselling psa doesn't mean there's no competition. Psa is competing, it just happens to be losing very badly. Why don't you understand?

 

[Big-Cat]

This is a good example of what a Monopoly in video games looks like. I doubt it would happen because Smash is one type of game and has many competitors (I'm comparing the two games for another reason).

As an aside, the reason no one has bested Smash is because no one tries to understand what made Smash successful. I can tell SuperBot didn't and tried to be different. I do wonder if anyone will beat it one day.

So why is it that Smash is so successful in your eyes?

 

[Kink-Link5]

People haven't learned to ignore SmashChu at this point? He is consistently and adamantly against everything remotely associated with high-level Smash, marks every single utterance of Sakurai as a golden definitive against competition, yet refuses to acknowledge his statements regarding the Smash 4 roster as anything but "We're getting a huge roster increase," cites sales figures as a measure of quality, and falls back on "personal taste" to defend his obnoxious and usually incorrect positions on any matter.

That being said, PSA is marginally better than Smash64 and a bit better than Brawl as stand alone titles, but that is not to say it is not without its Pikachus/Metaknights/Nathan Drakes, and character viability fluctuates very wildly depending on game mode. Lack of time limit in Stock Mode means zoning characters have free reign to take all the time they need poking and prodding, doubles is ruled by a few choice teams, and time matches come down to who can do a combination of get the first kill and then run away best.

And then on the other side you have degenerative tripping, an oppressive neutral game coupled with a centralizing defensive game, and obscene longevity in Brawl, and touch of death camp fests in Smash64.

Not to say Melee isn't prone to any faults, it's just much less extreme of a game.

 

[flyinfilipino]

The thing you have to remember is that a sale is a customer. Every number of the sales chart is a person who bought it. Products have to appeal to people. It has to serve their needs. If a product doesn't do then, it wont sell (least not for long). Sales and people are one in the same. As an aside, the reason no one has bested Smash is because no one tries to understand what made Smash successful. I can tell SuperBot didn't and tried to be different. I do wonder if anyone will beat it one day.

Thank you for that. No offense, but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands these facts. Like I said earlier, these basic concepts are not what I have issues with (and I think I speak for a lot of people here with that).

So why is it that Smash is so successful in your eyes?

I can tell you already (even though I'm sure you know) that he's going to attribute it to "accessibility" and again compare sales between Smash and PSABR to prove (using some twisted logic) that it is true. However,

He is consistently and adamantly against everything remotely associated with high-level Smash,

which I think is his real stance on this stuff, once you get past all the reiteration of sales concepts and attempted use of numbers to prove statements. Either that, or he's just an extreme Nintendo/Smash fanboy, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SmashChu]

So why is it that Smash is so successful in your eyes?

There are three major reasons.

In climatic order
1)Nintendo Content-This is the world of the game. It's the same as Hyrule for the Legend of Zelda. The game takes the best content from Nintendo and puts it all into one. It's what give the game soul
2)Replayability-Smash is a default game. It's game that you can keep playing over and over again. It has a lot of stuff like lots of characters, stages and items. It has multiple modes. The gameplay also leads it being ever changing. It's different every time.
3)Accessability-Players are able to get into the game easily and enjoy themselves. Very easy to jump in which is a must for a multiplayer game (as people usually don't own them when they first play).

They work in this. Accessibility pulls players in. It gets them into the game. Replayability keeps them playing long after their first few playthoughs. Nintendo content is the soul of the game and makes it unique. It makes it so you aren't just fighting with different models. This is the secrets to Smash's success. These three things are not unique and you'll find most of them in every successful game. Accessibility is one of the reasons the Wii did so well.

Sony Smash isn't succeeding because it miss the mark on all of these. SuperBot didn't respect the Sony content and threw in a lot of third party characters rather than using Sony's large backlog. Weak music also hurt (Smash puts a lot into it's music). The game isn't very accessible as it focuses on competitive friendly gameplay (combos mostly). There are also way to many buttons (Smash consolidates around 3). The game lacks replayability since every characters kills in the same way and there are long points where nothing happens (I watched a 1v1 where it took 3 minutes for someone to die). It also has less stuff than Smash. If SuperBot wants to be successful, it needs to look at these and apply them their game's context (doesn't have to be like Smash, but these three things are very important).

People haven't learned to ignore SmashChu at this point? He is consistently and adamantly against everything remotely associated with high-level Smash, marks every single utterance of Sakurai as a golden definitive against competition, yet refuses to acknowledge his statements regarding the Smash 4 roster as anything but "We're getting a huge roster increase," cites sales figures as a measure of quality, and falls back on "personal taste" to defend his obnoxious and usually incorrect positions on any matter.

