My problems with Battle Royale and Sony as a whole.

According to this tweet by Sid Shuman, the full roster for PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale has been revealed (and yes I originally read this on IGN).

Is anyone else disappointed? I figured they still had a few more characters to reveal before launch. Why the hell would they blow their wad two months before the release of the game? Way to kill off any hype building up to the release of this game. They should have spread them out more and revealed them up to the week before launch. Fucking Sony executives are dumber then a sack of potatoes.

PlayStation All-Stars could have (should have) been the biggest marketing tool of all time. It should have included All the stars of PlayStation. It should have been a celebration of all things PlayStation. That blu-ray should have been stuffed to capacity with extras showing mini documentary's of the origins of the playable characters, all of the games they are featured in, and some words from the creators of the franchise, as well as a demo of each of their games, ala Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Unlike Smash Brothers, this game should have only included one character per franchise, the biggest middle finger to Nintendo and Microsoft, a way of telling them "Fuck you, you don't have enough franchises to do this!". It would have allowed casual PlayStation gamers to be able to see the PlayStation in the same light that I do. PlayStation has the biggest, most diverse list of exclusive games out of the current console makers yet Sony does nothing to let people know this. I have already made a blog about the characters I would have liked to see and the problems I have with Big Daddy, Evil Cole, Raiden being in this game so I will not repeat that here (feel free to read that blog post here). Why not teach people about lesser known PlayStation characters like Fred Neuman, Aya Brea, Commander, Selvaria Bles, Leonard, Rohn, Cullen Gray, and Finn? It would have led to some people picking up those games after learning about them in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale.

And then there are the stages they made. Did we really need two God of War stages? There were so many other PlayStation exclusive games that would have made for great stages like: Afrika, MAG, Gran Turismo, Starhawk, MLB: The Show, MotorStorm, SingStar, EyePet, Wipeout, Tales from Space, Katamari, Kinetica, Super Stardust, Journey, Calling All Cars!, Echochrome, PAIN, PixelJunk, PlayStation Home, Super Rub 'a' Dub, Eye of Judgment, Mobile Suit Gundam, SOCOM, Crush, Invizimals, Zombie Tycoon, Escape Plan, Rag Doll Fu, Tokyo Jungle, Sports Champions, ModNation Racers, Sound Shapes, Wonderbook or Little Deviants. But no, they decided "let’s use God of War twice!". They literally have enough exclusives to only use each franchise once while making a stage and filling out the roster of playable characters. Once again, a perfect opportunity to stretch that middle finger out to Nintendo and Microsoft wasted.

Then there is the stunning lack of Crash and Spyro. Why the fuck are these two not in the game? I have two theories. 1) Sony was actually selling its roster spots (which is why all the third party characters have a game coming up) and they would have had to pay Activision to use Crash and Spyro and the publisher (that damned publisher) decided it would be an unnecessary waste of money and then went on to green light more Wonderbook games, or 2) They already have the characters and are going to sell them as DLC.

To me, the thing I love most about Super Smash Bros. is that it is a celebration of all things Nintendo. All of the extras you could unlock in “The Vault” the trophies that each had a large description, and the huge amount of songs were great fan service. The combat is also simple to play and understand for people of any and all ages.

The combat system in PlayStation All-Stars is fun (trust me, I have played it) but unless you play it for yourself it just seems overly complicated. They should have focused on making it simple fun for everyone, but instead Sony hired a group of hardcore fighting game nerds who ended up creating an overly complex fighting system that isn't straight forward and thus isn't inviting to casual players (which is the audience this should be aimed at). Capture the casual audience and once they see all the interesting PlayStation characters, they go out and buy their favorite characters game helping them make the transition from casual gamer to core gamer. And when that transition happens, they will remember who made them fall in love with video games. Taking a new generation of gamers would really help Sony in the long term.

.

