World Premiere over at GameTrailers

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#102 Posted by MariachiMacabre (6938 posts) -

Yeah, sure. I'll play this. I'm already seeing Sly Cooper being my character of choice because Sly is a fucking boss.

#103 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -
@Sreya

@Hailinel: Only in the broadest sense of the term, but no one in their right mind would put a 2D fighter and a 3D fighter under the same classification, different sub genres.

They're both fighting games. Therefore, they are in the same genre.
#104 Posted by jonnyboy (2920 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@jonnyboy said:

Sony's inability to stop information leaks is mind blowing.

Do you think maybe Sony's the one doing the leaking? one of my very best friends worked for a PR company for many years and he told me that 99% of the times information gets leaked it's due to a marketing ploy in order to create buzz and get people talking.

I'd put any money on it. This is the worst kept secret in the industry since the last worst kept secret in the industry: The Vita specifications. Granted every organisation leaks information for buzz, it's just that Sony are terrible at not making it look so obvious.

#105 Posted by TheHT (10288 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Sreya

@Hailinel: Only in the broadest sense of the term, but no one in their right mind would put a 2D fighter and a 3D fighter under the same classification, different sub genres.

They're both fighting games. Therefore, they are in the same genre.

Yes, that would be the broad term Sreya was talking about. Within fighting games there are subgenres.

#106 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -
@TheHT

@Hailinel said:

@Sreya

@Hailinel: Only in the broadest sense of the term, but no one in their right mind would put a 2D fighter and a 3D fighter under the same classification, different sub genres.

They're both fighting games. Therefore, they are in the same genre.

Yes, that would be the broad term Sreya was talking about. Within fighting games there are subgenres.

Well yes, but this is just getting away from the point that Sony is not doing anything new here. It's pretty obvious that the developer is just ripping off Nintendo and with a bargain basement level of differentiation.
#107 Posted by TheHT (10288 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@TheHT

@Hailinel said:

@Sreya

@Hailinel: Only in the broadest sense of the term, but no one in their right mind would put a 2D fighter and a 3D fighter under the same classification, different sub genres.

They're both fighting games. Therefore, they are in the same genre.

Yes, that would be the broad term Sreya was talking about. Within fighting games there are subgenres.

Well yes, but this is just getting away from the point that Sony is not doing anything new here. It's pretty obvious that the developer is just ripping off Nintendo and with a bargain basement level of differentiation.

But that's why the whole genre thing came up. Sreya's saying that the Smash Bros. variety of fighting game is a part of a subgenre, which this Sony game is also a part of, making it not so much a blatent rip-off as just another game in that subgenre.

The question then is whether or not it's an actual subgenre and if so, if this Sony game is still different enough within that subgenre to not be still be a rip-off of Smash Bros.

Because it does totally look like a rip-off of Smash Bros., but then so do Small Arms, Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble and a bunch of other games I never heard of before.

#109 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -

@Sreya said:

@TheHT said:

@Hailinel said:

@TheHT

@Hailinel said:

@Sreya

@Hailinel: Only in the broadest sense of the term, but no one in their right mind would put a 2D fighter and a 3D fighter under the same classification, different sub genres.

They're both fighting games. Therefore, they are in the same genre.

Yes, that would be the broad term Sreya was talking about. Within fighting games there are subgenres.

Well yes, but this is just getting away from the point that Sony is not doing anything new here. It's pretty obvious that the developer is just ripping off Nintendo and with a bargain basement level of differentiation.

But that's why the whole genre thing came up. Sreya's saying that the Smash Bros. variety of fighting game is a part of a subgenre, which this Sony game is also a part of, making it not so much a blatent rip-off as just another game in that subgenre.

The question then is whether or not it's an actual subgenre and if so, if this Sony game is still different enough within that subgenre to not be still be a rip-off of Smash Bros.

Because it does totally look like a rip-off of Smash Bros., but then so do Small Arms, Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble and a bunch of other games I never heard of before.

The sub genre of fighter that Battle Royale and Smash are in is defined primarily by being 2D, having platform based stages, power up items, and the ability to attack in all directions.

The Outfoxies came out five years before the first Smash Bros. game.