Say what you will, but this needs mentioning.

First, let me repost this.

The thing you have to remember is that a sale is a customer. Every number of the sales chart is a person who bought it. Products have to appeal to people. It has to serve their needs. If a product doesn't do then, it wont sell (least not for long). Sales and people are one in the same. As an aside, the reason no one has bested Smash is because no one tries to understand what made Smash successful. I can tell SuperBot didn't and tried to be different. I do wonder if anyone will beat it one day.

This is the basics to make any business and why sales are quality (so, no, flyinfilipino, people don't get it). If your product doesn't fill someone's needs or wants, it fails. In my Smash example above, Smash was successful because it fulfilled a want. People want a game they can jump into without fluff tutorials or learning advance techniques or combos. They want a game that will last them a while. They also don't want to play "Model fighter," so Nintendo content gives the game a fresh coat of paint.

Every time I bring up sales or business, people contest it. Truth is, finances are part of everything in the world. People don't like talking about money, mostly because their bank account is small or that they still struggle and work for money. But it's there. The rich and successful are willing to talk about money and learn about it which is why they are rich and successful in the first place. Money is important because it's a factor in everything. Money can end marriages. It starts and ends wars. It determines your Friday night. It determines your future and what happens when you get old. It determines what you eat. It elects politicians. And it determines if the next few years are bad or good. People are going to say "Yeah, I get it," but the minute I say something like, "Sales are a measure of quality because people spend money on what they like and avoid what they don't like," the concepts go out the window.

A lot of people here are never going to like what I say because it's not what they want to hear. Mr. Link is an example of that. I say competitive smash doesn't work because it doesn't bring it money (many competitive fighting games don't do well and Sony Smash is joining those ranks). But no one here wants to hear that. They want to believe that Nintendo and Sakurai are doing wrong and they should listen to them or else. I come and say Nintendo and Sakurai are doing right and the sales and profits are just a measure of that. Thus, in the words of the late Rodney Dangerfield, "I don't get no respect!"

That's how it goes. In the end, sales are an important thing to look at. You should be happy Smash sells as much as it does. If it didn't, we wouldn't get sequel, especially not with the same quality.

 

[Vkrm]

Holy****! Smashchu going ham!! Dead on about the competitive stuff not bringing in the cash. Look at Starcraft, sf4, and COD. Quality doesnt always translate in to sales. Okami was pretty much better then any recent Zelda and it didn't sell at launch. Drove clover into shutting down because of how booty sales were. If you need another example, look at brawl. Game is crap. Sold millions.

 

[flyinfilipino]

First of all, I'm pleasantly surprised that you mentioned the appeal of Nintendo content; it's something you rarely bring up. Of course, it has to come with the obligatory mention of "competitive friendly gameplay" i.e. the style of fighter that doesn't appeal to you, but oh well. Also, just out of curiosity, have you played PSABR yet?

And then there's all that fluff about how sales are everything. The bottom line is that the other side of the argument is just that Superbot made a decent attempt at cracking into the 4-player brawler genre with their own brand of game. If the goal is to be different from Smash, then I'd say they've put forth a good effort with room to improve in the future. And I say the future, because PSABR has only been out a month, and Smash has been an established franchise for years. If they decide to continue with the franchise, there's plenty of stuff that can be changed for the better. PSABR will never sell as much as Smash, but some things are out of Superbot's control.

And lastly, people here don't have a problem with what you're saying most of the time, it's how you say it. And it also depends on the person, and what you're talking about. Also, who says we're not happy that Smash has sold well?

 

[El Duderino]

I get the nintendo content argument, but he still needs to explain what about PSABR aparently makes it not accessible or lack replay value.

Idealy we need actual details based on SmasChu's experience with the game, and not his interpretation of what someone else has said about it.

 

[SmashChu]

Holy****! Smashchu going ham!! Dead on about the competitive stuff not bringing in the cash. Look at Starcraft, sf4, and COD. Quality doesnt always translate in to sales. Okami was pretty much better then any recent Zelda and it didn't sell at launch. Drove clover into shutting down because of how booty sales were. If you need another example, look at brawl. Game is crap. Sold millions.

The problem is it's who is it quality too. COD is quality to a lot of people. Okami was quality to only a small group of people, but not the larger gaming audience. It's a reason why Clover Studios was ended. Quality does equal sales. Even if you don't find it good, someone else might. Depends on who your talking to.