This game could have been so much more had it been given more time and a game director that actually was passionate about the PlayStation. Omar Kendall does not seem to give the first shit about PlayStation. Ever since I saw an interview he did with GameTrailers where he said that El Dorado was from Uncharted 2 I knew he was the wrong person to be directing this game (starts at around 1:25 in the video below and you can see even the interviewer is surprised). This game should have had a co-director to go along with Omar (or even replace him entirely with Seth Killian) like Greg Miller, Colin Moriarty, or Will Powers. Yes, I realize a lot of you guys here hate IGN but those two guys, Will (and myself) are the only people that I know of who really understand PlayStation and have an appreciation for all branches of it.

So to sum it all up, I am disappointed that Sony did not do more with this game. If Sony doesn't care then why should anyone else? To call this game a Super Smash Brothers Clone is insulting to Nintendo. While Smash Bros is a celebration of all things Nintendo that happens to also be a fighting game, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale seems like a fun fighting game that happens to feature PlayStation characters. Those Will Powers tweets really paint a grim picture for the future of PlayStation. He mentioned a few games that have absolutely no PR support, including LittleBigPlanet Karting (which I had assumed they were going to push this year along with Battle Royale). Between Sony laying off a big chunk of its PR staff and then releasing a new PS3 model that is actually more expensive then the old one, do they actually expect to do well this holiday season? Whoever the evil Sony Warlord is that seems hell bent on destroying the company, I hope they get rid of him before it is too late.

Edit: Here are those tweets of Will Powers for those of you who don't want to click through the link.

I'll just say that Nintendo has a lot more iconic exclusive characters than Sony has. The same goes for franchises. So how Sony could have raised a middle-finger I'm not sure.

I'll just say that Nintendo has a lot more iconic exclusive characters than Sony has. The same goes for franchises. So how Sony could have raised a middle-finger I'm not sure.

I just think you have too much faith in Sony and this product. It could have been better, but it doesn't look awful.

Why do you want to play on a Wonderbook stage?

@DarthOrange said:

Unlike Smash Brothers, this game should have only included one character per franchise, the biggest middle finger to Nintendo and Microsoft, a way of telling them "Fuck you, you don't have enough franchises to do this!".

There are a million reasons why this would have been a dumb idea, but I'll just leave assist trophies on the table.

@DarthOrange said:

@Snail said:

I'll just say that Nintendo has a lot more iconic exclusive characters than Sony has. The same goes for franchises. So how Sony could have raised a middle-finger I'm not sure.

Exactly my point.. The quality and quantity of the PlayStation exclusives are better, but Sony does not let the people know. Releasing a game that was an amalgamation of PlayStation would have given Sony the opportunity to show all the great games that they have released. Nintendo has iconic characters because they market the shit out of their products, their are still ads for New Super Mario Bros. 2 on TV all the time. After the marketing blitz for Halo 3 that franchise became just as iconic as Nintendo's (arguably even more then Kirby). Meanwhile Sony sends their stuff out to die with barely any marketing (or sometimes none at all). As I said in that last paragraph, somebody at Sony is fucking shit up. Cutting the PR staff in half and raising the price of the PS3 is just completely crazy to me, as was shutting down BigBig and Sony Liverpool. If they keep this shit up I do not think the PlayStation 4 will survive the entire generation, and it will just fizzle out like the Dreamcast.

No, the quality and quantity of the Playstation exclusives isn't better: it's different. What matters most in these games, however, isn't necessarily how good the franchise is but how their quality has translated into iconicism.

You don't achieve that with marketing, or putting your franchise "out there", or whatever it is you're suggesting. Games have to have quality and reside in people's memories, withstand the test of time, all that. Sony doesn't have that nearly as much as Nintendo.

I do think that Spyro not being in that game is complete bullshit though. Maybe there are still hidden characters.

OK:

1. Microsoft isn't even involved in this. How would Sony benefit from dragging them into this?
2. Would a petty pissing match with Nintendo actually accomplish anything?
3. Sony doesn't have as many franchises as you think; a lot of them are second or third party, which may be a licensing hassle.
4. This may oversaturate the roster as it is, trying to list off at least one character from every obscure franchise possible simply for the sake of doing so. As I recall, Nintendo didn't really do that. Marth and Roy only made it in because Fire Emblem's big in Japan and America wanted in on that shit.

