Log in or sign up to comment
127 Comments
  • 127 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Yummylee

@MormonWarrior said:

The dude from MediEvil?

This guy? He's in there actually.

Posted by Sauson

@MormonWarrior said:

And where the heck is Spyro? Croc? The dude from MediEvil? This game just ain't what it should be. Fortunately, few other companies take as long to come out with sequels as Nintendo so...maybe a future one will be cool?

The guy from MediEvil IS in the game...

Posted by freakin9

The lack of telling people how they are doing, by default, is telling. It's as if the game thinks a lack of a proper comeback mechanic is solved by... simply putting less information on screen. I actually think the idea of only getting kills by doing supers is very clever, but not also figuring out a comeback mechanic is the death knell. Since it's not like, in general, a lot of strategy is needed to get those kills that put a person in the lead in the first place.

Posted by ReaganStein

@AjayRaz said:

"You know, Big Daddy from BioShock, that huge PlayStation 3 hit... that shipped like a year later than the PS3 and 360 versions?" i think you mean PC version instead of PS3

PC/360 came out in August 2007. PS3 version wasn't released until October 2008.

Posted by Jeff

@Cyrisaurus said:

Mention Smash Bros in first sentence - check

Complain about characters not being in that Sony doesn't have control over - check

figured Jeff wouldn't make the same dumb mistakes other reviewers did, but oh well.

It's a really fucking fun game, and in case everyone kinda forgot why they started playing games to begin with, Fun is kind of the most important factor.

FYI Jeff, Sucker Punch requested Good and Evil Cole. They are not palette swaps, they have different move sets.

Expecting me to write around the game's most obvious inspiration for no good reason - check

Letting the business guys off the hook for not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed - check

Excusing the game's weak roster because some developer "requested" that two character slots get used when the rest of the roster isn't at all up to snuff - check

Acting like kind of an asshole - check

Posted by ReaganStein

@Jeff: Beat me to the punch - check

Posted by Cyrisaurus

@Superkenon said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

Mention Smash Bros in first sentence - check

Complain about characters not being in that Sony doesn't have control over - check

figured Jeff wouldn't make the same dumb mistakes other reviewers did, but oh well.

It's a really fucking fun game, and in case everyone kinda forgot why they started playing games to begin with, Fun is kind of the most important factor.

FYI Jeff, Sucker Punch requested Good and Evil Cole. They are not palette swaps, they have different move sets.

Everything Jeff's said about the game, including this review, would suggest he's right there with you (well, mostly). He's clearly had fun with it, but is making his gripes clear as well.

Honestly, the character roster is a damn important (I'd argue most important) aspect of any fighter, so I think it's a fair complaint if it's leaving something to be desired. For me, personally, I was on the fence about this game, waiting to see how the roster filled out. In the end, it's too few dudes I'm excited to pit against each other. Kind of a bummer, 'cause I want to try it, but it's enough to make me pass until it comes down in price.

Out of curiosity, does your enjoyment of the game stem from investment in a significant portion of the roster, or on the contrary, do you find the gameplay is simply enough to make up for that disadvantage?

I know, but he should have put the part about fun first. Starting off with negative talk is a poor choice.

To answer your question, I was excited since the day they announced it because I am a huge Playstation fan and always have been. So yeah, knowing that I could play as Jak and Daxter and beat up Nathan Drake was what got me interested, but now that I have it and I'm playing it, my perspective has changed to looking at this like it's a new IP. Because it's a fighting game, most of these characters obviously don't play like the do in their games. So, take Sweet Tooth. Never have you been able to play as Sweet Tooth outside the truck in any Twisted Metal game. Turns out, he makes a really awesome fighting game character, and he's my favorite so far. Raiden is also really fun, and MGR isn't even out yet, so I can't just be saying that because I like his game. That kinda goes for Big Daddy as well, because I've never played a Bioshock game, but they still made him into his own little fighting game character. Jak and Daxter is my favorite PS character, but I'm not forcing myself to play as them in this game because of that.

I love the super system, so if this was just a new game all together with a full roster of made up characters, I'd still enjoy it.

As for the lack of certain characters on the roster, I'm not worried. They have already announced that they are doing DLC, and it's going to be free.

Not to mention, this is SUPERBOT'S FIRST GAME. You gotta give them a chance first. Let them learn to walk before expecting them to run a marathon. I fully expect the next PS All-Stars to have double the roster. They've already got the gameplay down, so they have all the time in the world to work on the rest.

Posted by liako21

"Crash Bandicoot. Let's just get it out of the way up front, OK? I'm certainly not privy to whatever backdoor dealings went into securing (or not securing) characters for this game's roster, but if you're making a game that attempts to bring together the classic PlayStation players and you don't have the system's first big mascot, someone has already screwed up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those weirdo Crash Bandicoot fiends or anything, and I'm well aware that Sony doesn't actually control the rights to the Crash Bandicoot property (through a series of mergers and sales, he belongs to Activision these days), but it's an embarrassing omission."