Let me make this clearer. When I talk about quality and sales, I'm using sales as a measure of quality. If a game sold more, it means more people found quality in it. If it sold less, it means fewer people found quality in it. You will find same games to be of high quality and some to not be. I'm looking as a whole of the market.

First of all, I'm pleasantly surprised that you mentioned the appeal of Nintendo content; it's something you rarely bring up. Of course, it has to come with the obligatory mention of "competitive friendly gameplay" i.e. the style of fighter that doesn't appeal to you, but oh well. Also, just out of curiosity, have you played PSABR yet?

On Sony Smash (way easier to type that than the games actual name): Yeah, I have played it. I haven't played it very much because I don't own a PS3 and I don't know anyone who wants to get it. A friend ended up getting Tekken tag 2 over Sony Smash because him and I agreed he's enjoy it more.

Competitive-friendly: To clarify, I bash it because it doesn't bring in the dough. Also, every other fighting game is competitive friendly, so there is no harm in having one that isn't (Smash). Smash's rise to fame was in part that it did not conform to the nature of other fighting game. Other fighting games focus on the competitive scene where Smash doesn't.

And then there's all that fluff about how sales are everything. The bottom line is that the other side of the argument is just that Superbot made a decent attempt at cracking into the 4-player brawler genre with their own brand of game. If the goal is to be different from Smash, then I'd say they've put forth a good effort with room to improve in the future. And I say the future, because PSABR has only been out a month, and Smash has been an established franchise for years. If they decide to continue with the franchise, there's plenty of stuff that can be changed for the better. PSABR will never sell as much as Smash, but some things are out of Superbot's control.

Let me go back to this quote

It's pretty natural that the measurement of success for an entity that's sole purpose was to create a profit for its owners would be profits.

Sony Smash exist to make profits. Sony didn't fund the idea because they thought it would be cool to have another Smash Brothers like game. They wanted Smash Brothers sales (heck, they even tagged Smash in their Youtube video). Talking about sales is important because it's the reason it exist. The reason Smash is getting a sequel and being developed by a bigger publisher is because the series makes the money.

Any effort from these companies is going to be measured in money. They make decision based on how much money they get. Also, what they can and cant do is based on money. It's very important. It's also great as a measuring tool. It shows us how well it doing by how many people are going out and getting it. By the looks of sales, it seems there isn't much interest in Sony Smash.

It's nice that they tried to make a similar but different game, but all of that doesn't matter if people aren't buying it and the bills aren't being paid.

And lastly, people here don't have a problem with what you're saying most of the time, it's how you say it. And it also depends on the person, and what you're talking about. Also, who says we're not happy that Smash has sold well?

Yeah, I can see that. I like to argue too much.

I say people don't care about Smash sales because people ignore it (explicitly or not)

 

[Vkrm]

There's 10 people. 5 buy a game. 5 don't. Everybody who bought it, loves it. Are the 5 that didn't buy somehow proof that the game isn't good? Of course not. You need to buy it, play it, and then decide. The bible is the best selling book of all time. Its not a good or creative piece literature. It sells for other reasons. Bad is bad. Superman 64 is a bad game. It doesn't matter that somebody somewhere enjoyed it. Even if you could prove that nobody liked it, that would be because the core gameplay. That's what counts.

 

[flyinfilipino]

The problem is it's who is it quality too. COD is quality to a lot of people. Okami was quality to only a small group of people, but not the larger gaming audience. It's a reason why Clover Studios was ended. Quality does equal sales. Even if you don't find it good, someone else might. Depends on who your talking to.

Let me make this clearer. When I talk about quality and sales, I'm using sales as a measure of quality. If a game sold more, it means more people found quality in it. If it sold less, it means fewer people found quality in it. You will find same games to be of high quality and some to not be. I'm looking as a whole of the market.

Competitive-friendly: To clarify, I bash it because it doesn't bring in the dough. Also, every other fighting game is competitive friendly, so there is no harm in having one that isn't (Smash). Smash's rise to fame was in part that it did not conform to the nature of other fighting game. Other fighting games focus on the competitive scene where Smash doesn't.

Sony Smash exist to make profits. Sony didn't fund the idea because they thought it would be cool to have another Smash Brothers like game. They wanted Smash Brothers sales (heck, they even tagged Smash in their Youtube video). Talking about sales is important because it's the reason it exist. The reason Smash is getting a sequel and being developed by a bigger publisher is because the series makes the money.

Any effort from these companies is going to be measured in money. They make decision based on how much money they get. Also, what they can and cant do is based on money. It's very important. It's also great as a measuring tool. It shows us how well it doing by how many people are going out and getting it. By the looks of sales, it seems there isn't much interest in Sony Smash.

