Gamespot-PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale Review

GS:It's easy to be cynical about a game that borrows so heavily from a well-loved franchise. And there's no question that, on the surface at least, PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale bears more than a striking resemblance to Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. But this is a game where appearances can be deceptive. Underneath its collection of classic (and not so classic) characters, four-player battles, and tongue-in-cheek franchise mash-ups lies a fighter that eschews button mashing and over-the-top special moves for a deeper, more technical fighting experience.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NeverEnding19891977d ago ShowReplies(13)
LOGICWINS1977d ago

If you liked the beta, I can't imagine how you couldn't be happy with the final product. I played it on the Vita yesterday at Bestbuy and the game isn't for me, which is expected since I never even liked Brawl.

NastyLeftHook01977d ago

cole is so awesome! my favorite is kratos though.

MaxXAttaxX1977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

There are plenty of other 8.5s and 9/10s out there.

According to GameSpot:
"The Bad = Complex battle system makes for a steep learning curve"
HOW IS THAT A BAD THING??? What fighting game doesn't have a learning curve given the level of complexity of its mechanics? Some people just want everything to be too easy.

They say it's great fighting game with depth, tons of single player content and it's really fun to play.
But he gives it a 6.5 because it was too hard for him and he didn't like the menus? Really? That's it?

pixelsword1977d ago

@ Nathan:

Dumb people often destroy things they do no understand, no offense to the "much beloved" gamespot.

NukaCola1977d ago

This was from Gamereactor Sweden

"Look up "entertaining plagiarism" in the dictionary and you'll find this."

Almost every single stupid blogger who dares to call him/herself a mother effing reviewer should shoot themselves. Why does everyone feel the need to bash this for similarities to Smash. They are two difference games within a similar genre. And no one seems to even know about Power Stone or the other 10-20 games out there that came out before Smash.

6.5 is low. On a test it's a fail on so many levels. These review read like. "Minus 3-4 points for me liking Smash Bros more. Nice try Sony. Yeah, you'll never get respect from us in the gaming media."

andibandit1976d ago


hmm it's like asking:

Why do the ants come rushing out their hive is kicked?.

Kennytaur1976d ago

Didn't Eurogamer mark it down for uncomfortable controls? Unless you're missing a couple fingers that's reaching for straws. This is a game that'll split opinions between those who can see it as it's own game, and those who can't.

Ares84HU1976d ago

That's the thing, the beta was terrible in my opinion. It was chaos and you could never tell where your character is at any given moment. Because the beta was so terrible, I will never give a chance to this game.

This is THE worst game I played this generation right after Twisted Metal.

Just my opinion.

MaxXAttaxX1976d ago

But that is not the thing...

You only played the Beta?
What, did you keep getting your ass beat or something? The game is fairly easy to pick up.

So even if you didn't like the Beta, I respect your opinion (if it's legit). But in my honest opinion and that of others, this is one of the most fun games this year.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1976d ago
ChiMasta71977d ago

Yeah I'm kind of "whatever" about this game. I'm a huge fighting game fan (Street Fighter, DOA, Virtua Fighter, KOF) but I never really got into Smash so this game is unlikely to hook me as well.

That said, when you have a fighting game where each character is vastly different from the other and it takes a lot of time to master just one - That's supposed to be a GREAT thing to fighting fans. I don't know why the reviewer docked the score of PSAS for that reason.

This generation is confusing haha.

StraightPath1977d ago

poor mans smash clone wannabe sits at a pathetic 76% metacritic and going soon lower.

yami9301977d ago

Are you talking about Cartoon Network Explosion? Because last time I checked PS All stars cost more, is higher quality and is a very great fighting game as well as party brawler that easily sets it apart from Super Smash bros with a unique character roster, gameplay mechanics, customization and unlockables plus on going support in the form of DLC that only makes for a better game. This game is basically on par with Brawl while managing to be its own game, fun, and its only the first in the series compared to Super Smash Bros third, and its still just going to get better guaranteed with time. I think that is impressive, the team is definitely talented, and both games can co-exist and are both great.

pixelsword1977d ago

And Smash is a poor man's Mugen.

Move on.

darkziosj1977d ago

wow vita is in a combo with the bad games.

princejb1341977d ago

6.5 is a little harsh
i would rate it a 8
dont get me wrong the game is fun but during the beta i found to many radek sniper spammers
and kratos chain grab spammers
the special system got a bit boring after a while especially when the majority of the time is when im performing a combo on someone only for someone to come from behind and do his special(yea cheap blow)
but it was fun in a way
super smash brothers still remains the champ in replay ability and fun

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1976d ago
DeforMAKulizer1977d ago

I find the cons in the review a bit perplexing.