This.

Posted by Cyrisaurus

@Jeff said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

Mention Smash Bros in first sentence - check

Complain about characters not being in that Sony doesn't have control over - check

figured Jeff wouldn't make the same dumb mistakes other reviewers did, but oh well.

It's a really fucking fun game, and in case everyone kinda forgot why they started playing games to begin with, Fun is kind of the most important factor.

FYI Jeff, Sucker Punch requested Good and Evil Cole. They are not palette swaps, they have different move sets.

Expecting me to write around the game's most obvious inspiration for no good reason - check

Letting the business guys off the hook for not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed - check

Excusing the game's weak roster because some developer "requested" that two character slots get used when the rest of the roster isn't at all up to snuff - check

Acting like kind of an asshole - check

So reviewing your review makes me an asshole? Fine, I'll take it. If you can just stop twisting my words.

I like you, Jeff, and that's not something I'm willing to say about many other people in gaming journalism. So sorry if you think I'm an asshole because I expect more out of you then giving into crap that Nintendo fanboys have been spewing out of their mouth since this game was announced. Everyone has heard it, and it's getting old.

I didn't say anything about "excusing" the roster. I was letting you know the facts behind why Cole has two slots. Your idea of just letting you press Triangle to select him makes me think that you just think he's an alt costume or something. I don't think you bothered to play as him. How do you know how much control SuperBot had? What if Sucker Punch said "Either both Coles, or no Cole"?

Letting business guys off the hook? Everyone wants Crash in this game, you think Sony doesn't know that? Activision owns Crash. You think Activision is just going to let him go just because Sony asks nicely? You said "Not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed". So you are saying you know what Activisions terms were, and they were not completely insane and Sony should have done whatever they wanted?

So does that really make me an asshole? Because I'm willing to understand that a lot of this game's potential was not in the hands of the developer?

Posted by Xeirus

@Jeff said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

Mention Smash Bros in first sentence - check

Complain about characters not being in that Sony doesn't have control over - check

figured Jeff wouldn't make the same dumb mistakes other reviewers did, but oh well.

It's a really fucking fun game, and in case everyone kinda forgot why they started playing games to begin with, Fun is kind of the most important factor.

FYI Jeff, Sucker Punch requested Good and Evil Cole. They are not palette swaps, they have different move sets.

Expecting me to write around the game's most obvious inspiration for no good reason - check

Letting the business guys off the hook for not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed - check

Excusing the game's weak roster because some developer "requested" that two character slots get used when the rest of the roster isn't at all up to snuff - check

Acting like kind of an asshole - check

check-MATE son, this shit is RAW

I said RAWWW

Edited by Xeirus

@Cyrisaurus said:

@Jeff said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

Mention Smash Bros in first sentence - check

Complain about characters not being in that Sony doesn't have control over - check

figured Jeff wouldn't make the same dumb mistakes other reviewers did, but oh well.

It's a really fucking fun game, and in case everyone kinda forgot why they started playing games to begin with, Fun is kind of the most important factor.

FYI Jeff, Sucker Punch requested Good and Evil Cole. They are not palette swaps, they have different move sets.

Expecting me to write around the game's most obvious inspiration for no good reason - check

Letting the business guys off the hook for not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed - check

Excusing the game's weak roster because some developer "requested" that two character slots get used when the rest of the roster isn't at all up to snuff - check

Acting like kind of an asshole - check

So reviewing your review makes me an asshole? Fine, I'll take it. If you can just stop twisting my words.

I like you, Jeff, and that's not something I'm willing to say about many other people in gaming journalism. So sorry if you think I'm an asshole because I expect more out of you then giving into crap that Nintendo fanboys have been spewing out of their mouth since this game was announced. Everyone has heard it, and it's getting old.

I didn't say anything about "excusing" the roster. I was letting you know the facts behind why Cole has two slots. Your idea of just letting you press Triangle to select him makes me think that you just think he's an alt costume or something. I don't think you bothered to play as him. How do you know how much control SuperBot had? What if Sucker Punch said "Either both Coles, or no Cole"?

Letting business guys off the hook? Everyone wants Crash in this game, you think Sony doesn't know that? Activision owns Crash. You think Activision is just going to let him go just because Sony asks nicely? You said "Not closing character deals they absolutely should have closed". So you are saying you know what Activisions terms were, and they were not completely insane and Sony should have done whatever they wanted?

So does that really make me an asshole? Because I'm willing to understand that a lot of this game's potential was not in the hands of the developer?

Dude, just because people have been saying since the start does NOT make it any less valid, if anything it's advice they should have taken, lord knows they've had plenty of time.

