Log in or sign up to comment
81 Comments
  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Dan_CiTi

That's too bad, the game wasn't quite as good as Smash Bros. in a handful of key ways, but had a lot of smart ideas Smash could learn from.

Posted by OfficeGamer

man who plays these games anyway

Posted by peritus

Ever since the vita at E3 i get the impression sony doesn't believe in its products anymore. Getting the same impression from everything playstation all stars related. Even if they parted ways amicably Also where was crash bandicoot? Seriously.

Posted by manicraider

In other words Sony likes to Hump 'em and Dump 'em.

Posted by Katkillad

I don't know how you screw up blatantly ripping off a game like Smash Bros, but this game managed to do it. Their attempts at changing the game to make it different just made it worse.

Edited by bellgloom

@doppelgamer you can say that Power Stone and SSB share a genre, but only in the broadest sense. The core conceit of SSB is a mascot-driven four-player brawler; PSAS is clearly trying to do the same thing. As for MK and SF, they're closer in game mechanics than Power Stone and SSB, sure, but MK brought enough new things to table to justify its existence as a singular product -- more graphic depictions of violence, mo-capped character art, fatalities, etc. If you actually want a blatant SF ripoff, check out Fighter's History. Point being, the rip-off label is open to a degree of semantic ambiguity, but it clearly applies much more to PSAS than the examples you're giving.

Edited by Doppelgamer

@bellgloom said:

@Doppelgamer uh, SSB is a Power Stone rip-off? Power stone is a 3D Arena fighting game with life bars. SSB is a 2D mascot-filled brawler with a unique KO mechanic. Literally almost no basis for comparison.

Actually, I was using it as an example, not actually saying that it was a rip-off. While there are many similarities, SSB and Power Stone have quite a bit of differences too. To use another example, people had called Mortal Kombat a Street Fighter II rip off back in the day, when they were merely the same genre, but close in several areas. My point is that the Sony game is probably a LOT closer to SSB than Power Stone, but it's still sharing a genre. Does Sony All-Stars not have different moves, characters, zones, music and so forth? Are there not games that share the 2D and life bar mechanic? Have there not been fighting games featuring characters from a company line-up before? (SNK, Capcom, Namco, etc...)

Posted by kenniWORLDPEACE

yea, i didnt enjoy this game very much. they should have just went all in, and made Smash Bros: the sony version. the way they handled health and k.o's just wasnt for me, i guess. i hope the devs get another chance with something else though.

Edited by graf1k

To everybody calling Sony dicks or talking about how unfortunate this is, did you guys miss the part where it says their "working agreement ended amicably"? They aren't being liquidated or forced to do a bunch of Vita ports or something else they don't want to do. Aside from fully funding another game of the dev's choosing, which wasn't much of an option, Sony pretty much handled this as well as they could. The studio stays together and are free to do what they want, and Sony is unburdened by having yet another studio making games that just aren't selling. They still have SCE Japan, Polyphony, Santa Monica, Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, Guerilla and Media Molecule so they're looking pretty strong still.

Posted by Bourbon_Warrior

Terrible games deserve terrible sales.

Posted by bellgloom

@Doppelgamer uh, SSB is a Power Stone rip-off? Power stone is a 3D Arena fighting game with life bars. SSB is a 2D mascot-filled brawler with a unique KO mechanic. Literally almost no basis for comparison.

Edited by Doppelgamer

@Hailinel said:

@Doppelgamer said:

Isn't this what happens, when a contracted developer finishes their project and is not needed for more work? I hope they find more projects to work on soon.

They weren't a contracted developer. They were a development house that Sony themselves funded and established.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads up. One or two sites had people saying that they were contracted.

I haven't played the game, but I have played SSB many times. I can see how the game might be considered a "rip off", but then wouldn't SSB be a "rip off" of games like Power Stone? Either way, I don't care. I just wish these people well.

Posted by Hailinel

@Doppelgamer said:

Isn't this what happens, when a contracted developer finishes their project and is not needed for more work? I hope they find more projects to work on soon.

