Hideki Kamiya calls Sony all-star super smash bros a rip-off

#101 Posted by Redbullet685 (6085 posts) -

Every fucking game is a rip-off of another basically.

#102 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3823 posts) -

@probablytuna: No, but someone can believe that it's unethical to so blatantly use the ideas from someone else. At the very least, it implies creative bankruptcy. I'm interested in this game, but I'm also skeptical, because the very concept, as well as all of the gameplay we've seen thus far, is very derivative, which either means that they are just adding and improving on an existing formula, or trying their best to emulate it. True auteurs, and truly great games, however, normally innovate, and their peers replicate.

Basically, the onus is on PSAS to prove they have something worthy to add to the genre. Until then, I think it's fair to call the game a rip-off.

#103 Posted by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

This is like GM telling everyone Ford makes rip offs of their designs.

If Kamiya wants to show us that the other guy is the copy, then by all means please make their game fun and special.

#104 Posted by MentalDisruption (1670 posts) -

I don't really care about the rip-off part, but what I do care about is how amusing Hideki's twitter responses have been.

#105 Edited by Quarters (1883 posts) -

Right, because Resident Evil wasn't a ripoff of anything originally. *eye roll*

Honestly, I'm looking forward to All-Stars. I don't have a Nintendo system, and I don't like Nintendo characters. However, from the bit that I've played, they seem like fun games. Give me a Sony version, and I'm all over it. To me, this just looks like the next dark horse for the Internet to attack for being a "ripoff". Some games skirt by without so much as a word, but others get absolutely reamed(such as Dante's Inferno, or Castlevania: Lords of Shadow).

#106 Edited by StarvingGamer (8558 posts) -

Ok, if you would also argue that MK is a ripoff of Street Fighter then fine, you just have a really broad definition of ripoff. But I'm guessing most of you wouldn't.

Why is this some fucking sacred genre that is only allowed to have a single franchise?

#107 Edited by spartanlolz92 (511 posts) -

@SethPhotopoulos said:

A Rip-Off means that it is a bad imitation of the original product. The few people that have played it said good things about it. I don't think you can call it a rip off unless it's bad. Otherwise it borrows heavily from Smash Bros. There needs to be more Mascot games in the SSB style so Nintendo has more direct competition. Games like Dissidia and Castlevania Judgement are too different to compete with Smash Bros. A company as big as Sony with a crazy roster has enough of a chance to compete with Nintendo and force them to try harder. This game does enough to differentiate itself with it's UI, how one can obtain supers, the levels being combinations of franchises, how opponents are defeated, etc. But it does so while maintaining the base that SSB has started which is how a lot of video game genres start. I can only see this being a good thing if the end product turns out pretty good.

It's not like the existence of this game prevents Sony from making or publishing more creative games.

PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale was originally going to be developed by Naughty Dog who was in the middle of the development of The Last of Us. Publisher Sony Computer Entertainment therefore decided to form SuperBot Entertainment in 2009 specifically to work on the game.

T___T i really would've liked to have seen how naughty dog would've handled it

#108 Posted by probablytuna (3829 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

@probablytuna: No, but someone can believe that it's unethical to so blatantly use the ideas from someone else. At the very least, it implies creative bankruptcy. I'm interested in this game, but I'm also skeptical, because the very concept, as well as all of the gameplay we've seen thus far, is very derivative, which either means that they are just adding and improving on an existing formula, or trying their best to emulate it. True auteurs, and truly great games, however, normally innovate, and their peers replicate.

Basically, the onus is on PSAS to prove they have something worthy to add to the genre. Until then, I think it's fair to call the game a rip-off.

Yes, someone can believe that but it doesn't mean we can just write the game off as a complete rip-off when it hasn't even been released yet. Sure the concept is the same, but you could say the same with pretty much all the games out right now. No one game is truly innovative or isn't a derivative of games produced in the past so the idea of creative bankruptcy is kinda extreme.

Granted I have no intention of playing the game, simply because it's not a type of game I'm interested in (or good at).