Also, you jumping on Jeff because he's upset over the shitty roster is not as bad as you making excuses for it. You don't know any more than he does about the character deals, so stop acting like Jeff's just not "in the know".

and lastly, yes, you come across like an asshole.

Posted by prestonhedges
I don't know that I'd call PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale an ambitious game. Its developers surely must have sat down at some point early in development and said "let's make a Smash Bros. game but with Sony characters in it." And that's precisely what they did.

Without the single player or 3/4s of the roster, sure. Comparing this game to Smash Bros. is an insult to Smash Bros. And I'm not even a big Smash Bros. fan. This game just seems like it should be $15.

Posted by radioactivez0r

Ok, I'll go ahead and use the voucher I got with my Vita. Hope online is pretty hassle-free.

Posted by xyzygy

Yep. Looks like a pretty "meh" game alright.

Posted by sp

control+f "spyro": phrase not found

jeff what has skylanders done to you what has it done

Posted by Evelgest

Roster aside, I truly don't enjoy the fighting game features added to the brawler. It turns this game into a meter building contest. Your attacks have no purpose besides building meter or hitting your opponent into a hazard so he loses meter. I absolutely love that Superbot and Sony Santa Monica had a huge group of fighting game veterans on staff (Seth, Ed Ma, Clockwork, Maj, among others), but I hate that super moves are the only way to kill. I like ring outs and normals, so sue me. However, at a casual level I did have fun.

Posted by JesterPC238

I do think that the picking on the game for being like Smash is going a "little" far. Yes, it is very similar, but plenty of games take the Zelda formula whole-cloth (Okami anyone?) and don't get nearly as much flak for it. It's not like the developers have ever claimed that Smash wasn't the inspiration for the game.

Also cyrisaurus' tone may have been a little dickish, but it's not like everyone needs to get on the flame train, he's made some valid points.

Posted by mclakers

when it hits the bargain bin i might consider buying.

Posted by AjayRaz

@ReaganStein said:

@AjayRaz said:

"You know, Big Daddy from BioShock, that huge PlayStation 3 hit... that shipped like a year later than the PS3 and 360 versions?" i think you mean PC version instead of PS3

PC/360 came out in August 2007. PS3 version wasn't released until October 2008.

yes. he wrote "That huge Playstation 3 hit... that shipped like a year later than the PS3 and 360 versions?"

although it has been corrected, so no need to worry about it anymore!

Posted by Andy_117

@JesterPC238 said:

I do think that the picking on the game for being like Smash is going a "little" far. Yes, it is very similar, but plenty of games take the Zelda formula whole-cloth (Okami anyone?) and don't get nearly as much flak for it. It's not like the developers have ever claimed that Smash wasn't the inspiration for the game.

I think that's perhaps part of the contention. Plenty of games take from Zelda wholesale - Okami, Darksiders, pretty much every action-RPG since Ocarina of Time has in some way been inspired by elements of Ocarina of Time.

There's only one Smash Bros. though, and that's Smash Bros. It'd be like if Grand Theft Auto III released, and then there were no open-world, crime, sandbox games released in the meantime except for the Grand Theft Auto sequels, and then in 2012 Saints Row came out. The first one. ...the first thing you'd compare it to is the Grand Theft Auto games. That just makes sense. All-Stars is a brand crossover, company-specific 2D brawler, in a world where there is only one brand cross-over, company-specific 2D brawler on the market right now. There are other 2D brawlers, sure, but they are essentially taking Smash Bros.' concept in its entirety and applying it to Sony characters. There's nothing else to grasp onto, so any changes to the Smash formula will be duly noted, especially if it makes it worse.

Beyond that - I really don't think Jeff was picking on the game for being too much like Smash Bros., even though he has gone on the record of saying he doesn't at all like Smash Bros. I think it's a case of "this is a lot like that thing I don't like, and it makes changes that make it worse than that thing I don't like." Three stars is a decent score, though, and he seemed to actually enjoy his time while playing it, so I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Posted by Hailinel

@Yummylee said:

Concerning the two Coles, I think it's really no different from how there's both Mario and Luigi in SSB's. I mean technically they're different characters, but when it comes down to it Luigi is just a taller Mario wearing a different coloured outfit, and the personalities for each variations of Cole are of course drastically different from one another. I imagine each Cole even has his own unique moveset like in the inFAMOUS games themselves?

I'm not trying to defend this game or anything mind you as I have no interest in playing it anyway, but I just wanted to air my thoughts to anyone who perhaps regarded putting in two different Coles a little weird. Of course I won't deny that the roster is still a little weak all the same... A Big Daddy before even Kazuma Kiryu?! Let alone all of the other bigger Playstation omissions? GTFO, Sony U_U

Mario and Luigi are two different characters with their own identities and personalities (however thin they may be). The idea that they are the same as Cole and Evil Cole (the same character, but one is just pissy) doesn't really fly. In Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus and Zero Suit Samus occupy one roster space. There's absolutely no reason that Sony couldn't do the same for Cole.