They weren't a contracted developer. They were a development house that Sony themselves funded and established.

@Dagbiker said:

@Hailinel

@Dagbiker said:

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

I have all the sympathy in the world for those that lost their jobs, but what Superbot produced was in no way innovative.

That game wasnt...

It wasn't. Maybe if they have the chance to make another game, they can do something more original, but SuperBot's primary gaol with PSAS was just aping Smash Bros. as much they possibly could, and then throwing in a few different mechanics so that it didn't play exactly the same. What they produced was a poor Smash clone that wasn't fun to play and had some utterly ludicrous online bugs.

Posted by VargasPrime

It's unfortunate. If Sony had done their due diligence and actually gone through whatever channels necessary to license some of the third-party properties that were virtually synonymous with the PS1 and PS2, I have a feeling this game would have interested a lot more people.

Posted by Dagbiker
@Hailinel

@Dagbiker said:

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

I have all the sympathy in the world for those that lost their jobs, but what Superbot produced was in no way innovative.

That game wasnt...
Posted by hermes

@Doppelgamer said:

Isn't this what happens, when a contracted developer finishes their project and is not needed for more work? I hope they find more projects to work on soon.

Based on Yang comments and changes in the development plans of DLC, I would guess they weren't expecting it.

Posted by Doppelgamer

Isn't this what happens, when a contracted developer finishes their project and is not needed for more work? I hope they find more projects to work on soon.

Posted by ripelivejam

i didn't play it (stop reading there), but i have a feeling this could've been a great thing, especially with how the GB crew envisioned it as being batshit-insane and obscure with references and characters. doesn't look like it was a bad game at all, just hampered by some poor design choices and a (probably understandable) lack of prime Sony properties. hell it could've been the thing to re-ignite interest in Sony's first party development, though maybe that's a tad TOO optimistic.

here's hoping things stay on the up and up over at Superbot.

Posted by RE_Player1

@Enigma777 said:

@Hailinel

@I_smell said:

but what about more DLC where I can download the main guy from the PSP version of Resistance- or the protagonist of LAIR? Will we ever see the Sports Champions DLC level?

Yeah, the DLC isn't exactly setting the world on fire, either. Sure, Kat from Gravity Rush seems popular, but some random guy from Starhawk?

Seriously, are there any people here with fondness for the cast of Starhawk?

Me.

Me too. People talk shit about Starhawk but it is a solid game all around.

Edited by gesi1223

@evanbower said:

@gesi1223

@clank543 said:

I feel bad for them, but did anyone HONESTLY expect this game to be a smash hit? At some point, these developers and publishers need to get realistic about what sells and what doesn't. While this game seemed well playing enough, it was destined to failure when they slapped the 60 dollar price tag on it instead of making it a low cost downloadable game.

I'm sure the developers were being realistic. You don't see them making some kind of bitter outcry about it. It's the audience that are not being realistic, with their "smash bros killer" mindset and thinking devs always have the time and funding to make every single idea they have into something that will blow everyone's minds.

But really though, should I feel obligated to pay sixty dollars for a game that isn't as good as Smash Bros and doesn't blow my mind with its ideas? I don't think it's totally unrealistic for an audience to be indifferent to a game when that's the transaction they're offered.

I don't find $60 for an "ok" game to be worth it either, but a ton of them are made and no one does anything about those. I'm only pointing out the fact the devs are being blamed for bad sales, when it's more the fault of publisher and consumer. Sure the devs could have come up with something totally different, it could have been a way better. But they are not to blame for bad pricing and the people who can't enjoy the game because its not smash bros.

Private messaged by accident

Posted by Demoskinos

@cooljammer00: Activision owns Spyro not Sony

Posted by spraynardtatum

Wine em and dine em am I right Sony?

Posted by GooieGreen

@cooljammer00: Given the NDAs around they talks they had with Activision, it is hard to say it was even possible to get those characters on board.

