When will Super Smash Bros-like games stop being called rip-offs?

Basically, some games people just elevate and get mad anytime something tries pulling something from it. Case in point: God of War. Any time a game has the same feel, people tear into it. Hence, what happened to Dante's Inferno and Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. People tore them apart from being rip-offs. Yet, no one gets mad about FPSes or Fighting Games. This is just another example of people finding a specific game, and holding it on a random pedestal. The internet just functions in cycles, that's all.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to get mad about it. People who exclusively own a Sony console don't have a chance to play something like SSB. This is a way to give them something comparable. Also, it's good for people who hate Nintendo franchises, such as myself. No reason to get up in arms about it.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

So your problem is: "It's trying to be Smash Bros" What does this mean? It means that they are positioning it as a competitor to Smash Bros, by having a game in the same genre of fighter but with unique features and mechanics not present in that game. It's the same genre so it will appeal to those interested in that type of game, but it has features to differentiate itself from that game, hopefully from the developer's POV positively. Those unique features are, as I said: Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. I.E. Every fighting game released today. Your comparison of MK and SF boils down to: they treat different attacks, differently. As does PSASBR over Smash Bros. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from you.

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

@FluxWaveZ:

From the looks of it AP does the exact same thing as a smash ball. And certain levels look like they have a fall to your death element. You're right about it not having percentage though which is arguably the most innovative aspect of the entire Super Smash Bros. franchise. I'm arguing that it seems to do nothing unique while borrowing most of its elements from Smash Bros.

Note that I'm not saying it will be terrible as I don't know how good the final product will be. My observations are based on what they've decided to show us so far.

@upwarDBound said:

@FluxWaveZ:

From the looks of it AP does the exact same thing as a smash ball.

Smash Ball: Once acquired, immediately grants character with a devastating special move that is used against opponents. Only one of them appears on the stage at a time and its rate of appearance is infrequent. Once it appears, the action changes to a mad dash to the first to obtain it.

AP: Obtaining AP contributes to a character's Super Move bar, meter that can also be added to by attacking. Appears frequently and in multiples throughout a stage.

Weird, they don't seem like the exact same thing to me.

@upwarDBound said:

You're right about it not having percentage though which is arguably the most innovative aspect of the entire Super Smash Bros. franchise. I'm arguing that it seems to do nothing unique while borrowing most of its elements from Smash Bros.

Unique in relation to what? You just said that since there's no percentage meter in All-Stars, it's different than Smash Bros., which would mean it does something unique.

Saying it takes various elements from Smash Bros. is fine because it's true; this game is very derivative of that game. But again, it's not the same thing. It's in ways, from what we've seen, very different.

Holding Super Smash Bros. as this franchise that should never be derived from is ridiculous. Having a game so directly compete with that franchise should only be a good thing for everyone: it could and should incite SSB's developers to not be complacent, it will finally bring a Sony mascot fighter for Sony fans or those that dislike Nintendo characters and the game might actually turn out decent, especially given the people behind the product.

Everybody is going to draw the line somewhere differently on what is a rip-off and what isn't, but to say that the way Halo or CoD take from similar FPS games is the same as the way Sony's new game takes from Super Smash Bros., seems rather off. Interestingly, arguments about Doom and the FPS genre, and C&C and the RTS genre, are the kind of points that Zynga lead designer Brian Reynolds made when trying to justify Zynga's plagiarism of Tiny Tower, and I don't think this kind of argument flies.

If we're taking Halo as our example, it's not as if there was just one real FPS game and then Bungie game along, took everything in that game, and swapped in their own minor elements. No, in both gameplay and stylistic decisions, Bungie took some existing ideas that had come out of a genre already comprising of hundreds (maybe thousands) of games, and modified and built on many of those ideas with plenty of new content to make a great game in its own right. In the case of Sony's game they've taken a very specific concept, a pretty specific set of core game mechanics, a very similar UI, very similar level designs, and possibly other elements, from one game, and at best failed to bring across the idea that they've injected enough of their own personality into it for this to qualify as something original.

From what some have said here though, and with the grey area we still have, I do hope that what we'll see happen is Sony coming out and talking about all the great new features their game has and the differences between it and SSB which they've neglected to mention. However, at least at this point, I believe they've either done a very bad marketing job of not making this game look just like a Super Smash Bros. clone or they were shamelessly trying to build a Sony-branded copy of the game.

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

Dissidia plays nothing like Smash Bros. and is a mascot fighter.