I say people don't care about Smash sales because people ignore it (explicitly or not)

The one flaw here (and what Vkrm is getting at) is that it's not accounting for each individual consumer's experience. Sure, lots of people bought Smash (64, Melee, or Brawl). Did they actually enjoy it? Did they really find it of high quality? That's up to the individual consumer to decide, and not every consumer goes out and buys stuff because everyone else is. Alternatively, sure, PSABR hasn't sold as much as Smash yet. What about the people that bought it that do feel that it is a quality game? The fact that not as many people have the game as Smash doesn't make it any less quality to them.

I know it might be hard to wrap your head around because it's an abstract concept, but it's just as much an inference as your implied assertions that everyone who bought Smash agrees it's quality and every person that hasn't bought PSABR agrees that it isn't.

This is just one reason why everyone here argues against your stance that "sales = quality".

 

[SmashChu]

There's 10 people. 5 buy a game. 5 don't. Everybody who bought it, loves it. Are the 5 that didn't buy somehow proof that the game isn't good? Of course not. You need to buy it, play it, and then decide. The bible is the best selling book of all time. Its not a good or creative piece literature. It sells for other reasons. Bad is bad. Superman 64 is a bad game. It doesn't matter that somebody somewhere enjoyed it. Even if you could prove that nobody liked it, that would be because the core gameplay. That's what counts.

What your saying is unrealistic and not true.

First, people do not have infinite resources, which is why they make choices. You can't buy every game, play it, then make your call. People will instead make their decision before they buy the game. This can include looking at game reviews and asking other people. Also, some games wont appeal to people. They find no interest in the game and don't buy it. The reality is that quality is judged pretty fast. Word of mouth is the biggest reason something sells. Happy customers become the best salesmen. The advent of word of mouth proves that quality games sell and poor quality games don't.

Let's look at Okami. People on message boards would praise the game. If were one of those people, you would become a customer of the game. But people outside the internet didn't find it interesting. They didn't want it. So, the game sold poorly.

Basically, first, word of mouth means that a good game sells and a bad one doesn't (treat one customer will, they'll tell 10, treat them badly and they'll tell 100). Second, people judge quickly. If they look at the game and it doesn't interest them, chances are it wont interest them afterwards. This is why people are more willing to defend games they buy (because they liked what they saw). This is a reason why content, the game world, can be so important.

The one flaw here (and what Vkrm is getting at) is that it's not accounting for each individual consumer's experience. Sure, lots of people bought Smash (64, Melee, or Brawl). Did they actually enjoy it? Did they really find it of high quality? That's up to the individual consumer to decide, and not every consumer goes out and buys stuff because everyone else is. Alternatively, sure, PSABR hasn't sold as much as Smash yet. What about the people that bought it that do feel that it is a quality game? The fact that not as many people have the game as Smash doesn't make it any less quality to them.

I addressed it above, but here's the summary
-A sale is one customer, so the agurgate of sales tells how many people bought it. Thus, aggregated quality.
-People buy things that interest them and don't on things that don't If you bought a game, you'll like it and defend it more than someone who didn't.
-Likewise, if you didn't buy a game because it didn't interest you, you likely wont like it after playing it.
-Content means a lot because it's what people see first. With Okami, people probably didn't want to play as a wolf with weird graphics in a very Japanese setting.
-Word of mouth means good games get lots of sales where bad games don't.

 

[El Duderino]

Ever hear the phrases 'you can't judge a book by its cover', 'all that glitters is not gold' and 'one man's trash is another man's treasure'? Your argument here has managed to contradict all of them, all under the false pretense that sales are the only measurement of quality. Quality is first and foremost a philisofical matter, and not as you assume a strictly objectifiable buisness one.

And you still need to explain what it is about the game that somehow makes it lack replay value or be inaccessible. If going by your logic they have hurt sales, you must surely have a more through explination of how PSABR is apparently failing in these areas, with your own hands on impressions to draw from.

 

[El Duderino]

If in his eyes sales are all that matters he really should own up to it and stop caring about inconsequential details like say keeping Smash true to the formula. I bet for instance if they turned Smash 4 into a Wii Sports: Smash Edition it would sell a lot more, which in turn should make SmashChu happy.

 

[Big-Cat]

If in his eyes sales are all that matters he really should own up to it and stop caring about inconsequential details like say keeping Smash true to the formula. I bet for instance if they turned Smash 4 into a Wii Sports: Smash Edition it would sell a lot more, which in turn should make SmashChu happy.