@Video_Game_King:

In response to one and two: I'm not actually suggesting Sony should literary say "no one else can do this". If they simply showed off their franchise diversity it would be easy for people to infer.

In response to three: Licensing hassle my ass. Most of those characters are first party characters that belong to Sony (Sony at one point had over a dozen first party studios). And for the ones that aren't, I really doubt small studios like Drink Box Studios or Sumo Digital Ltd. would put up a hassle to allow their property in the game.They would probably be glad just to be a part of it. The only one I can see asking for a large amount of money is Activision for the rights to borrow Crash and Spyro. They would have been worth the money though. I'm thinking it is possible Sony might release them as DLC and give Activision a portion of what is made.

In response to four: I don't think it would over saturate it. These characters are unique enough to warrant their own slot, they aren't just carbon copies of other characters. The Smash Bros Brawl roster is made up entirely by 17 franchises. Sony has already included 2 more then that in its current roster. Perhaps Cullen Gray would be overkill as he is simply a military dude but everyone else I listed here and on my list brings something new and unique to the table. Diversity.

@DarthOrange said:

@Video_Game_King:

In response to one and two: I'm not actually suggesting Sony should literary say "no one else can do this". If they simply showed off their franchise diversity it would be easy for people to infer.

Sony can't compete with Nintendo in that regard. There would be nothing to infer.

@Snail said:

@DarthOrange said:

@Snail said:

I'll just say that Nintendo has a lot more iconic exclusive characters than Sony has. The same goes for franchises. So how Sony could have raised a middle-finger I'm not sure.

Exactly my point.. The quality and quantity of the PlayStation exclusives are better, but Sony does not let the people know. Releasing a game that was an amalgamation of PlayStation would have given Sony the opportunity to show all the great games that they have released. Nintendo has iconic characters because they market the shit out of their products, their are still ads for New Super Mario Bros. 2 on TV all the time. After the marketing blitz for Halo 3 that franchise became just as iconic as Nintendo's (arguably even more then Kirby). Meanwhile Sony sends their stuff out to die with barely any marketing (or sometimes none at all). As I said in that last paragraph, somebody at Sony is fucking shit up. Cutting the PR staff in half and raising the price of the PS3 is just completely crazy to me, as was shutting down BigBig and Sony Liverpool. If they keep this shit up I do not think the PlayStation 4 will survive the entire generation, and it will just fizzle out like the Dreamcast.

No, the quality and quantity of the Playstation exclusives isn't better: it's different. What matters most in these games, however, isn't necessarily how good the franchise is but how their quality has translated into iconicism.

You don't achieve that with marketing, or putting your franchise "out there", or whatever it is you're suggesting. Games have to have quality and reside in people's memories, withstand the test of time, all that. Sony doesn't have that nearly as much as Nintendo.

I do think that Spyro not being in that game is complete bullshit though. Maybe there are still hidden characters.

Keep in mind that Nintendo carries characters over from generation to generation console wise. Sony rarely does not. They have iconic characters that star in quality games for each generation of their console. They don't have multigenerational characters like MS and Nintendo do.

Until the game is properly out, reviews come out, and the gamers finally get their hands on the product then there's no reason to overreact just yet. I remember you bringing up a list before and I think I may have responded to that. I remember a lot of those characters you brought up as mostly being in characters that would be unrecognizable to the franchises they were in. I mean Sony could reach deep, but there's only so far they should go before wasting time on characters that barely anyone would recognize at all. In my opinion, the last few characters they need to get in order for this game to be successful fanservice is just Crash and Spyro, that is all they need. Anyone else they decide to add-in is just fine.