#109 Posted by TopSteer (677 posts) -

@Hailinel: I don't think this has anything to do with Sony being "creatively bankrupt". I'd imagine the reason that developers copy other successful games is they want their game to be just as successful. Of course Sony could've have made something completely new but the chances are that it wouldn't have sold as well as what people are familiar with.

#110 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4825 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

Fuck you people are idiots. Ok, if you would also argue that MK is a ripoff of Street Fighter then fine, you just have a really broad definition of ripoff. But I'm guessing most of you wouldn't. Why is this some fucking sacred genre that is only allowed to have a single franchise?

Because video games.

(I agree with you by the way)

#111 Posted by HatKing (6114 posts) -

What's he have to say about the 40 trillion shameless Call of Duty rip offs that our store shelves are inundated with? The only reason people notice this as a 'rip off' is because it's the only one doing it. Who gives a shit? Smash Bros is a fun franchise, and Sony has the roster to support their own version. A third party (i.e.: has no stake either way), especially a developer, coming out and complaining about this is a bit childish - even more so in the tone he uses.

#112 Posted by TeflonBilly (4713 posts) -

Haw, Kamiya is awesome. I love how one of the more innovative Japanese developers and one of the heads of the studio producing some of the most fun and imaginative derivatives of popular predecessors (Okami = Zelda, Vanquish = Gears Of War, Bayonetta = Devil May Cry (Though that one is kinda weird since DMC is his baby originally)) manages to put Playstation All Stars on blast like this. Admit it, the game seems creatively bankrupt.

I'm not saying it's shit because of that, but you would be a fool to not admit how much of a blatant rip-off of Smash this is.

He's also handling all the ragetard simpletons perfectly.

#113 Posted by mrpandaman (872 posts) -

I want to say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (unless you're Gameloft).

Also it's not like PS All Stars are using characters that are the same archetypes as Nintendo. All-Stars has a much more diverse and weird array of characters. It's hard to see All-Stars being something other than a SSB type of game. SSB works well as this fan service kind of game. Maybe it could've been like Power Stone.

All-Stars is for Sony fans and SSB is for Nintendo fans. No one should really be all up in arms about this since these games are made more than likely for the fans. In the end, if All-Stars plays exactly like SSB and it's fun, then the game is a success. If All-Stars play likes it's own thing with SSB elements, but it is still an enjoyable game, then the game is a success. At the end of the day, gamers won't care that All-Stars is derivative of SSB, they'll care that it's a fun game for Sony fans.

#114 Edited by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

I like how this guy did Capcom games and probably fails to see the irony.

#115 Posted by Strife777 (1614 posts) -

No shit it's a rip-off. But guess what, Smash Bros. is the only game of it's kind. How many first person shooters are there? How many 2D fighting games are there? How many third-person action games are there? I think people are using that word as a pejorative only because that game stands out as being the only other one of those. I like that guy and his games, but come on.

#116 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@Redbullet685 said:

Every fucking game is a rip-off of another basically.

This man realizes.

#117 Edited by xyzygy (10078 posts) -

It's a huge ripoff and the gameplay looks like shit. You can only kill people when you're in that "super" mode. It's like likening SSB to only being able to smash while you're in each characters smash mode. I turn that shit off so yeah, this game looks like garbage to me. The gameplay they've shown is completely uninteresting and stale. Massive changes would be needed and I fear they're not going to implement any changes seeing as how it's been in development for years, apparently.

@Strife777 said:

No shit it's a rip-off. But guess what, Smash Bros. is the only game of it's kind. How many first person shooters are there? How many 2D fighting games are there? How many third-person action games are there? I think people are using that word as a pejorative only because that game stands out as being the only other one of those. I like that guy and his games, but come on.

There is a huge difference. SSB was one of the first games to take such different characters, the vast majority of which are owned by the publisher (sonic and snake exempt), and put them into a completely new type of game which mixed platforming and arena fighting with a unique damage system. PSA does exactly the same thing. I can't think of any other games that fit the mold of what SSB is. It's much more than just a 2D fighting game, which is what you are implying by the third person shooter comment.