Here's what would happen.

1. ***** about the game's changes until release.
2. If it sells well, he'll praise it like a religious convert, or if it bombs, will insist he was right from the very beginning.

 

[El Duderino]

Technically he wouldn't have the right to complain as Nintendo would just be acting in their sales best intrest, which under SmasChu's theory should result in a better game.

 

[SmashChu]

Ever hear the phrases 'you can't judge a book by its cover', 'all that glitters is not gold' and 'one man's trash is another man's treasure'? Your argument here has managed to contradict all of them, all under the false pretense that sales are the only measurement of quality. Quality is first and foremost a philisofical matter, and not as you assume a strictly objectifiable buisness one.

Those are nice sayings, but look at the reality of it. If you see a game that doesn't interest you, are you really going to spend 50/60 dollars on it to try it out and then say, after your spent your money, that you didn't like it. It's a nice saying, but if a game doesn't interest someone then it doesn't interest someone. The reason why sales are qualioty, even when someone hasn't tried it, is that the first impressions mean a lot.

I also didn't talk about word of mouth or that fact the customers will research games from reviews to asking someone who works at a store. These are other factors too. Again, people don't have to try and game and play it for 10 hours to know if they like it. if that was the case, then there would be a lot more money in the game industry.

"you only get one chance make first impressions"

And you still need to explain what it is about the game that somehow makes it lack replay value or be inaccessible. If going by your logic they have hurt sales, you must surely have a more through explination of how PSABR is apparently failing in these areas, with your own hands on impressions to draw from.

Two reasons
-Game content is lacking. There are only 20 characters, a few stages and very few items
-The gameplay itself. Smash Brothers is dynamic. The damage system works that you can die at any percent. So matches can get crazy. You could die early or hang on forever. It's not certain. It can make matches exciting. Sony Smash has only one way for someone to die. You have to build your meter, then hit them with a specific move. There is no way to change or spice up the match. Heck, the stages and items can't kill you. They can only knock out AP. This means there is only one way to die. The game can't really change. Stages don't change it besides terrain. Items don't change it. You also know what to expect within 15 minutes because only 3 moves a character has could ever kill you (not so in Smash). I could go on and one.

You've asked me a lot about my experience, but how much have you played?

EDIT: I think I'm wasting my time. I'm not sure how much I can respect your opinion when you don't respect mine.

 

[Vkrm]

Respect? Nobody should get respect for just giving it. Not to mention any rational person would find it impossible to give anybody the kind of respect I think you're asking for. Nobody's ideas should be safe from criticism.


Chu, when you play a new game do you have to look up a sales chart to find out if you're having fun or not? Quality does not always equal sales. Play freaking okami. It's the best zelda game ever made.

 

[SmashChu]

Respect? Nobody should get respect for just giving it. Not to mention any rational person would find it impossible to give anybody the kind of respect I think you're asking for. Nobody's ideas should be safe from criticism.

When I say respect, I mean listen to the idea I bring forth and agree or not. it's clear that the other two don't care what I'm saying and will think I'm a loon regardless. I'm OK talking with someone like you because you'll at least give what I say the light of day. That's really all I'm asking.

Sometimes I'm not a bigger man and neglect ignore some people when I should. Of course, this would be that time.

Chu, when you play a new game do you have to look up a sales chart to find out if you're having fun or not? Quality does not always equal sales. Play freaking okami. It's the best zelda game ever made.

I enjoy games that do poorly. Awesomenauts being an example. I'm also playing Dillon's Rolling Western, which did kind of bad too.

What I'm saying is the problem with Sony Smash and why it couldn't get Smash like success. Of course, I have to talk about the basics, like sales as quality or that money is everything. If I can't get that concept though, then I can't move on. You have to learn addition and subtraction before you learn calculus.

Remember that I'm looking at this from a business stand point. I'm looking at Sony Smash and saying "Why is it doing this," and with Smash "Why is it so successful." Talk of Smash's success seems to never come up. So much so that people actually start rationalizing why it did well. "Oh, it has Nintendo characters." That helps, but that alone would not have made Smash a success. I'm trying to understand why some games becomes commercial success and why others don't. I'm a big fan of Smash, so Fighting games are the genre I look at.

I plan to be rich some day. Many people want to ignore sales and money, but I embrace it. I see it as a businessman. I see it as an opportunity to learn how to make a successful video game company (which I'm trying to do now).

 

[flyinfilipino]

I enjoy games that do poorly. Awesomenauts being an example. I'm also playing Dillon's Rolling Western, which did kind of bad too.