Also @DarthOrange unless Sony did not learn their mistakes from the launch of this generation of consoles, then the PS4 or whatever it will be called won't survive the entire generation. Sony does fine in its marketing for what it has. As said before, they do not have multigenerational iconic characters who warrant the massive amounts of money put in advertisement as much as Master Chief or Mario do. Halo was not made into the iconic franchise when Halo 3 came out. It became one when the first one came out and it solidified its position as iconic with the success of Halo 2. Anyways, you do realize that although the new PS3 model may be more expensive than the current model that it does include more than the current model, right? Without the game and whatever the bundle included, it probably would be cheaper, but probably not after you would have to buy a current $60 game for it anyways. Sony has a few missteps here and there, but they're doing fine this year.

I cant wait to play as the red firework from FantaVision.

Sony doesn't have the roster to make this game a marketing/nostalgia ploy. Very, very few companies do. That's the primary problem with this game. It is based on a thin premise. Though I don't think Sony needs a game like this, or the roster that would come with it, to succeed. Nintendo, on the other hand, does. Nintendo thrives on its creations which is why SSB's roster is so memorable. This brawler fighting game works for Nintendo and not Sony because they have different views on how to run a video game company. I personally think both are perfectly good strategies. But they sure as hell are comparable.

I didn't think Sony owned Spyro (Insomniac) or Aya Brea (Square Enix) or quite a few of the other you mentioned?

Licensing probably make that prohibitive and in some cases the owners may not want their brand tied only to Sony.

I agree though revealing the whole lineup is silly. Gotta build the hype ya know?

Anyways like the the passion @DarthOrange . Personally I lean Nintendo on games like this so I don't really care if Royale is good. But I figure as long as it does decent they will get better for the next game.

I do agree though that I think at the corporate level Sony seems lost at the moment. The Vita, what the heck is going on with that? They keep this up they will be the Sega not Nintendo.

I like my PS3 a lot and would really be upset if they don't make it to the next round of consoles. Nintendo is supposedly stating to poach japanese publishers back to their platform, if that's the case I'll probably follow .I just don't know if Sony knows who they are anymore.

I really want to like this, but everytime I see it, it just looks so blah to me. I like Smash Bros. because it has better iconic characters. Sony characters don't seem to fit this type of game that well.

Sony has the most interesting and diverse characters to chose. Here is my list of worthy characters:

• Amaterasu
• Aya Brea
• BOY
• Buzz
• Charlie Tunoku
• Claude Speed
• Cloud Strife
• Cole MacGrath
• Colonel Radec
• Crash Bandicoot
• Dante
• Ethan Mars
• Fat Princess
• Gabe Logan
• Gene
• Ico
• Jak &Daxter
• Jennifer Tate
• Jodie Holmes
• Joel
• Kain
• Kat
• Kazuma Kiryu
• Keats
• King of All Cosmos
• Kratos
• Lara Croft
• Nariko
• Nathan Drake
• Nathan Hale
• Parappa
• Patapon
• Pomeranian
• Quico
• Raiden
• Ratchet &Clank
• Sackboy
• Samanosuke Akechi
• Selvaria Bles
• Sir Daniel Fortesque
• Solid Snake
• Sly Cooper
• Spyro
• Sweet Tooth
• Toro Inoue
• Wander

@DarthOrange said:

According to this tweet by Sid Shuman, the full roster for PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale has been revealed (and yes I originally read this on IGN).

The comments on that IGN article are amazing. Amazingly stupid. People try to justify the lack of characters saying that the first Super Smash Bros. only had 12. 13 years ago.

The stupidity of the raging, butthurt fanboy will never cease to amaze me.

Sony can't compete with Nintendo in that regard. There would be nothing to infer.

Sony doesn't have the roster to make this game a marketing/nostalgia ploy. Very, very few companies do. That's the primary problem with this game. It is based on a thin premise. Though I don't think Sony needs a game like this, or the roster that would come with it, to succeed. Nintendo, on the other hand, does. Nintendo thrives on its creations which is why SSB's roster is so memorable. 

I really want to like this, but everytime I see it, it just looks so blah to me. I like Smash Bros. because it has better iconic characters. Sony characters don't seem to fit this type of game that well.