@EXTomar said:

This is like GM telling everyone Ford makes rip offs of their designs.

If Kamiya wants to show us that the other guy is the copy, then by all means please make their game fun and special.

What game? Does Kamiya have a role in the next SSB? I didn't think he did, and all of Platinum's games so far have been fun and special. Rising is definitely looking like it will be as well.

#118 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

Why is this some fucking sacred genre that is only allowed to have a single franchise?

I wonder. I've always loved SSB and I've always thought that I wanted more of it. Then All-Stars came along and, if anything, I'm a bit skeptical because it's not more like Super Smash (I'd be totally for it if it wasn't a super meter system and just plain knocking opponents off the screen). Super Smash is the only big title of its kind and I'm glad another like it is coming along.

#119 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1606 posts) -

It seems to me that we're having this discussion in large part because the mascot brawler (or whatever we want to call it) genre is so small. It doesn't seem like this game is copying Smash substantially more than any given FPS, WRPG, or JRPG is copy its peers, but it feels much worse when most of us only really know one other series in the genre.

For all we know, the game will play very little like Smash once you get over the surface-level similarity.

#120 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

Man, this guy's a dick. lol

#121 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

What game? Does Kamiya have a role in the next SSB? I didn't think he did, and all of Platinum's games so far have been fun and special. Rising is definitely looking like it will be as well.

Kamiya has no role in developing Smash Bros. The dev team is entirely comprised of Nintendo and Namco Bandai personnel at this point. Kamiya doesn't have a horse in this race.

#122 Posted by Giantstalker (1728 posts) -

... he's not wrong.

#123 Posted by Xymox (2115 posts) -

It's good that someone finally makes a rip-off of it. Character-focused mascot brawlers is an untapped "genre". I want to see an Xbox mascot brawler and ultimately a cross-over fighter where they can all fight each other, which will never happen. A lot of the characters in the sony smash bros seem superflous though.

#124 Posted by MistaSparkle (2148 posts) -

To me, it's basically like a genre. It's just a type of game. There are plenty of fighting games and you don't see people complaining all the time about someone stealing that idea. I don't know though, but whatever. I'm excited for Sony All Stars.

#125 Posted by greenblattsam (83 posts) -

Isn't imitation the greatest form of flattery? They like their idea so they are more or less making an homage to Smash. I hope this games does well!

#126 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

Fuck you people are idiots. Ok, if you would also argue that MK is a ripoff of Street Fighter then fine, you just have a really broad definition of ripoff. But I'm guessing most of you wouldn't. Why is this some fucking sacred genre that is only allowed to have a single franchise?

The difference is that Mortal Kombat has some pretty massive differences. Besides the fact they're one on one brawlers, how much of the gameplay is similar? People are so up in arms over this, because the gameplay and basic structure is near identical. There have been other games that have been similar to Smash Brothers, look at Small Arms, that Turtles game or even the Dissidia: Final Fantasy games, but they at least took the "genre" and spun it in their own way. I can't see anything original or even slightly different about this, it literally looks like a reskinned Smash Brothers. Maybe that'll change closer to release, but even as someone who's sort of looking forward to it, I don't think calling it a rip-off or creatively bankrupt is unfair.

That doesn't mean it'll be a bad game though and I can guarantee that once it's out (and if it's good) people will forget about the "OMG, this is such a rip-off" stuff fairly quickly.

#127 Edited by MetalBaofu (1442 posts) -

Did people throw tantrums about Crash Team Racing being a rip off? Or Power Stone being a rip off? Etc.? That's an honest question, btw. I don't remember.

Yes, Playstation All-Stars can be called a rip off and is obviously influenced by Smash Bros. Personally, I just don't understand why that is necessarily a bad thing. It's not like they have an electrician in orange overalls named Lario or some shit. It's simply a 4 player brawler with known characters, why is no one else allowed to do that?