What I'm saying is the problem with Sony Smash and why it couldn't get Smash like success. Of course, I have to talk about the basics, like sales as quality or that money is everything. If I can't get that concept though, then I can't move on. You have to learn addition and subtraction before you learn calculus.

Well then, this begs the question: why do you enjoy games that do poorly if "sales are quality" and "money is everything"?


* * *

When I say respect, I mean listen to the idea I bring forth and agree or not. it's clear that the other two don't care what I'm saying and will think I'm a loon regardless. I'm OK talking with someone like you because you'll at least give what I say the light of day. That's really all I'm asking.

Just throwing this out there:

Let's all go on a magical ride though the warped mind of El Duderino. What logical inconsistencies will we find this time.

Basically, you don't have an argument.

This proves you want to believe the game is successful. You talk in subjectively and give no credence to your argument. You have never been able to define success or competition outside of my context proving my arguments right. There isn't anything else to really discuss. You are picking paragraphs to respond to create the illusion that your not delusional. Heck, you pretty move said it yourself.

Translation: "I lost and I'm mad. Sony Smash is great and you're a big poopy head." Your telling me you can't defend your reasoning and resort to very general statements of why it's not a failure. You ignore a measurable metric saying it doesn't matter while at the same time not giving another one. There is no reason for what you say. It's what you want to head. This argument is about hopes and dreams for you, not reality.

Posts with that sort of tone aren't exactly asking for respect in return

 

[SmashChu]

I was talking about both of them, but whatever.

To answer your question, see above. As a note, I look at this from an analytical standpoint. I think that's what people forget. They can't see what I like and an analysis as two separate things. This all started because El Dorado made an unsupported claim.

EDIT: I'm thinking that I may go over why Sony Smash didn't do well. I think I've talked enough about Smash's sales. It may be better to look at Sony Smash.

 

[Dark Phazon]

Wow..Are people still debating this like its even a competition..this thread shouldnt even be on the 1st page.

 

[flyinfilipino]

I think I've talked enough about Smash's sales.

Understatement of 2012.

Jokes aside, if you can "analyze" what PSABR is doing wrong without mentioning Smash at all, you get a Christmas cookie.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

The killing mechanic is hard to notice

I literally can't tell I died half the time. Not to mention there is no feeling to the death. You don't feel like your character was actually harmed. Just poof

 

[El Duderino]

Those are nice sayings, but look at the reality of it.

The simple reality is you cannot define quality as being purely objective, especially with something as subjective as entertainment.

"you only get one chance make first impressions"

First impressions may be enough for some to write a game off, but are hardly enough to judge the overall quality.

Two reasons
-Game content is lacking.
-The gameplay itself.

That explains why you are unsure of the game and honestly I don't disagree with you on the winning mechanics, but that doesn't explain how the game lacks replay value or how it isn't accessible. It certainly is plenty easy to pick up and play, and while I'm mixed on supers, would admit it does lend itself well as a replayable party game mechanic. There is also plenty to explore through the significantly different character play styles. I actually much prefer that focus to throwaway modes and collectables.

You've asked me a lot about my experience, but how much have you played?

Not enough to gather my verdict on the game. I'm not the one passing judgement here though.

EDIT: I think I'm wasting my time. I'm not sure how much I can respect your opinion when you don't respect mine.

I'll respect your opinion when you stick to it. That means getting rid of this double standard where you only push this “sales=quality” idea when it fits your preferences. Also, lets no kid ourselves here, how Smash 4 plays is far more imporant to me or you than how well it eventually sells.

 

[3Bismyname]

Understatement of 2012.

Jokes aside, if you can "analyze" what PSABR is doing wrong without mentioning Smash at all, you get a Christmas cookie.

speaking as a fan of the game i can probably make a list.

1: roster- thats probably the easiest thing to note. certain characters seem to have been added simply to advertise upcoming games like Dante, Raiden and arguably Big Daddy. meanwhile it seems to pander to the current generation of video games meaning they heavily utilize current popular franchises like God of War, Uncharted, and Little Big Planet while they somewhat ignore the franchises that originally put them on par with the likes of Nintendo most natably Crash, Spyro and my personal choice Laura Croft. though I really appreciate Spike making the cut.

2: Arcade mode- the use of stills in a story mode are honestly a waste of talent imo when they could have done cinematics. though it is understandable if time constraints were aever an issue. likewise certain rivalries feel Really forced like Evil Cole vs Fat Princess or Big Daddy vs Sackboy.