Edited by Deathpooky

@JesterPC238 said:

I do think that the picking on the game for being like Smash is going a "little" far. Yes, it is very similar, but plenty of games take the Zelda formula whole-cloth (Okami anyone?) and don't get nearly as much flak for it. It's not like the developers have ever claimed that Smash wasn't the inspiration for the game.

Also cyrisaurus' tone may have been a little dickish, but it's not like everyone needs to get on the flame train, he's made some valid points.

I don't think it's just that it's Smash Brothers. It's that it's a bad Smash Brothers that seems antiseptic and all business. And lacking a lot of things that make Smash Brothers fun, like lots of beloved characters and compelling gameplay for more than a few seconds per match.

Darksiders or Okami are Zelda riffs, but as good games, they become an homage or "Zelda-inspired", not just a rip-off. Plus they improve on the inspiration in interesting ways, either through story or gameplay. This feels like some business guys got together and said they wanted Smash Brothers on their platform. And the changes they make from the Smash Brothers formula seem bad.

Posted by Deathpooky

@Cyrisaurus said:

So does that really make me an asshole? Because I'm willing to understand that a lot of this game's potential was not in the hands of the developer?

How should that affect the review of the game? I don't care if the game ended up sucking because the cafeteria stopped serving Taco Tuesdays - all that matters is the end product. You don't give movie games leniency because they have tons of contract and time constraints put on them.

Posted by prestonhedges

@Hailinel said:

@Yummylee said:

Concerning the two Coles, I think it's really no different from how there's both Mario and Luigi in SSB's. I mean technically they're different characters, but when it comes down to it Luigi is just a taller Mario wearing a different coloured outfit, and the personalities for each variations of Cole are of course drastically different from one another. I imagine each Cole even has his own unique moveset like in the inFAMOUS games themselves?

I'm not trying to defend this game or anything mind you as I have no interest in playing it anyway, but I just wanted to air my thoughts to anyone who perhaps regarded putting in two different Coles a little weird. Of course I won't deny that the roster is still a little weak all the same... A Big Daddy before even Kazuma Kiryu?! Let alone all of the other bigger Playstation omissions? GTFO, Sony U_U

Mario and Luigi are two different characters with their own identities and personalities (however thin they may be). The idea that they are the same as Cole and Evil Cole (the same character, but one is just pissy) doesn't really fly. In Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus and Zero Suit Samus occupy one roster space. There's absolutely no reason that Sony couldn't do the same for Cole.

Brawl also had like 90 characters.

Posted by Yummylee

@Hailinel said:

@Yummylee said:

Concerning the two Coles, I think it's really no different from how there's both Mario and Luigi in SSB's. I mean technically they're different characters, but when it comes down to it Luigi is just a taller Mario wearing a different coloured outfit, and the personalities for each variations of Cole are of course drastically different from one another. I imagine each Cole even has his own unique moveset like in the inFAMOUS games themselves?

I'm not trying to defend this game or anything mind you as I have no interest in playing it anyway, but I just wanted to air my thoughts to anyone who perhaps regarded putting in two different Coles a little weird. Of course I won't deny that the roster is still a little weak all the same... A Big Daddy before even Kazuma Kiryu?! Let alone all of the other bigger Playstation omissions? GTFO, Sony U_U

Mario and Luigi are two different characters with their own identities and personalities (however thin they may be). The idea that they are the same as Cole and Evil Cole (the same character, but one is just pissy) doesn't really fly. In Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus and Zero Suit Samus occupy one roster space. There's absolutely no reason that Sony couldn't do the same for Cole.

I will concede about Mario and Luigi since there's those Mario RPG games which, I'm to believe, actually establish them as characters instead of just one-dimensional brand mascots. However, Cole and Evil Cole are no doubt considered to be separate entities by Sucker Punch and not the exact same character; they did a similar move for Uncharted 2 where they released a different Cole skin for both the Heroes and the Villains.

And I'm willing to agree, as not only are they different from a personality perspective (they're quite literally polar opposites of course), but they have access to different attacks and supers which is reflected in All-Stars, and thus from a gameplay standpoint they are most certainly different characters. Besides, even when brushing the Mario/Luigi comparison aside, you've also got Link and Young Link who are basically the same character. Or I dunno, one is from a different dimension than the other or some crazy shit. In any case it's a similar sort of situation. Also, veering back into Street Fighter roster comparisons, this is exactly like how you've got two different versions of Ryu and Akuma in SSFIVAE, and how there are many more alternate iterations of the same characters to be found in many other fighting games. As a rather extreme example, DBZ games usually have like four Goku's to choose from!