Anyways, you do realize that although the new PS3 model may be more expensive than the current model that it does include more than the current model, right? Without the game and whatever the bundle included, it probably would be cheaper, but probably not after you would have to buy a current $60 game for it anyways. Sony has a few missteps here and there, but they're doing fine this year.

I didn't think Sony owned Spyro (Insomniac) or Aya Brea (Square Enix) or quite a few of the other you mentioned?

Licensing probably make that prohibitive and in some cases the owners may not want their brand tied only to Sony.

Nintendo is supposedly stating to poach japanese publishers back to their platform, if that's the case I'll probably follow .I just don't know if Sony knows who they are anymore.

@DarthOrange said:

Every time Omar speaks about PlayStation All-Stars he focuses on the gameplay instead of the characters.

Maybe because it's a game?

@DarthOrange said:

They needed someone who could say "This is why PlayStation matters, and this is why PlayStation sells well around the world to all the different markets".

Why would Sony need to say that? Maybe if it was the Vita, which some people still have doubts over, then yea, the message may be warranted. But it isn't. It's the PS3. It's already proven itself, and it's already enjoyed a good amount of success. Sony has nothing to prove.

My biggest problem with PSABR is the super ugly UI and lack of personality.

@DarthOrange said:

Every time Omar speaks about PlayStation All-Stars he focuses on the gameplay instead of the characters.

Maybe because it's a game?

@DarthOrange said:

They needed someone who could say "This is why PlayStation matters, and this is why PlayStation sells well around the world to all the different markets".

Why would Sony need to say that? Maybe if it was the Vita, which some people still have doubts over, then yea, the message may be warranted. But it isn't. It's the PS3. It's already proven itself, and it's already enjoyed a good amount of success. Sony has nothing to prove.

@DarthOrange said:

Those Parasite Eve games have only appeared on PlayStation, they are already associated with Sony. Square would probably give Aya for free if Sony agreed to throw Lightning into the roster as well to build up some hype for the next Final Fantasy 13 game. Sony used to own the rights to Spyro but sold them to Activision along with the rights to Crash. I can't imagine Activision having a problem with Sony using Crash, but with Skylanders becoming such a big thing perhaps they don't want to let go of Spyro.

Perhaps, but I think you are giving large companies too much credit for how logical they are. I suspect it's much more involved than you think.

but yeah I do agree with you on that Sony has been making some pretty poor decisions as of late.

i want crash thats all i want.

@DarthOrange: For Smash Bros., Sakurai has always focused on both the gameplay and the notalgia/fanservice element. He's done just as much in other games he's directed (see: Kid Icarus: Uprising).

Comparatively, Kendall is no one special. What is this love and vision he presents that you shower him with admiration for? Because I've played a demo version of it, and I have no idea where it is. The game feels soulless. The combat isn't fun. It's such a shameless copy of what it aspires to be that it has no heart of its own.

Id take a broken ass Sony Smash Budz over another GoW prequel. But yeah duder this is just Sony being Sony. They seem not care about making shitty decisions.

No Crash or Spyro = No sale.

@shootermcclay: Quite a few of those are 3rd party. Absolutely games I would associate with playstation but they are still 3rd party.

@DarthOrange: I think @mrpandaman brings up a good point about the Nintendo vs Sony roster. Sony may have "more" games to choose from, but many of them are from short lived series. Jak had moves that were a lot like Crash in the orignal Jak game. Then he got guns and superpowers. That was the 1 change he had as a character. Drake's been in 4 fantastic games, but all he does is punch and use guns. He's done that since game 1 with no real variation. So many modern Sony franchises revolve around shooting and some of the more obscure franchises you've mentioned would be better fit for assist characters. That said I'm watching some of the trailers for the first time, like Haihatchi's, Dante's and Cole's; they look interesting and unique. They aren't just dudes that shoot guns. Sure, Dante has guns but he's just so damn stylish with them because his moves are exactly how they were in Devil May Cry.

Nintendo is simply iconic. People always complain about how Nintendo has never changed anything, but I disagree, if you look at the subtle ways any character controls or their move sets in SSB you can trace back to certain games in that characters 10-30 year history. Look at the Mario characters in SSB.