3: no worthwhile unlockables- completing arcade mode with each character unlocks an alternate costume and some alt intros and outros... thats it. (other than building your rank) that's too easy imo plus i would've appreciated unlockable characters.

4: lack of modes- Arcade, Training, Versus and Tournument mode are the only notable modes available. i would've appreciated a real story mode, maybe a tag mode, or any number of other modes commonly seen in fighting games.

5: items- none seem remarkably unique in any way with the exception of two i can readily think of.

other than that im fine with the killing mechanic as it does make it more unique and actually adds a greater deal of difficulty and need for skill unlike many other fighters. the fighters are fairly balanced with each having good parts as well as drawbacks. for example Nariko is able to string a large amount of combos together, however her meter doesn't fill up nearly as fast as certain other characters can. however some supers are extremely overpowered. i had heard somewhere that they are already planning on another Battle Royale for the future so maybe they'll fix those few gripes i have making it an overall enjoyable game.

I also think it should be noted that Battle Royale should've come out a long time ago then maybe there wouldn't be nearly as much animosity towards it

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

hurrr ima durrr

sales r an adequate rep of a games q uality so i only paly black ops and nintendo sports durrr durr

 

[SmashChu]

Understatement of 2012.

Jokes aside, if you can "analyze" what PSABR is doing wrong without mentioning Smash at all, you get a Christmas cookie.

It's going to be tough, mind you. A big reason is they are very similar games with one being successful and the other not. But I'll go kind of a quicky. Psycho and 3Bismyname made some really good points.

I think the gameplay is one of the biggest things. First, remember this. If someone is attracted to a game at first glance, they likely wont be interested in playing it or giving it it's "just time." Second, good games sells. Bad games don't. Word of mouth makes that possible.

The gameplay put people off from the beginning. Fighting games were always "Get health to 0" which is in most video games. It makes sense to people. The damage of Smash is very different, but a lot of what takes place in other fighting games makes sense. Hitting players hurts them. The only difference is that players can hold on longer or die sooner based on the attacks. But the rule is still the same. The more you hit them, the farther they fly.

Sony Smash, on the other hand, removes the "beating people up." Instead the game makes it a grind for a resource which you use to kill them. In fighting games and Smash, getting hits makes you closer to death which makes sense in a video game. But that is not the case is Sony Smash. You have to use a specific move to KO someone, which is very disjointed to how games play and feel. Players want some kind of response or feedback. Other games in the genre do this. But building meter isn't a normal thing. Even in traditional fighting games, it's a side asspect to the punching people.

To finish this, let me wrap up with some game design stuff. Every game has a core game. In a fighting game, it's punching people. In an RTS, it's building dudes. In a shooting game, it's shooting people. If these are fun, the game will be fun. If these aren't fun, the game wont be fun. It wont change how much you slice it. If the core of the game isn't good, the rest of the product isn't. Sony Smash's core isn't good. Beating up people for resources isn't fun. Beating people up to knock them out is fun. This is why Sony Smash suffers. Going back to what I mentioned before, this is preventing people from buying the game. This system drives down sales. People looking at the game don't want to play "meter management." They want to punch people and knock them out. The customers aren't selling it either. With multiplayer games, it's very easy to get buyers to sell the game. Someone will come over to play and they'll try it out and likely buy it. For some reason, this isn't happening. The people who are playing the game are a small group and it's likely they aren't playing the game in a way Smash is. They may be more competitive driven and thus, play with people who are already good. There is also the fact that people playing it don't like it enough to buy it (sales as quality in motion).

There are other things that make the system not work, but this is the 5000 ft overview. I might go more into other problems later. I typed a bit, so I'll stop now. Again, props to Psycho and 3Bismyname for their input as well.

EDIT:El Duderino, I'll probably get to your points later, but not now.

 

[El Duderino]

As you menioned earlier, you've enjoyed games that haven't sold well, so I'm just going to ignore anything further you conclude on sales as an absolute indication of how good a game is.

I do think the killing mechanic is ultimately what has people on the fence. It does work better in practice than it sounds on paper, but as something unfamiliar, people are naturaly going to be conflicted. Smash certainly wasn't an exception to that when 64 came out, but it had more novelty and Nintendo mascots in it's favor. Still plenty of people out there think Smash is a trashy game for breaking what in their mind fighting games are all about, not unlike your feelings on PSABR.

What the mechanic does do well for PSABR is give everyone the impression they can turn a match around, and in a more dynamic way than introducing excessive random chance. It's not too different from how a good boardgame can keep all players engaged, Small World comes to mind. I'm certainly a bigger fan of how Smash works, but at least in the party game sense I find the system works for PSABR.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Second, good games sells. Bad games don't. Word of mouth makes that possible.