Of course the only reason the Coles even stand out and are perhaps reason for complaint is because of the disappointing character lineup, which as I stated earlier is an overall pretty poor list of characters. Any criticisms directed towards the actual concept of fitting in two Coles, however, is the point I'm willing to defend.

Posted by Hazelhurst

There should be an asterisk in the title that notes "Crash Bandicoot not included".

Edited by durden77

Great review Jeff.

It's a shame that the game is brought down by the lacking presentation and features outside the gameplay, by some weird roster choices, and by missing some key figures it needed to be a true Playstation celebration. (Although like you said, I do feel like the roster still is fairly solid).

It's a shame because the gameplay is actually very fun and exciting. Once you take everything in and start understanding it's weird systems, it actually has a surprising amount of satisfying depth and enjoyment that sets it apart from Smash. It plays more along the lines of a traditional fighting game, which is cool seeing realized in a party fighter. Honestly at this point, I'm just enjoying it for it's gameplay systems as a brawler. The PS characters are just a plus.

But yes, it's missing that "everybody needs to join in on this celebration" spark it needed. And without that, it's positioning itself as just more of a niche brawler that a certain audience will enjoy. While that audience will enjoy it, it needs more life injected for the mainstream.

While I truly love the gameplay, I really hope to see the con notes you talked about improved in the future. If this game just had at least a couple of those honestly key characters, and some more energy around the seams, it could've really been something special. And I hope that happens, because it has a lot of potential. But for now, it's just an awesome interesting fighter with some PS characters.

Posted by Stradimus

I think the first part about the choice of characters is a little subjective. It isn't that I disagree but subjectivity can be a tough thing to adequately comment on. Either way, awesome review and I think I mostly agree with the whole thing! Makes me very sad to say this though as I really wanted this to be an A++ game.

Edited by Advancedcaveman

I think they should have put UmJammer Lammy in this game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those weirdo Parapa fiends or anything, it just seems like a glaring omission if you're going to make a game about Playstation characters.

Also, they should've had Mega Man Volnutt, Tomba, Klonoa, Robbit, Kurt Hectic, Gerdy, Parin, Vibri, The King of All Cosmos, Kingsley, Croc, The Ribbit King, Squire Flicker, Mr. Domino, a rubber duck, a skullmonkey, Wex Major, Mister Moskito, an FMV sprite of Jack Curtis, one of those little robots from Ape Escape that looks like a cross between a pig and pile of dung, the little kissy man from Chulip, an irritating stick, and the farting cat from Boombots.

Also I want a Smash Brothers clone starring characters from early 90s shareware DOS games. Commander Keen vs Jazz Jackrabbit vs Jill of the Jungle vs the kid from Word Rescue.

Posted by Cyrisaurus

@Deathpooky said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

So does that really make me an asshole? Because I'm willing to understand that a lot of this game's potential was not in the hands of the developer?

How should that affect the review of the game? I don't care if the game ended up sucking because the cafeteria stopped serving Taco Tuesdays - all that matters is the end product. You don't give movie games leniency because they have tons of contract and time constraints put on them.

No, you don't get it.

It would be like saying The Avengers movie sucks because Spider-Man isn't in it.

Posted by JesterPC238

@Deathpooky said:

@JesterPC238 said:

I do think that the picking on the game for being like Smash is going a "little" far. Yes, it is very similar, but plenty of games take the Zelda formula whole-cloth (Okami anyone?) and don't get nearly as much flak for it. It's not like the developers have ever claimed that Smash wasn't the inspiration for the game.

Also cyrisaurus' tone may have been a little dickish, but it's not like everyone needs to get on the flame train, he's made some valid points.

I don't think it's just that it's Smash Brothers. It's that it's a bad Smash Brothers that seems antiseptic and all business. And lacking a lot of things that make Smash Brothers fun, like lots of beloved characters and compelling gameplay for more than a few seconds per match.

Darksiders or Okami are Zelda riffs, but as good games, they become an homage or "Zelda-inspired", not just a rip-off. Plus they improve on the inspiration in interesting ways, either through story or gameplay. This feels like some business guys got together and said they wanted Smash Brothers on their platform. And the changes they make from the Smash Brothers formula seem bad.

It's... Not though...

I mean Jeff didn't particularly love it, fine, that's totally his right. I don't know if you've played it, I don't feel that it is bad, antiseptic or "all business." Yes, there are a lot of Bioshock references in it, but they are all fun, and none of them feel like they hurt the game. Big Daddy is a lot of fun to play as, and mixes in well from a gameplay perspective.