Plenty of other games in the same sub genre, and Battle Royale does a better job of separating it's self from Smash than some others.

In what way does it separate itself, exactly?

#110 Posted by Residentrevil2 (415 posts) -

Eh...

#112 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -

@Sreya said:

@Hailinel: First I want to say I posted more images of different games in the same sub genre of Smash but some reason they weren't appearing.

Also I'm not the biggest Smash player so I'm imaging how it plays by default off of memory.

Anyways, from what I've seen Battle Royale has no health period. The way you win is by scoring more points at the end of the round than your opponents. You do this by preforming supers on them, if a super is preformed on you points are subtracted from your score. I have yet to see any stock number of lives, everyone fights continuously until the round is over. I haven't seen a single off screen K.O. or ring out. I think there is something called the AP system which ties into building super meter. Basically you knock orbs out of your opponents which anyone can pick up to build super.

So far I've only seen one power up weapon, this probably change though. The weapon I believe was tied into getting more orbs. You have to be stationary to pick this weapon up no running or mid air pick ups. I think it was also stated you can't throw these weapons at opponents.

Stages seem to do some interesting things I don't think were in Smash. Little Big Planet stage builds itself in real time then turns in a Buzz quiz show that will reward you for getting questions right. The stage with Patapons in it went into fever mode at one point, however I don't know if this had any effect on the players.

Then there's some character specific stuff, like Sly Cooper can't block like the rest of the cast instead he turns invisible which is it's own risk reward system.

Again I don't remember every facet of Smash Bros. but it sounds like Battle Royale is making differences. Also this is all based on my memory which is crap so...

The conditions for victory might be different, but the base gameplay is still the same.

There will be multiple power-ups, that much is guaranteed. The question is how many are there, and what effects do they have.

Brawl had constantly shifting stages. The WarioWare stage in particular was nuts, and other stages had a variety of effects, such as environmental transitions, stage hazards, or other special effects like the time of day in the Animal Crossing stage.

Characters in Brawl had their own character-specific techniques. Kirby could gain abilities of other characters by swallowing them, and Samus could shift between her Power and Zero Suit forms, Zelda can shift between her standard and Sheik forms. Peach can float, and so on.

There is literally nothing in your list that makes Sony's absurdly titled game stand out dramatically from Smash Bros. It's basically the grocery store generic cola equivalent to Nintendo's Coca-Cola.

#113 Posted by TheHT (10288 posts) -

@Sreya said:

@Hailinel: First I want to say I posted more images of different games in the same sub genre of Smash but some reason they weren't appearing.

Also I'm not the biggest Smash player so I'm imaging how it plays by default off of memory.

Anyways, from what I've seen Battle Royale has no health period. The way you win is by scoring more points at the end of the round than your opponents. You do this by preforming supers on them, if a super is preformed on you points are subtracted from your score. I have yet to see any stock number of lives, everyone fights continuously until the round is over. I haven't seen a single off screen K.O. or ring out. I think there is something called the AP system which ties into building super meter. Basically you knock orbs out of your opponents which anyone can pick up to build super.

So far I've only seen one power up weapon, this will probably change though. The weapon I believe was tied into getting more orbs. You have to be stationary to pick this weapon up no running or mid air pick ups. I think it was also stated you can't throw these weapons at opponents.

Stages seem to do some interesting things I don't think were in Smash. Little Big Planet stage builds itself in real time then turns in a Buzz quiz show that will reward you for getting questions right. The stage with Patapons in it went into fever mode at one point, however I don't know if this had any effect on the players.

Then there's some character specific stuff, like Sly Cooper can't block like the rest of the cast instead he turns invisible which is it's own risk reward system.

Again I don't remember every facet of Smash Bros. but it sounds like Battle Royale is making differences. Also this is all based on my memory which is crap so...

Wow, that sounds even more like the Sony game than Smash Bros.

#114 Posted by HistoryInRust (6215 posts) -

I kinda can't believe they're doing this.

#116 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2128 posts) -

Crash Bandicoot or no sale!