In oversimplified dummyland perhaps.

You're assuming that the audience is well-learned, aware, tasteful, and communicable enough all of the time for a good game to sell well. Even if they were to sell well enough for the publisher to make a profit, your general argument assumes that the sales of a game relative to another can be used to assess their relative quality. For such thing to properly work, there would be no such thing as a bad game with good sales.

Even if you're not assuming that the audience is well-learned and tasteful, the most generous interpretation would be that you think that a game's sales are a direct measure of its quality, which is virtually indistinguishable from saying "the game is good because its sales are good". From that form of ad populum reasoning, it would follow that talentless mainstream acts like Justin Beiber are better musicians than the most critically acclaimed underground acts.

There's contingent counter-examples of good games with poor sales and better games with worse sales such as Psychonauts and the clear-cut case of an updated, more polished version of a game selling worse than its original version such as SFIV vs SSFIV. Your claim is wrong.


Sales are product of joint contribution of marketing and demographics, not quality alone. Anyone can tell you that.

 

[El Duderino]

I wouldn't be suprized to see its sales climb due to the increase in advertising as well. For example when I saw the Hobbit this weekend there was a big add for the game in the pre-trailers, usually reserved for tv shows and the like.

 

[SmashChu]

In oversimplified dummyland perhaps.

Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is the best.

You're assuming that the audience is well-learned, aware, tasteful, and communicable enough all of the time for a good game to sell well. Even if they were to sell well enough for the publisher to make a profit, your general argument assumes that the sales of a game relative to another can be used to assess their relative quality. For such thing to properly work, there would be no such thing as a bad game with good sales.

Because the audience is always right. You can blame the rain. You can blame the ticket price. But in the end. The audience is always right.

Here is nice little article going over just that. A quote I like
If you are in business, you should be making money. If what you’re doing isn’t making money, you need to either change what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, or get out of the way of people who are doing it correctly.

Even if you're not assuming that the audience is well-learned and tasteful, the most generous interpretation would be that you think that a game's sales are a direct measure of its quality, which is virtually indistinguishable from saying "the game is good because its sales are good". From that form of ad populum reasoning, it would follow that talentless mainstream acts like Justin Beiber are better musicians than the most critically acclaimed underground acts.

This goes under the assumption that Justin Beiber's music is bad which is an opinion, not fact. Someone else might come and tell you off because they say Justin is good why those underground people are garbage. To each their own. Like anything else, his music is something people wants and he gives it to them (for a price, or, at least his label does).

There's contingent counter-examples of good games with poor sales and better games with worse sales such as Psychonauts and the clear-cut case of an updated, more polished version of a game selling worse than its original version such as SFIV vs SSFIV. Your claim is wrong.

Again, your assuming Psychonauts is good. Again, this is an opinion, not fact. I think you need to learn the difference. (Also, expansions always sell less than the original. If you didn't care about SF4, you wont care about Arcade Edition.)

"But isn't quality an opinion." Yes it is. The point I'm trying to make is aggregate quality. This means I can say one game is higher quality because more people find the product of high quality and bought it as a result. Games that can't sell have less quality.

The problem with what you say is you assume your a special snowflake. That your views are right and cultured and that others are wrong. You see products that do well that you don't like to be inferior and those people who bought I as stupid. Truth is, everyone is the same. If other people are not well-learned or tasteful, what does that say for you. Perhaps your not well learned or tasteful.

Any smart business man knows you have to make good products at a better price. We call this capitalism. But feel free to test this theory out. Go open a business that sells a product. Treat your customer like cattle. Don't worry about making a quality product. Just make a cheap product and use marketing and demographics. See how long you stay in business. Customers will quickly learn you think they are stupid. They will put you out of business and make you look like the idiot. Rule #1 of business: the customer is ALWAYS right. Treat people like idiots, and they will treat you like an idiot.

To close, the reason you don't understand this, as many here don't, is because your context. You see the world differently. You look at is from a social science. I look at is from the perspective of money. As such, money comes my way. Money rules a lot of aspects of your life. It would be best to learn it.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Good luck with that business model of yours, SmashChu. I sincerely hope it works out for you and Chu-Chu Ltd..

Beiber being bad is not an opinion. Not having taste nor recognising basic aspects that go into music theory and creation isn't an opinion, it's simply wrong.

Opinions are like, not being into Country, something that requires a specific taste, but being into Ska, that also fits a very specific taste in sound.

Having bad taste is one thing, having no taste is a much worse matter.