Personally, I like this game a hell of a lot more than Smash Bros. Every Smash character falls into one of three categories for me: Heavy, medium, and light. Aside from the maneuverability of each character they all feel very, very similar. Not to mention the number of clones (Fox/Falco/Wolf, Link/Toon Link, Roy/Marth, Mario/Luigi, Daisy/Peach etc.). All Stars' characters feel much far more differentiated, and the Super System makes the game about fighting, not about zone control.

Look, I'm not saying one or the other is definitely "better," but they are just very different mechanically, and some will still prefer Smash and some will like this more. They are both great.

Posted by Levio

I hope it gets a sequel with a way bigger budget. That could be great.

Posted by Chalphy

I just don't get why Capcom insisted on using Donte over classic Dante? Did they think this game wouldn't sell well in Japan and forced him in for more sales? At least Project X Zone got it right.

Posted by Gold_Skulltulla

I feel like this game is less an homage to the PlayStation brand and more of a representation of its current status. It shows a company clinging to marketing tie-ins where they can get something out of it. The whole thing feels very "PS3" instead of encompassing the whole of the world of PlayStation. And I'm talking about "launch PS3" with it's gaudy gloss and Spiderman font. There's been great stuff on PS3 to be sure, but it's not a rich enough valley to mine for nostalgia.

Posted by courage_wolf

The roster should be much better, but it is passable. I think what hurts this game most is the fighting mechanics. As far as I can tell the developers went for a weird Smash Bros and Capcom fighting game hybrid to the detriment of the game. The more technical aspect makes it less flashy and chaotic than Smash Bros and the random items and stage effects ensure that it won't get a second glance from people who care about EVO. The game puts itself in the awkward place of disappointing fans of both game styles and has to be a lot more bland than it should be. PS All Stars would have been a lot more fun if the devs had not tried to make a semi serious fighting game out of it.

Posted by Deathpooky

@JesterPC238 said:

It's... Not though...

I mean Jeff didn't particularly love it, fine, that's totally his right. I don't know if you've played it, I don't feel that it is bad, antiseptic or "all business." Yes, there are a lot of Bioshock references in it, but they are all fun, and none of them feel like they hurt the game. Big Daddy is a lot of fun to play as, and mixes in well from a gameplay perspective.

Personally, I like this game a hell of a lot more than Smash Bros. Every Smash character falls into one of three categories for me: Heavy, medium, and light. Aside from the maneuverability of each character they all feel very, very similar. Not to mention the number of clones (Fox/Falco/Wolf, Link/Toon Link, Roy/Marth, Mario/Luigi, Daisy/Peach etc.). All Stars' characters feel much far more differentiated, and the Super System makes the game about fighting, not about zone control.

Look, I'm not saying one or the other is definitely "better," but they are just very different mechanically, and some will still prefer Smash and some will like this more. They are both great.

I've played a few matches, but haven't liked it. For the roster, Sony just has less to work with, and a lot to me seemed shoehorned in to meet their requirements, as opposed to starting with a base of characters you've known for decades. That was the initial appeal of Smash Brothers back on N64. They did good with what they had, but it doesn't pull the heartstrings the way Nintendo's roster did.

Gameplay wise, I just didn't get into it and came away with a lot of complaints:

The second to second fighting isn't as important as getting off your supers correctly, which makes a lot of the game seem unimportant. I have almost no fun with the basic fighting itself, since the damage I'm doing could all be for naught, instead of chipping away on someone's percentage efficiently. It makes it seem a lot more random when death can come out of nowhere, even if there is some strategy there. Smash Brothers was random, but you could plan around it, and out of nowhere deaths only occurred through specific items or once you had some damage on you - here every character has an instakill move they can pull out at almost any time. This all also made me not care about any of the character variation beyond finding a reliable super.

Managing your super meter doesn't work the same way as managing your percentage, though that appears to be what they intended it to be. For instance, there's no fun/strategy of surviving since there's no damage - instead just trying to avoid supers, regardless of how well you've fought. On the flipside, the lack of damage causing guys to fly away takes away a ton of the fun in smacking people around and trying to kill them once they've been heavily damaged. And one guy sucking can "feed" another person's super meter, letting him come after me even if I've played well.

Finally, the third level supers, supposedly the big "fun" part of the game, for the most part all have the feel of the hammer from Smash Bros - an annoying, largely undodgeable effect that will get automatically get some kills. We always turned off the hammer for that reason. I can't see ever using them really, which means the craziest part of the game goes by the wayside.

Posted by solidejake

Well, as usual, I don't agree with your rating, but what are opinions for, right?

Posted by Scotto

@Cyrisaurus said:

So reviewing your review makes me an asshole?

No, phrasing your "review" like an asshole does. Going down a "checklist" of what you apparently think are ignorant cliches surrounding the reviews of this game, is being a dick, and you know it. And then saying "oh I thought you'd be better than this!" for good measure.