Mario throws punches like he did in SM64, the FLUUD is from Sunshine, his cape from Super Mario World, he's got fireballs from Super Mario Brothers, and his uppercut is from the orignal Mario Bros. Almost every animation has a history to it. Sure some characters don't show that off well like Captain Falcon because his game is all about driving cars, but they at least make Captain Falcon fast (like a race car) and even if his moves weren't iconic, they became iconic.

I just feel like the playstation roster isn't as zany or interesting in certain ways. Most characters are either zany and not that iconic or iconic and not that zany. But Nintendo's 2 biggest franchises feature a plumber that shoots fire and and electric mouse. That's just insane.

@DarthOrange: For Smash Bros., Sakurai has always focused on both the gameplay and the notalgia/fanservice element. He's done just as much in other games he's directed (see: Kid Icarus: Uprising).

Comparatively, Kendall is no one special. What is this love and vision he presents that you shower him with admiration for? Because I've played a demo version of it, and I have no idea where it is. The game feels soulless. The combat isn't fun. It's such a shameless copy of what it aspires to be that it has no heart of its own.

I just feel like the playstation roster isn't as zany or interesting in certain ways. Most characters are either zany and not that iconic or iconic and not that zany. But Nintendo's 2 biggest franchises feature a plumber that shoots fire and and electric mouse. That's just insane.

@DarthOrange: Radec and Sweet Tooth came to mind as well when it came to character that seemed gun heavy. I know sweet tooth has mines and stuff too and a mecha icecream truck. But he still has guns which just seems weird.

Another thing I have a problem with is that I don't know who Finn, Rohn and Cullen Gray are.

@Video_Game_King said:

@DarthOrange said:

Every time Omar speaks about PlayStation All-Stars he focuses on the gameplay instead of the characters.

Maybe because it's a game?

No one is going to buy, or even look, at Sony Smash for the gameplay.

How this game got made with a palette swap of a second string character and freaking Mr. Bubbles but not Crash or Lara Croft absolutely blows my mind.

Wait a minute, there's only two female characters in the game: Nariko and Fat Princess. Man, Sony, come on. Come on!

@sodacat said:

How this game got made with a palette swap of a second string character and freaking Mr. Bubbles but not Crash or Lara Croft absolutely blows my mind.

You do realize that they don't own these characters, right? They belong to other companies, and those other companies would have to license them out to Sony.

@Video_Game_King: I was kind of expecting that Sony would try at least as hard as Nintendo or CAPCOM to do a crossover game proper. Either they don't care as much or they don't have as much clout, and in either case that would be unfortunate.

@sodacat said:

I was kind of expecting that Sony would try at least as hard as Nintendo or CAPCOM to do a crossover game proper.

You mean like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom? Expecting that type of effort from Sony is insane. As for Nintendo, it was only two characters. One of them involved somebody approaching them, and the other was an obvious choice with some precedent. Not a lot of effort out of Nintendo.

@Video_Game_King: Strange, I could have sworn there were a lot more crossover characters in brawl. I guess I was remembering wrong.

Regardless Sony's strength has always been their 3rd party support, and they should have been leveraging that as hard as Nintendo leverages their first party properties. Would have have been easy? No, but it's what they needed to do. All-Stars already looks kind of silly next to Brawl, and its going to look downright prehistoric when the eventual WiiU/3DS Smash comes out.

@DarthOrange: you literally said it your self. smash bros is a celebration of nintendo. the only thing all stars is is a shameless rip off and cash in. i could say alot of shitty things about nintendo but i honestly couldnt say they dont care very deeply for thier franchises.

all sony is doing is taking somthing that worked great for one company and then literally doing the exact same thing. i wont say all stars wont be a good game but i will say it's nothing more than a SOULESS cash grab from a company who clearly has no idea what in the fuck they are doing.

@sodacat said:

All-Stars already looks kind of silly next to Brawl, and its going to look downright prehistoric when the eventual WiiU/3DS Smash comes out.