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

A mascot fighter just means a bunch of established characters from different series fighting each other. PSABR could have been in the form of a Persona 4 Arena (anime 2D fighting game heavily relying on combos and typical mechanics), a Dead or Alive (3D fighting game), a Kung-Fu Chaos (3D party fighting game based around stage traversal) or whatever the heck this Power Stone thing is. With all of these options, Sony chose to follow the Super Smash Bros. path and make a 2D game with platforms with the same kind of UI.

Essentially, this formula is fairly typical for a mascot fighter and I believe Hailinel's point is that Sony had the opportunity to veer away from the ordinary and do something unique with their creation of a Sony fighting game.

@FluxWaveZ said:

Sony chose to follow the Super Smash Bros. path and make a 2D game with platforms with the same kind of UI.

Yes, when they could have easily done something more unique. Which is the point I've been making.

@Hailinel said:

Yes, when they could have easily done something more unique. Which is the point I've been making.

Yes, and that's an absolutely fair point to have which I have nothing, and have never had anything, against. I would have loved to see something unique from SuperBot instead of a game that strongly resembles Super Smash Bros.

That doesn't mean, however, that I also don't love the concept of a Smash Bros. but with Sony characters.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

So your problem is: "It's trying to be Smash Bros" What does this mean? It means that they are positioning it as a competitor to Smash Bros, by having a game in the same genre of fighter but with unique features and mechanics not present in that game. It's the same genre so it will appeal to those interested in that type of game, but it has features to differentiate itself from that game, hopefully from the developer's POV positively. Those unique features are, as I said: Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. I.E. Every fighting game released today. Your comparison of MK and SF boils down to: they treat different attacks, differently. As does PSASBR over Smash Bros. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from you.

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

@FluxWaveZ:

It seems to do nothing unique on its own. Is it doing some things differently than Smash Bros.? Yes it is. Just because it doesn't ape the other game detail for detail doesn't mean it's doing anything unique. And it apes enough for me to consider it a clone at this point. Much more so than Street Fighter to Mortal Kombat at any rate.

If this isn't a rip-off, then we need to give that term a new definition. What Sony did was set out to make a game that would be as similar to the winning Smash Brothers formula as possible, because they want the same success. There's even a picture of the developers with a wii right in the middle of their office. SuperBot didn't start by trying to make a fighting game with Sony characters and it just happened to be like smash, it was always intended to be a direct copy.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

So your problem is: "It's trying to be Smash Bros" What does this mean? It means that they are positioning it as a competitor to Smash Bros, by having a game in the same genre of fighter but with unique features and mechanics not present in that game. It's the same genre so it will appeal to those interested in that type of game, but it has features to differentiate itself from that game, hopefully from the developer's POV positively. Those unique features are, as I said: Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. I.E. Every fighting game released today. Your comparison of MK and SF boils down to: they treat different attacks, differently. As does PSASBR over Smash Bros. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from you.

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

So you must think most fighting games released nowadays are rip-offs? If you ask why, look at the other posts I made to you that seem to have been ignored.

Nope. But it's not hard to see Sony's intent and the blatant similarities. Context is key.

@Hailinel said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

Dissidia plays nothing like Smash Bros. and is a mascot fighter.

That seems to me a valid perspective. However, I do earnestly think more can be done with SSB's basic paradigm than SSB's own specific take on it.

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

Dissidia plays nothing like Smash Bros. and is a mascot fighter.

That seems to me a valid perspective. However, I do earnestly think more can be done with SSB's basic paradigm than SSB's own specific take on it.

But based on one trailer and very little information it does absolutely nothing unique.

Why do people care if it's a "rip-off"? Seriously if you don't like it don't buy it but in my opinion complaining on message boards or comment sections of videos and news stories is a waste. Take the time you would do complaining or attacking people who are excited for the game and do a bunch of push ups, jumping jacks, sit ups etc. and you'll feel and look better in the long run.

@theManUnknown said:

However, I do earnestly think more can be done with SSB's basic paradigm than SSB's own specific take on it.

Yes, which is why I think the existence of a game should only be a good thing, even for fans of the Smash Bros. series (which I am). Competition will push both developers to perform more than if they didn't have any and, in the end, will make for better products for us, the consumer.

Which is why I refuse to call this a rip-off as it stands now. The SuperBot devs seem to know what they're talking about and seem passionate about their project. The team was specifically created to make this game and members of their development team have made well received games before such as the game's producer and they also have a competitive fighting game player on staff who has experience with the genre. A rip-off suggests an inferior project to Super Smash that aims to do everything it did and/or less. From the impressions so far from people who've actually played the game, it seems like something that might end up standing toe-to-toe with that franchise in its own way, and I don't see why that should be a bad thing.

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

Dissidia plays nothing like Smash Bros. and is a mascot fighter.

That seems to me a valid perspective. However, I do earnestly think more can be done with SSB's basic paradigm than SSB's own specific take on it.