He says the game is too hard, yet when i played it in the Beta and all other reviews mark it as serious fighter with extremely light and easy controls.

And the comments about the pixelated menus is just silly. Im a big 8-bit fan, but it just feels like he is digging deep to nit-pick at things.

Conzul1977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

Most IGN low scores for Sony games involve nitpicking against little things. But this is Gamespot, I wouldn't expect this from them.

Kennytaur1976d ago

Gamespot is for the most part no better than IGN.

e-p-ayeaH1976d ago

lol gamespot are the worst

Anon19741977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

Personally, I have no interest in this game at all. Fighting games aren't my thing but this review left me puzzled. He claims the game looks "gorgeous" and is a blast to play, but due to complexity you should focus on one character and learn it's moves because there's a lot to it.

Well, that all sounds like it's shaping up for a fantastic review, then he complains that he didn't like the way the menus look. Ok. So, a gorgeous fighting game that's fun to play with a lot of depth get's a 6.5 because you don't like the art choice with the menus? And the characters don't all just have basic punch, kick buttons?

Does it not seem a bit like the score doesn't match the actual review? Who cares if you don't like the menu art style, is the game fun? is? But it takes time to master the characters? What's the problem here? Is the game unbalanced? are the controls broken? Does the online not work? Is it not fun to play? Those are issues that would usually warrant a subtracting a couple of points from overall score, but you don't like the art direction in the menus and each character isn't the same? Wtf? Who is this guy?

An opinion is an opinion, and I'm not going to gripe at a review score. If they think the game deserves a 6.5 score, so be it, but your review should back up your score.

If you think the game just deserves an average score, back it up. In my opinion, they don't do that in this review. But hey, given the positive reviews we're seeing elsewhere, by what looks like effectively lowballing this review does anyone doubt that Gamespot is seeing a huge spike in traffic today? Clearly being the odd man out when it comes to the great review scores this game is receiving from other sources makes this review stand out.

If you disagree, read the review and comment. You can't honestly think that that review backs up the score they handed out at the end.

TronEOL1977d ago

It's amazing how a comment like this gets disagreed with even though it's the one comment that makes the most sense and anyone with any type of basic form of understanding should see what you're saying.

Being a fanboy or a hater really puts a HUGE mental block on basic brain functions. But of course, for calling anyone a hater for being a ridiculously negative without any true rhyme or reason makes me a rabid Sony fanboy. I think most normal Playstation fans probably think like this by now.

Blastoise1977d ago

Well said Darkride66. It's a poor review, and not just because of the score. Nothing he says really validates his score (like you say). After watching the review, the only downsides are complexity(?) and ugly menu's. So...6.5 it is?

Aghashie1977d ago

Bubble up for u bro. That is exactly what I was about to write.

talisker1977d ago

They can probably write whatever they want. What they get paid for are review scores as people nowadays can't read long passages so they will just look at the number at the end. That's why so many sold reviews have a huge discrepancy between the content and the score.

If you think I'm paranoid, just recall the picture with Geoff Keighley and Mountain Dew.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1977d ago
izumo_lee1977d ago

I thought reviews were supposed to be unbias opinions about a game but when a review opens with... "It's easy to be cynical about a game that borrows so heavily from a well-loved franchise" it is clear what the intentions are from there on out.

Ok we get it, it is very similar to SSB in concept. From the very get go Superbot made it clear that the game was very inspirational in PSAS development. We do not need the reviewer to hammer that thought over & over & over again.

Is it that hard to judge the game on its own merits rather than have every idea of the game compared to SSB? If SSB did not exist how is the game? See...simple.

I played the beta, excited to play the full game when i get it after work. It is a love letter to fans of the Playstation just like SSB was for Nintendo. I appreciate the hard work Superbot has done to live up to expectations of this game & with the hope of success many more to come.

dark-hollow1977d ago

"If SSB did not exist how is the game?"

If SSB didn't exist, pasbr wouldn't too.

despair1977d ago

you're missing the point, he's saying the reviewers need to review the game based on its own merits, not on how it compares to another game, even if its inspired from it. Thats like constantly comparing Uncharted to Tomb Raider in your review, it has no place there.

izumo_lee1977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with that quote so i'm not sure how to respond.

However i will say that look i get that SSB is a great game & deserves all the recognition it gets but to say that without it that PSAS will not happen as well is cutting it short.