#128 Posted by TwoLines (2841 posts) -

Riiight. And Mortal Kombat is a Street Fighter ripoff. Cry me a river.

#129 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply when it comes to Sony products

#130 Posted by two_socks (236 posts) -

Who cares.

#131 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

I understand any of what was written in those pictures. Tell that guy to learn english.

#132 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

@Rohok said:

I understand any of what was written in those pictures. Tell that guy to learn english.

Oh boy the irony

#133 Posted by face15 (1306 posts) -

It is a rip-off. Still, no need to be a dick about it.

Online
#134 Posted by Tobiass (148 posts) -

@Rohok said:

I understand any of what was written in those pictures. Tell that guy to learn english.

Oh boy, a teabagger that can't spell. You know the nazis are here when you see that flag and the horrible spelling.

#135 Posted by Tobiass (148 posts) -

@Lunar_Aura said:

I like how this guy did Capcom games and probably fails to see the irony.

Irony in what?

#136 Posted by Twinsun (495 posts) -

Rip-off might be a bit harsh at this point, but they are obviously trying to copy nintendo's succes with the ssb series.

Good for people who don't have a nintendo console I guess? If it's any good that is.

#137 Posted by MattyFTM (14432 posts) -

It is a rip-off. Blatantly. I don't see how you could argue against that point. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a rip off.

Moderator
#138 Posted by Jaytow (707 posts) -

lets all know it but never say it? it's clearly a fucking rip off.

#139 Posted by Dogma (988 posts) -

@MetalBaofu said:

Did people throw tantrums about Crash Team Racing being a rip off? Or Power Stone being a rip off? Etc.? That's an honest question, btw. I don't remember.

Yes, Playstation All-Stars can be called a rip off and is obviously influenced by Smash Bros. Personally, I just don't understand why that is necessarily a bad thing. It's not like they have an electrician in orange overalls named Lario or some shit. It's simply a 4 player brawler with known characters, why is no one else allowed to do that?

A lot of people called kart racers with power ups/weapons Mario Kart clones for a long time. And yeah... they were clones, constructed because that game was a huge success. Don't know if Power Stone got the same treatment. That game came out almost at the same point as the first Smash Bros. I personally think those two games a very different since they don't share the same perspective and way to handle things.

The thing that irks me with Playstation All-Stars is the combination of partyfighting game AND to use your most beloved characters in it at the same time. I don't think Nintendo and Smash Bros shall be the only ones that use this kind of gameplay/sub genre. But it get's wierd when others use the same structure and put their beloved characters into it. THAT is what makes it feel identical to me even if some of the mechanics are different. Why must a mascot game be a plattform fighting game? Why do you have to use that exact sub genre for that purpose? This is not like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat (or Power Stone) where the characters all are from the same franchise or that series, this is a game where you assemble your companys many years of work into one place. And for some reason that specific sub genre get's used without any really new fresh ideas. That's when it feel uninspired.

I don't thin under no circumstance that anyone should or could sue someone for this. That is stupid but I do think All-Stars has a lack of own basic ideas and that why the comparrisons show up.

#140 Posted by MetalBaofu (1442 posts) -

@Dogma: Yeah...Power Stone was all that popped into my head when trying to think of another 4 player brawler. I couldn't remember how far/close it was released in relation to the original Smash Bros.

One thing I will say is that I think it could have been kind of interesting if they made it a fighting game more similar to Street Fighter, instead of Smash Bros.

#141 Posted by Dogma (988 posts) -

@MetalBaofu: I very much agree. Just something that sets them aprt from Smash Bros. What I've heard All-Stars actually has a bit deeper control mechanics but yeah...it's just boring that it on the surface very much resembles Smash Bros. They are welcoem to do it this way but it just makes the game a bit less interesting and I'm honestly not a big Smash Bros fan. I played the sh*t out of the N64 game but got tired of Melee very quick. So I don't see this as a holy franchise but do think it's boring to see such equally looking games.