Posted by cooljammer00

I hope they got paid well for developing All Stars. It didn't sell well but they were probably hampered by Sony not hawking up the cash for Crash or Spyro.

Posted by MetalGearSunny

Sony Don't Care

Posted by probablytuna

Funny how they were just talking about how little support Sony gave to the game during Unprofessional Fridays. Dick move Sony.

Posted by Enigma777
@Hailinel

@I_smell said:

but what about more DLC where I can download the main guy from the PSP version of Resistance- or the protagonist of LAIR? Will we ever see the Sports Champions DLC level?

Yeah, the DLC isn't exactly setting the world on fire, either. Sure, Kat from Gravity Rush seems popular, but some random guy from Starhawk?

Seriously, are there any people here with fondness for the cast of Starhawk?

Me.
Posted by Hailinel

@I_smell said:

but what about more DLC where I can download the main guy from the PSP version of Resistance- or the protagonist of LAIR? Will we ever see the Sports Champions DLC level?

Yeah, the DLC isn't exactly setting the world on fire, either. Sure, Kat from Gravity Rush seems popular, but some random guy from Starhawk?

Seriously, are there any people here with fondness for the cast of Starhawk?

Edited by I_smell

but what about more DLC where I can download the main guy from the PSP version of Resistance- or the protagonist of LAIR?
Will we ever see the Sports Champions DLC level?

Posted by Hailinel

@Dagbiker said:

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

I have all the sympathy in the world for those that lost their jobs, but what Superbot produced was in no way innovative.

Posted by DarthOrange
@WesternWizard said:

@casper_ said:

i think they employed both seth killian and clockwork. i hope everything turns out alright for everybody involved.

Pretty sure Killian works for Santa Monica not super bot. Clock, howver, does work directly for the dev as a community manager last I knew.

Yea Seth was always clear in interviews that he works for Sony Santa Monica and was simply overseeing All-Stars. I can see Clockwork getting shit canned though as having a community manager is probably not a priority for them right now. 
Online
Posted by evanbower
@gesi1223

@clank543 said:

I feel bad for them, but did anyone HONESTLY expect this game to be a smash hit? At some point, these developers and publishers need to get realistic about what sells and what doesn't. While this game seemed well playing enough, it was destined to failure when they slapped the 60 dollar price tag on it instead of making it a low cost downloadable game.

I'm sure the developers were being realistic. You don't see them making some kind of bitter outcry about it. It's the audience that are not being realistic, with their "smash bros killer" mindset and thinking devs always have the time and funding to make every single idea they have into something that will blow everyone's minds.

But really though, should I feel obligated to pay sixty dollars for a game that isn't as good as Smash Bros and doesn't blow my mind with its ideas? I don't think it's totally unrealistic for an audience to be indifferent to a game when that's the transaction they're offered.
Posted by gesi1223

@clank543 said:

I feel bad for them, but did anyone HONESTLY expect this game to be a smash hit? At some point, these developers and publishers need to get realistic about what sells and what doesn't. While this game seemed well playing enough, it was destined to failure when they slapped the 60 dollar price tag on it instead of making it a low cost downloadable game.

I'm sure the developers were being realistic. You don't see them making some kind of bitter outcry about it. It's the audience that are not being realistic, with their "smash bros killer" mindset and thinking devs always have the time and funding to make every single idea they have into something that will blow everyone's minds.

Posted by Krenor

@Dagbiker said:

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

lol

Posted by FuriousJodo

@HadesTimes: There was something of a Smash clone on XBLA lke 5-6 years ago. It didn't do very well, I think it was called Small Arms or something like that. It didn't have any MS characters or anything but it was basically Smash-esque.

Posted by Deathpooky

@Fobwashed said:

Unfortunate. Feel like the game coulda been better if they just went ahead and copied the remaining 10% of Smash Brother's that made it awesome. I never could wrap my head around why they went with the no damage, only super moves kill system they went with. Well, that and character selection. Half the roster was pretty cool but the other half was a bit lacking. I know that Smash Brother's has a bunch of doubles and palette swap type characters too but they also have way more characters in general.