Posted by probablytuna

Well for what it's worth, at least PaRappa is back in the game. Well, a game. Here's hoping we see a next generation PaRappa title!

Posted by whatisdelicious

There's nothing more boring in a discussion about PS All-Stars than "why don't they have this character?" Who fucking cares? The original Super Smash Bros. had 12 characters. Now Super Smash Bros. has like a billion and half of them are just carbon copies of the other half. I'm totally fine with this game having the characters it has. They'll add more in the next game if people stop being such dicks about it so they actually get a chance to make another one. Just stop getting so hung up on the "All-Stars" term and judge the game on whether or not it's fun as-is with the characters it does have rather than constantly complaining about the characters it doesn't.

Edited by JuMP

: @Cyrisaurus said:

@Deathpooky said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

So does that really make me an asshole? Because I'm willing to understand that a lot of this game's potential was not in the hands of the developer?

How should that affect the review of the game? I don't care if the game ended up sucking because the cafeteria stopped serving Taco Tuesdays - all that matters is the end product. You don't give movie games leniency because they have tons of contract and time constraints put on them.

No, you don't get it.

It would be like saying The Avengers movie sucks because Spider-Man isn't in it.

That statement is true but irrelevant. If I'm going to see a movie titled "The Avengers" I'm not expecting Spiderman to be in it. But if I go to see a film called "The Avengers" and The Avengers are not in it, then I'd be legitimately disappointed. If the game had a different name (eg: PS3 All-Stars or Random Video Game Character Battle Royale), I wouldn't be as disappointed with the lack of a Crash Bandicoot. But if you're going to make and market a game that's supposed to capture the whole legacy of Playstation gaming (which from all the coverage I've seen, that seems to be the angle they're going for), then you are setting up expectations for gamers about the roster of that game that you need to fulfill, regardless of how hard the business is to pull off.

That being said, I'm still looking forward to playing this game, and although my own personal nostalgia with the Playstation doesn't go that far back to PS1 (I got onboard with PS2), I like Smash Bros and would like to play a similar type of game in HD graphics.

Posted by whatisdelicious

Also, the complaining that Cole and Evil Cole isn't just a "press triangle" thing is silly. The whole premise of inFAMOUS is that being good or evil has a real tangible effect on your powers, your play style, everything. That's the point of the game. Good Cole is all about precision. Evil Cole is all about chaos. They have different powers. SuperBot made it pretty clear that they wanted to represent every character in a way that is extremely faithful to the source material. The way to do that with Cole is to split him up. And sure enough, the characters feel appreciably different, much more than just palette swaps.

Imagine trying to represent Shepard from Mass Effect as one character in a fighting game. How does he play? Does he use powers or guns or both? Does he work alone or heavily use his squadmates? What class is he? Is he a paragon or a renegade? Is he even a "he"?

You just couldn't do it.

Posted by whatisdelicious

@JuMP said:

That statement is true but irrelevant. If I'm going to see a movie titled "The Avengers" I'm not expecting Spiderman to be in it. But if I go to see a film called "The Avengers" and The Avengers are not in it, then I'd be legitimately disappointed.

Spider-Man has been in The Avengers before. So his analogy is kind of perfect, actually.

Posted by JuMP

I'll be honest that my Avengers knowledge is limited to the film, so I'll give both of you that, but I still think my point about the developer setting expectations and not fulfilling those expectations is still valid.

Posted by OneManX

@Hailinel said:

@Yummylee said:

Concerning the two Coles, I think it's really no different from how there's both Mario and Luigi in SSB's. I mean technically they're different characters, but when it comes down to it Luigi is just a taller Mario wearing a different coloured outfit, and the personalities for each variations of Cole are of course drastically different from one another. I imagine each Cole even has his own unique moveset like in the inFAMOUS games themselves?

I'm not trying to defend this game or anything mind you as I have no interest in playing it anyway, but I just wanted to air my thoughts to anyone who perhaps regarded putting in two different Coles a little weird. Of course I won't deny that the roster is still a little weak all the same... A Big Daddy before even Kazuma Kiryu?! Let alone all of the other bigger Playstation omissions? GTFO, Sony U_U

Mario and Luigi are two different characters with their own identities and personalities (however thin they may be). The idea that they are the same as Cole and Evil Cole (the same character, but one is just pissy) doesn't really fly. In Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus and Zero Suit Samus occupy one roster space. There's absolutely no reason that Sony couldn't do the same for Cole.

Sucker Punch doesn't even treat the Coles as the same character, and they play differently outside of one is red and the other is blue. In the footage I've seen, it seems like they did a good job at showing off the differences between the Coles.

As for the game itself, looks alright, doubtful I'll play it, but I can rent it, have some fun for a weekend.