That...sounds useless. "Sure, cars are amazing, but they're gonna be shit compared to space hoverboards of the future."

@Video_Game_King said:

@sodacat said:

All-Stars already looks kind of silly next to Brawl, and its going to look downright prehistoric when the eventual WiiU/3DS Smash comes out.

That...sounds useless. "Sure, cars are amazing, but they're gonna be shit compared to space hoverboards of the future."

Except that Mattel already announced the hoverboard last year, and it'll probably be out within two more years (Nintendo announced that Sakurai would oversee a Smash after finishing Kid Icarus at E3 2011). Also there's threedifferentsports cars out this season for the same MSRP as Sony's economy car, so there's really no rush to pick it up.

@sodacat:

Those sports cars are of entirely different genres. And to move away from the analogy, we know nothing about the next Smash Bros other than "it's a thing".

@DarthOrange: I listen to Podcast Beyond because it's really the only place that I hear Playstation-centric talk. They were the first ones talking up Playstation Plus, they're consistently talking about ways to improve the Vita, and the fact that their primary place for multiplatform games is the PS3 really gives a unique perspective compared to so many other sites. You're right, people hate on IGN as a whole, but I do wish more people appreciated some of the quality stuff they put out.

I'm sure it probably plays well, but my problem with the game is the presentation. Not liking the graphical style, don't like the long winded title, don't like the design of the title logo, and don't like the look of the menus.

I agree with you that there could be a much better roster and that peoples perception that Sony doesn't have enough character to fill a game like this out is crazy. But, they really cannot compete with Nintendo on that front. Just the Pokemon franchise alone has hundreds of dumb obscure monsters they could fill content with. Still, they should be/have been able to change that overall perception with this game.

I also agree that one of the the coolest things about smash bros is that is fosters a fanbase for those characters. Fire emblem is probably more popular than it was in America pre-melee. Nintendo could make an F-Zero spin-off that was just captain Falcon punching people in the face and it people would be into it. The last time people really cared about Star Fox was over 10 years ago, but because of smash, these characters persist and the franchise stays relevant. I could go on and on down most of the roster, but the point is smash bros isn't just a fighting game it's a really clever marketing tool, even if that wasn't it's intention. But you can't make a game that way from the start. It has to be a good game above all else and seed it's own fanbase first. If I we're having this game made I would put people on it who wanted to, above all else, make a good game.

If they can just manage that, and people really like it, there will be more games with more fan service and bigger rosters. You say it's fun, that's good, because that is the first step on the path to exactly what you want.

@DarthOrange said:

@Nottle said:

I just feel like the playstation roster isn't as zany or interesting in certain ways. Most characters are either zany and not that iconic or iconic and not that zany. But Nintendo's 2 biggest franchises feature a plumber that shoots fire and and electric mouse. That's just insane.

And that is the problem with Sony. They have no big franchises at all. They spread themselves way to thin and many series come and go with little fan fare. Once again, if they had a hype man, anyone other then Omar Kendall (like Will Powers) that loved PlayStation and was able to articulate to the people why these franchises are awesome, people would be able to see the PlayStation in a new light. If you haven't played a franchise you can't really understand it as well, but everyone I have mentioned does bring something unique. Jak could have had the eco powers from the first Jak and Daxter (which was basically a better Mario 64), where he had different ability's with different eco, even fireballs with yellow eco. Fred Neuman can take off his head and replace it with another for new powers. Rohn rides a dragon. Finn is a wizard. These dudes are not all generic soldiers with gun. If anything Drake is the only generic character that only uses guns besides Cullen Gray from Socom.

I don't think that they spread themselves thin. From the 3 generations of home consoles they had, they like to operate within the generation, meaning they like to have new franchises rise and be the faces for the console. They've somewhat broken out of that with God of War, and Killzone, but those are exceptions because they did come out near the tail end of the PS2's cycle.