#142 Posted by Berserker976 (393 posts) -

So, uh, Mr. Kamiya... does that mean Bayonetta is a rip-off of DMC?

#143 Edited by StarvingGamer (8558 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind: I would argue that on a mechanical level, MK is actually MORE of a ripoff of SF.

If anything, the similarities between Smash and PSAS are more akin to the ones between Gran Turismo and Burnout which on the surface level are racing games that have nearly identical controls and hud elements, but are hardly ripoffs of one another.

In GT it's all about playing conservatively and controlled, following your line and waiting until the perfect moment to make a pass. Similarly, Smash is a position-based game that favors intelligent defensive play. Because of the % system, hitting your opponent makes them more vulnerable to a KO which not only benefits you, but also benefits your other two opponents. In a sense you're only giving yourself +1 advantage and giving a total of +2 advantage between your opponents, leaving you at an overall deficit. Likewise, regardless of which enemy is hitting you, all of your opponents benefit because they will all have an easier time scoring a KO against you. If you're playing smart then you're going to focus more on staying defensive, letting your opponents do the work for you and looking for opportunities to snipe while keeping your % low.

On the flip side, Burnout is much more about aggressive risk-taking: drifting, oncoming, near-miss madness to build up boost to go even more dangerously fast. PSAS is capturing a similar feeling by making the change from % based ring-outs to a super-meter system. Under the super-meter system, the only player benefiting when you hit the enemy is you since you're the only one building towards one or more KO's. Also the downsides of getting hit are significantly smaller since you're only worrying about the enemy hitting you getting closer their own KO's, not every enemy on the field. This mean that if you can skillfully maintain your offense, you're coming out on top. And because your meter is constantly draining, the moment you disengage from battle you're starting to fall behind.

This is why I'm going out of my mind here. Even if the way you control these two games is going to be largely the same, the overall experience of playing them is going to be diametrically different.

#144 Posted by EnduranceFun (1109 posts) -

Smash Bros. has an excellent engine that makes it my favourite fighting game. Screw the haters who talk about it being a 'party brawler,' there's so much fun to be had just messing around in these games because of the way percentages, shields and grabs work alone - plus it's all accessible enough that a child can pick up and play. I wish All Stars was ripping it off, all I've seen from that cross-over are changes that degrade the formula. Now, instead of increasing your percentage to KO the opponent, you're building up a meter to deliver what is essentially a 'final smash.' Considering that most people think of final smashes as a novelty that add an unwanted element of luck to the game, that's appalling design.

Now before people call me out on being a competitive no-fun guy, there's room for using items, wacky stages and Meta Knight too, but it's simply more fun to do a basic match than flooding the stage with crap. All-Stars, aside from being a bad copy, doesn't even get the basics right, having an always zoomed out camera, awkward colouring that makes it hard to see your character and pays nowhere near the homage Smash Bros. does toward its character (PaRappa being a good example). It's obvious the people who are making this game have no idea of what makes Smash Bros. good, but in spite of that were told to make a clone. Kamiya's completely right, love the guy.

#145 Posted by hughesman (312 posts) -

yep it's a rip off and i can't wait play it. Hope it's good.

#146 Posted by Sanj (2542 posts) -

Yeah it is a rip-off, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this scenario.

#147 Posted by kagato (962 posts) -

Well...it kinda is isnt it? Its looking a lot like the Streetfighter II vs Fighters History saga all over again, but i kinda liked Fighters History despite it being Streetfighter in all but name. Im kinda hoping this does play like Smash bros so i can hit the ground running, i really want to see how a Big Daddy handles in a fighting game environment and there is no way we will see him guest starring in Smash Bros.

#148 Posted by mikey87144 (1807 posts) -

I like Sony. The game is a rip-off of smash bros.

#149 Posted by yinstarrunner (1243 posts) -

He's just saying what a bunch of people are thinking.

#150 Posted by mandude (2666 posts) -

It's not as though Smash Bros was a fantastically original concept to begin with.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.