Posted by Hailinel

@whatisdelicious said:

Also, the complaining that Cole and Evil Cole isn't just a "press triangle" thing is silly. The whole premise of inFAMOUS is that being good or evil has a real tangible effect on your powers, your play style, everything. That's the point of the game. Good Cole is all about precision. Evil Cole is all about chaos. They have different powers. SuperBot made it pretty clear that they wanted to represent every character in a way that is extremely faithful to the source material. The way to do that with Cole is to split him up. And sure enough, the characters feel appreciably different, much more than just palette swaps.

Imagine trying to represent Shepard from Mass Effect as one character in a fighting game. How does he play? Does he use powers or guns or both? Does he work alone or heavily use his squadmates? What class is he? Is he a paragon or a renegade? Is he even a "he"?

You just couldn't do it.

I said it before in these comments and I'll say it again; they could have easily given Cole and Evil Cole a single roster slot, just as SSBB gave Samus and Zero-Suit Samus, and for that matter, Zelda and Sheik, shared roster slots. Separating Cole and Evil Cole into distinct character slots just smacks of the dev team not having enough characters to work with, and so they doubled up. It doesn't matter that they have different powers; Zelda and Sheik are completely different in terms of their play-style, as are both variations of Samus.

Posted by Hailinel

@OneManX said:

@Hailinel said:

@Yummylee said:

Concerning the two Coles, I think it's really no different from how there's both Mario and Luigi in SSB's. I mean technically they're different characters, but when it comes down to it Luigi is just a taller Mario wearing a different coloured outfit, and the personalities for each variations of Cole are of course drastically different from one another. I imagine each Cole even has his own unique moveset like in the inFAMOUS games themselves?

I'm not trying to defend this game or anything mind you as I have no interest in playing it anyway, but I just wanted to air my thoughts to anyone who perhaps regarded putting in two different Coles a little weird. Of course I won't deny that the roster is still a little weak all the same... A Big Daddy before even Kazuma Kiryu?! Let alone all of the other bigger Playstation omissions? GTFO, Sony U_U

Mario and Luigi are two different characters with their own identities and personalities (however thin they may be). The idea that they are the same as Cole and Evil Cole (the same character, but one is just pissy) doesn't really fly. In Smash Bros. Brawl, Samus and Zero Suit Samus occupy one roster space. There's absolutely no reason that Sony couldn't do the same for Cole.

Sucker Punch doesn't even treat the Coles as the same character, and they play differently outside of one is red and the other is blue. In the footage I've seen, it seems like they did a good job at showing off the differences between the Coles.

As for the game itself, looks alright, doubtful I'll play it, but I can rent it, have some fun for a weekend.

It's ridiculous that they don't, considering that Cole and Evil Cole are just good and evil variations of the same character. No, they're not identical in every way, but can you really blame people raising eyebrows at the way they were included?

Posted by Lysergica33

I have no problems with the idea of Sony doing a Sony themed Smash Bros game but the roster is unfathomably awful. A bunch of characters from multi-platform games, big daddy from a game that released on PC and 360 a year earlier than the subpar PS3 version, and no Crash Bandicoot? Yeah... Going to give this one a miss. Shame really. I wanted to give Sony all of my moneys for this :<

Posted by whatisdelicious

@Hailinel: Yeah well Smash Bros. also has like three different versions of Link, three versions of Fox, two of Captain Falcon, etc.

Just because Smash does something doesn't mean that All-Stars is bound to doing the same thing. Smash makes plenty of mistakes too. That people are getting so incensed over there being two versions of Cole that play appreciably differently, representing a game where you're supposed to end up with radically different versions of the same character by the end of the game, is laughable. Like I said, it's like trying to represent Shepard in one slot.

I'm not saying that they couldn't or shouldn't have forced Cole into one slot. I'm just saying that it's not a big deal, and that people should just cut the game some fucking slack already. Jeff said it himself in his review that everybody is going to obsess over their own dream roster. Well, it's a dream roster, Jeff. By definition, it can't and won't exist, so just judge the game as-is rather than listing all the ways it falls short of your perfect fantasy version of the game.

Posted by whatisdelicious

@Lysergica33: It's still a really fun game. At a certain point, does it really matter what characters are in it if it's fun as hell? I mean, they've got Heihachi spawning bears, Parappa rapping Gotta Believe, Toro doing... Toro stuff, etc. The roster, for the first game in what hopefully ends up being a series, is super weird and full of deep cuts. The last boss is Polygon Man for Christ's sake. Just because there isn't Vib Ribbon or Crash Bandicoot doesn't mean they played it safe with the roster. My housemates (who both play games) already recognize only like half the characters. They did fine with having a quirky roster, and it's a super fun game to boot. Judge it on that, and support them so they'll get a chance to make another game that does have Crash and others in it.

  • 127 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3