Omar Kendall is not a hype man, he's a lead game designer. I feel like you're getting so hung up on that as well as PSAS not digging deep enough with their franchises in which I would say there's a line where the characters that you brought up cross. Cullen Gray isn't recognizable and would be confused from being in any modern shooter, Rohn has only been in one game and looks like a generic fantasy character, Finn was in one game no one played, Fred Neuman maybe because he looks odd and fun enough. In your list characters like Gex, or that dude from the Yakuza franchise are characters more easily recognized for being on Sony consoles and from franchises people can recognize would be more suitable choices. Even Tomba, or Abe from Oddworld would be awesome choices to put in the game.

@DarthOrange: Radec and Sweet Tooth came to mind as well when it came to character that seemed gun heavy. I know sweet tooth has mines and stuff too and a mecha icecream truck. But he still has guns which just seems weird.

Another thing I have a problem with is that I don't know who Finn, Rohn and Cullen Gray are.

@DarthOrange: you literally said it your self. smash bros is a celebration of nintendo. the only thing all stars is is a shameless rip off and cash in. i could say alot of shitty things about nintendo but i honestly couldnt say they dont care very deeply for thier franchises.

all sony is doing is taking somthing that worked great for one company and then literally doing the exact same thing. i wont say all stars wont be a good game but i will say it's nothing more than a SOULESS cash grab from a company who clearly has no idea what in the fuck they are doing.

@DarthOrange Did you think I was arguing or agreeing with you?

These kinds of responses are exactly the reason why Omar Kendall is the person to be directing this game. A game like this needs to have a vision that people can see, a love that is sincere. Look at Twisted Metal. Yes, that game was disappointing but leading up to the games launch and post launch I was able to see Jaffe's vision for why the game and car combat are still awesome (I blame the staff at EatSleepPlay for that games failure, there was only so much Jaffe could do). Every time Omar speaks about PlayStation All-Stars he focuses on the gameplay instead of the characters. The dude has a monotone voice and he has never once seemed excited for this game. They needed someone who could say "This is why PlayStation matters, and this is why PlayStation sells well around the world to all the different markets". Omar Kendall can't do that because he doesn't care about the company. Why the fuck they didn't get Will Powers to direct that game is beyond me.   

I agree with you that there could be a much better roster and that peoples perception that Sony doesn't have enough character to fill a game like this out is crazy. But, they really cannot compete with Nintendo on that front. Just the Pokemon franchise alone has hundreds of dumb obscure monsters they could fill content with. Still, they should be/have been able to change that overall perception with this game.

I also agree that one of the the coolest things about smash bros is that is fosters a fanbase for those characters. Fire emblem is probably more popular than it was in America pre-melee. Nintendo could make an F-Zero spin-off that was just captain Falcon punching people in the face and it people would be into it. The last time people really cared about Star Fox was over 10 years ago, but because of smash, these characters persist and the franchise stays relevant. I could go on and on down most of the roster, but the point is smash bros isn't just a fighting game it's a really clever marketing tool, even if that wasn't it's intention. But you can't make a game that way from the start. It has to be a good game above all else and seed it's own fanbase first. If I we're having this game made I would put people on it who wanted to, above all else, make a good game.

If they can just manage that, and people really like it, there will be more games with more fan service and bigger rosters. You say it's fun, that's good, because that is the first step on the path to exactly what you want.

@DarthOrange: Yeah I played the recent Twisted metal. I also don't remember the killzone weapons being THAT futuristic.

The characters you suggested like Finn seem just a little bland.

That is extremely saddening that they could not work out a deal to get Crash Bandicoot in the game.  Absolute shame

Do people honestly think a better hype man will make people give a shit about Jak & Daxter the way people give a shit about Mario? Get a fucking grip, kids.

@Peanut said:

Do people honestly think a better hype man will make people give a shit about Jak & Daxter the way people give a shit about Mario? Get a fucking grip, kids.

That pretty much sums it up.

Sony's most popular mascots don't compare to Nintendo's mascots. Simple as that. Even if they were to get a deal that would bring Crash and Spyro into the game, it wouldn't compare.

Crash and Spyro both belonged to Universal up until recently when they were sold to Activision. They were once playstation exclusive but didn't belong to sony.