But based on one trailer and very little information it does absolutely nothing unique.

I'd have to ask what you mean by that specifically. Going off of this I get the impression they're trying rather hard to give it its own mechanic identity while still retaining a sense of familiarity to SSB fans.

@theManUnknown: I think he's being sarcastic.

When enough other games do it to be called a genre.

seeing the process happen right now with DotA

@theManUnknown said:

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

@theManUnknown said:

@Hailinel said:

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

I would be interested to see just what you mean by this. How different would this game have to be in order to fulfill your criteria and still be a Mascot Fighter? It's an entire genre of fighter, but the more I read your contributions to this thread the more I suspect you don't perceive there being any space in this category for games outside of SSB.

Dissidia plays nothing like Smash Bros. and is a mascot fighter.

That seems to me a valid perspective. However, I do earnestly think more can be done with SSB's basic paradigm than SSB's own specific take on it.

But based on one trailer and very little information it does absolutely nothing unique.

I'd have to ask what you mean by that specifically. Going off of this I get the impression they're trying rather hard to give it its own mechanic identity while still retaining a sense of familiarity to SSB fans.

I was being facetious.

@FluxWaveZ: @SethPhotopoulos:

My apologies, then. Textual communication can be a devil for irony.

@The_Nubster: Somebody's a fan-boy.

@msavo said:

Why do people care if it's a "rip-off"? Seriously if you don't like it don't buy it but in my opinion complaining on message boards or comment sections of videos and news stories is a waste. Take the time you would do complaining or attacking people who are excited for the game and do a bunch of push ups, jumping jacks, sit ups etc. and you'll feel and look better in the long run.

What are you talking about! this is the internet sir the place where meaningless arguments NEED to be made because instead of moving away from a discussion in a subject you don't care about you're gonna spend 5 hours of your day arguing with someone and never admit how you're point is misplaced, invalid and unnecessary , you're walking away as a winner! because you prove to some guy that you hate that thing he likes... can you imagine the internet not being like that?! illogical.

@avidwriter said:

@The_Nubster: Somebody's a fan-boy.

Ouch. You really got me there.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

So your problem is: "It's trying to be Smash Bros" What does this mean? It means that they are positioning it as a competitor to Smash Bros, by having a game in the same genre of fighter but with unique features and mechanics not present in that game. It's the same genre so it will appeal to those interested in that type of game, but it has features to differentiate itself from that game, hopefully from the developer's POV positively. Those unique features are, as I said: Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. I.E. Every fighting game released today. Your comparison of MK and SF boils down to: they treat different attacks, differently. As does PSASBR over Smash Bros. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from you.

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

So you must think most fighting games released nowadays are rip-offs? If you ask why, look at the other posts I made to you that seem to have been ignored.

Nope. But it's not hard to see Sony's intent and the blatant similarities. Context is key.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Hailinel said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

What makes fighters different from one another? Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. What does Playstation All Stars have? All of the above. And a different rule set for gaining points/win conditions etc. And what will likely be the best online mode of any Smash-esque game. The only reason people like you complain about it is because Nintendo have been the only company so far to make major releases in the genre of fighter that Smash has dominated.

It goes deeper than that. Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat are all very different examples of games that exist within the same genre and relative framework. Of the four, the two that most closely resemble each other are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but Mortal Kombat's actual mechanics vary quite vastly from Street Fighter's, from the nature of command inputs and button assignments to the existence of standard attacks like the uppercut. Mortal Kombat doesn't try to be Street Fighter. Sony's game is trying to be Smash Bros.

So your problem is: "It's trying to be Smash Bros" What does this mean? It means that they are positioning it as a competitor to Smash Bros, by having a game in the same genre of fighter but with unique features and mechanics not present in that game. It's the same genre so it will appeal to those interested in that type of game, but it has features to differentiate itself from that game, hopefully from the developer's POV positively. Those unique features are, as I said: Different characters, different movelists, specific feels to each character, specific stages, specific music, specific UI. I.E. Every fighting game released today. Your comparison of MK and SF boils down to: they treat different attacks, differently. As does PSASBR over Smash Bros. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from you.

My argument is that it's nothing new. They could have made their own unique crossover experience and chose to make a rip-off instead. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I have no faith in this game.

So you must think most fighting games released nowadays are rip-offs? If you ask why, look at the other posts I made to you that seem to have been ignored.

Nope. But it's not hard to see Sony's intent and the blatant similarities. Context is key.

I provided all the context, you just provided the baseless hate.

I wouldn't call it baseless. And the context is in how Sony decided to make such a game and nothing more. i.e.: "You dawg, let's make what they're making, but put our characters in it."