I wonder what they're gonna be up to next. Hope we hear from them soon.

Pretty much this. Roster was limited and a little weird, but I can't imagine that was the developer's fault. New Dante and Big Daddy were undoubtedly decisions from on high, but definitely gave the game a mercenary, co-marketing feeling.

But the no-damage, all-supers gameplay decisions were baffling and have to be on the developer. I played a ton of Smash Brothers back in the day, could not get into this at all based on those two things.

Posted by WesternWizard

@casper_ said:

i think they employed both seth killian and clockwork. i hope everything turns out alright for everybody involved.

Pretty sure Killian works for Santa Monica not super bot. Clock, howver, does work directly for the dev as a community manager last I knew.

Posted by whatisdelicious

@Dagbiker said:

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

Oh, people on the Internet don't care about developers' jobs, silly. They only care whether that game they didn't even play scored highly on Metacritic, and if it didn't all those people should be fired immediately.

Posted by whatisdelicious

It’s way different than Smash Bros. in some fundamental ways, and I like both approaches. Smash is a dance that escalates and gets wilder as it goes; All-Stars is a staccato experience that stays consistent until shit starts popping off at random and surprising times. They’re very different and both really fun, but when it comes down to it, I prefer Smash.

But I wonder if there’s even going to be a second game. I hope so. All-Stars was really fun and a great blueprint for a second game that learns from and builds off of the first to make something really cool.

Posted by Dagbiker

@galloughs said:

And nothing of value was lost.

Except peoples jobs, and potentially more games and innovation in game mechanics, but yes. Beside that worthless crap, nothing of value.

Posted by mrfluke
Posted by galloughs

And nothing of value was lost.

Posted by ProfessorEss
@Murph said:

All-Stars was a fine game, did exactly what it was supposed to do and even is somewhat fun.

I would argue that if it is only "somewhat" fun then it was only "somewhat" doing what it was supposed to do. 
 
I mean, was there something else it was supposed to be doing?
Posted by FierceDeity

@clank543 said:

I feel bad for them, but did anyone HONESTLY expect this game to be a smash hit? At some point, these developers and publishers need to get realistic about what sells and what doesn't. While this game seemed well playing enough, it was destined to failure when they slapped the 60 dollar price tag on it instead of making it a low cost downloadable game.

Oh, you! :-)

Posted by LoktarOgar

@Ehker said:

Still don't get why Giant Bomb gets so worked up over Sony's character choices, especially when Sony's hands are so often tied on rights, and they're making the smart business decision of more modern characters instead of obscure references to their past that won't push games they're currently selling.

I guess it's less of a "why the hell" and more of a "it's a goddamn tragedy that" characters who should have been obvious choices aren't in there, kneecapping the game before it ever even learned to stand.

Posted by LiQuid3600
Edited by Ehker

Still don't get why Giant Bomb gets so worked up over Sony's character choices, especially when Sony's hands are so often tied on rights, and they're making the smart business decision of more modern characters instead of obscure references to their past that won't push games they're currently selling.

Also hypocritical when some of the loudest objectors to Sony's choices openly mock those that didn't like the choices made in latest Devil May Cry. If we're going to mock the DMC crowd for not liking character choices, don't lose your shit on the characters Sony picks for their games.

Posted by Cykke

They made a shitty game and now they're paying for it.

Fine by me. Next time, don't make a shitty rip-off.

Edited by Sooty

I still find these two things insane about this game:

- NEW Dante over old Dante who actually has some sort of a Sony background (though like Heihachi, he is also multi-platform)

- A BIG DADDY IS IN THE GAME, you know, coming out of that once Xbox exclusive

and no that isn't old Dante loyalty, it's just dumb to bring in characters that are multi-platform in a meant-to-be PlayStation All-Stars game, you can make a case that old Dante is a classic Sony thing as DMC 1-3 were PlayStation gigs for a long time.

Posted by MjHealy

Yep, another in the long line of "Bummer Developer Closure of the Week."

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2