#117 Posted by xyzygy (9627 posts) -

@MmaFanQc:

There is a massive difference between the games you listed and Super Smash Brothers. SSB took characters from one company whose games were all of vastly different genres and inserted them into a game where you have never been able to play them in such a manner. Like Fox, who we've only controlled in a ship before, and Ness who was only a 2D RPG sprite before, and Peach who was always a secondary character to Mario.

It took items from their games and incorporated them into movesets, like Link's classic boomerang, arrows and bombs. Or like Fox's gun. Ness' psychic RPG attacks. Yoshi's tongue.

These characters were then mixed together in a style of game they had NEVER been in before, and the result was magical because it worked and popularized the franchise and made it known as the one-and-only king.

King of Fighters and other fighting game mash-ups are completely different because they consist of characters who come from fighting games. It's such an easy premise because they were already so similar that incorporating them into crossover games was just an afterthought. What Nintendo did with their characters was new, fresh and exciting and it's lasting success is evident of that. That's how this Sony game is a blatant ripoff of SSB.

#118 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -

@Sreya said:

@Hailinel: Way to sweep the differences in gameplay under the rug. Of course the base game play is the same they are in the same genre, sub genre of game even. I guess the differences between King of Fighters XIII and Street Fighter IV don't matter because the base gameplay is the same.

I'm aware Smash's stages had hazards and transitions but did any of them tie into the games systems? I'm pretty sure the Buzz stage rewards the AP system.

Of course Smash's characters had character specific techniques but did any of them sacrifice basic mechanics for these techniques? Did Kirby not have his own normal moves because he stole moves from others? Was Zelda not allowed to block because she had Sheik form?

What makes Smash Bros. drastically different from Outfoxies that came before it? What makes the games in the same sub genre that came out between Smash and Battle Royale drastically different? By definition it's not meant to be drastically different otherwise it wouldn't be in the same genre/sub genre and then wouldn't be in direct competition to their competitors product.

Remember a couple post back when I said "It's like arguing Diet Coke ripped off Diet Pepsi because they're both diet sodas...you sound ridiculous." and then you literally made the argument that "It's basically the grocery store generic cola equivalent to Nintendo's Coca-Cola." yeah still sounding ridiculous. Anyway my metaphor is far more apt.

The gameplay changes in Sony Smash Bros. (I refuse to call it by its proper, idiotic name) is really not that different. Rather than a percentile gauge that rises as you do damage, making it easier to score a point by knocking an opponent out of the arena, you build up a super meter to take someone out with a super and earn a point. The difference is semantic in nature; you're still defeating your opponent by filling a gauge before delivering a finishing blow.

As for tying into the game systems, do you really think that the Buzz stage's effects are that drastic? It's one stage; that it provides a bonus effect that's not present in Smash Bros. does not free it from comparison to Smash Bros. stages.

Smash Bros. may not have been the first of its kind, but it has come to represent a style of gameplay combined with presentation that makes it distinguished. Sony isn't doing anything to distinguish its game aside from its characters and some frills. It looks like Smash, despite its tweaks, it plays like Smash, and it's constructed on the crossover theme that drives Smash. Sony's game exudes the feeling of a tile that was truly designed by committee. "Here, let's take this really popular game our competitor makes, reshape a few things to make it look different, and fill it with characters that play in a vaguely similar manner to our competitor's. We'll promote the PlayStation brand in the title. Now quick, go spend three hundred hours playing Smash Bros. so we know exactly how to copy what it does."

That's really all there is to it. There's no sense of creativity in Sony's game. It's just "Let's make Sony Smash Bros." They could have put together something more creative and original to create a unique experience for Sony fans, much like Square Enix did for Final Fantasy fans with Dissidia. For all of the game's differences, Dissidia shares many of the same basic tenets of Smash Bros. A crossover brawler that showcases figures from every entry in the seeries. While the battles in the game are two-on-two rather than four-on-four, the combat features the sense of over-the-top grandiosity that represents the flashier moments of the games, and it isn't afraid to have fun with its cast. Dissidia is a unique experience for both its platform (PSP) and for the brawler genre. There are no games that are quite like it in terms of its gameplay or presentation. It is definitive of itself and has garnered its own fanbase based on its presentation and gameplay.

But Sony? Oh, fuck that. They'd rather just pretend that they're Nintendo, apparently.

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.