I know that Nintendo fans believe that SSB was the first game in this whole cross-over fighting game thingy & they have the right to do so, but to simply ignore all the other games that 'inspired' SSB is disrespectful. Sure SSB made the genre popular but it is clearly not the first EVER game to have that concept.

So i believe PSAS was going to happen even if SSB did not exist, it will probably been a different looking game though like a more traditional fighter.

@ despair

Thank you that is exactly what i meant with that quote.

zebramocha1977d ago

Check out thrill kill on YouTube.

P_Bomb1977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

SSB didn't invent brawlers though. I just find it funny how fighters like Mortal Kombat VS DC Universe, Marvel VS Capcom, SNK VS Capcom, StreetFighter VS Tekken etc can all co-exist and crossover concepts, characters and style...but SSB makes people territorial. The AP system and IPs in All Stars are different enough. Even the Metal Gear characters are different.

ZombieNinjaPanda1977d ago


Yeah, no. You review things based on their own merit and compared to other similar things. Especially if a game is so heavily "taking inspiration" from another one.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1977d ago
rezzah1977d ago

Everyone is biased, the real issue is actually wanting to be objective (even to games you love).

Ducky1977d ago (Edited 1977d ago )

"Is it that hard to judge the game on its own merits rather than have every idea of the game compared to SSB? If SSB did not exist how is the game? See...simple."

That's not how reviews work. One of the things a review should do is tell you how well the game stacks against the competition, or at the very least, use the competition as context for the new game's achievements.

Game X might have decent visuals and fun gameplay, but if there is another similar game Y that does everything better, then game X doesn't deserve much praise now does it? The review has to show why new game X is indeed worth considering, and that can not be done without making comparisons.

sjaakiejj1976d ago

I agree, other games in the genre have to be looked at and compared to.

But a point that can be made here is that it's really easy to let fanaticism get in the way of an objective review, which in the case of Gamespot does seem to have happened.

If you start off the review by saying that you love Super Smash you're basically admitting that the rest of the review is anything but objective.

Ducky1976d ago

^ Why does that statement make the review stop being objective?

If the reviewer loved Smash, then he would surely like a game that takes inspiration from it, no?
It arguably puts him in a better position to judge the game because he's already a fan of the genre.

Anyways, when does the reviewer even state that? His opening sentence isn't a negative jab at BattleRoyale. He just says that it is easy to be cynical and assume it is a cheap knock-off, but then continues by saying that this is not the case... and spends the rest of the review talking about BattleRoyale without referencing SSB. Izumo's comment is entirely directed at an imaginary review, which he made up in his own head after reading the first sentence.

izumo_lee1976d ago (Edited 1976d ago )

Look i got caught up in the moment but even though he rarely mentions SSB the whole review makes it look like he expected PSAS to play like it, but when it does not he is at a lost.

Superbot made PSAS to play like a traditional fighter where the player needs to understand the pros/cons of each character. That whole 'complex battle system makes for steep learning curve' negative that he writes is what fighting games are about. When you play a game like Blazblue or KOF or Soul Caliber mastering the moveset of a character is key to winning on a consistent level.

Also are we now so fixated on menu designs? Why do reviewers care so much on how the menu looks? I remember Mega Man 3 having a black screen with the title but that did not stop it from being an awesome game. So i do not get this facination & desire to have complex menu screens.

Very few fighting games have an actual decent storyline. Other than Blazblue (which some say is too complex) a simple story is good enough, most fighting games stories are some big baddy setting up a tournament & fighters come to beat each other up. We already know the back story of most of the characters in PSAS so i do not see the need for a narative.

A review is ones opinion, but that first line was very clear on his intentions. He came in to PSAS expecting it to play like SSB so when it was totally different he was unsure of what to make of it. SSB is a game that is very easy to pick up & play but since PSAS is a traditional fighting game disguised as a SSB 'clone' it takes more time & effort which this guy is not willing to do.

*if you look at the reviewers contributions to Gamespot reviews he has reviewed a total of 5 fighting games (Mortal Kombat, DOA 3DS, SF4 3DS, DBZ Kinect, PSAS) so i am skeptical about his knowledge of fighting games.

Ducky1976d ago (Edited 1976d ago )

^ Those points, I can agree with.
Fighting being complex is a positive in my book, and the menu complaints are indeed silly.

Overall, it seems the reviewer couldn't understand the concept of a cartoonish-looking game also being competitive.

Only thing I disagree with you is about the review's first line stating his intentions. I think you're reading too much into it. He was just stating a general perspective that a large group of people have on the game (which is that BattleRoyale is a SmashBro clone) and he started with that line to address the issue at the beginning. Many other reviews (IGN's for example) start out similarly as well.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1976d ago