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. 6.5/10
30°
30°
30°
30°
40°
40°
Ad 
30°
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?
Dumb people often destroy things they do no understand, no offense to the "much beloved" gamespot.
"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."
hmm it's like asking:
Why do the ants come rushing out their hive is kicked?.
This is THE worst game I played this generation right after Twisted Metal.
Just my opinion.
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.
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.
Move on.
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
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.
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? Oh..it 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.
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.
If you think I'm paranoid, just recall the picture with Geoff Keighley and Mountain Dew.
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.
If SSB didn't exist, pasbr wouldn't too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are plenty more Sony exclusive characters out there though...they simply aren't in it for whatever reason at this time. I think for a first attempt the roster is pretty strong, and some 3rd party characters like Raiden just make sense.
Million selling exclusives like Resistance, Yakuza, Valkyria Chronicles, Syphon Filter, Heavy Rain, Warhawk, Journey, Ico, Okami, Shadow of the Collosus, Demon's Souls aren't represented yet, but the characters most assuredly are still out there. As such, the roster complaints are getting kinda old. We already have free DLC confirmed from two more exclusives, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel. The first Super Smash Bros game (which many seem to be viewing with protective nostalgia) only had 12 characters. You gotta start somewhere.
A xbox 360 or Wii U exclusive gets good reviews:
"Microsoft/Nintendo paid them, Journey/UC metacritic is better, it got 2/10 reviews and so on"
A xbox 360 or Wii U exclusive gets a bad/troll review:
"Their paycheck didn't arrive on time" or
"It's his opinion, he's entitled to it"
A Ps3 exclusive gets good reviews:
"Totally deserved, GOTY"
A PS3 exclusive gets bad/troll reviews:
"The reviewer is a Xbox 360 fanboy, retarded reviewer, troll review, etc."
Seriously people, it's a review get over it, it's not even a bad score.
Otherwise just stop with the nonsense don't feed it and maybe it will starve and we can all be GAMERS and play games together and have fun and not care about the weekly SDF or XDF member count.
***"A xbox 360 or Wii U exclusive gets good reviews:
"Microsoft/Nintendo paid them, Journey/UC metacritic is better, it got 2/10 reviews and so on""***
http://n4g.com/news/845209/...
http://n4g.com/news/1112208...
http://n4g.com/news/1112193...
http://n4g.com/news/859568/...
http://n4g.com/news/1100117...
I like how people like you on this site work.
That proves? My point?
If you look at the comments praising the game or the review they have tons of disagrees.
Look at the comments I found
"Guys looks like MS only really decent exclusive barley breaks the 9's. Maybe next year guys maybe next year"
"Wait what, all of a sudden IGN reviews are now credible? Funny old bunch here on n4g sometimes. Will bookmark this article then laugh as the same people dismiss IGN scores come Black Ops 2 review."
"IGN always give halo and COD high scores no matter what. Though this one does look good i must say"
"Nothing against the game but this looks almost exactly like Dirt 3. The presentation is nearly identical."
"I think it's a shame really because you have Forza missing essential racing features like Gravity gauge, Break Gauge, Throttle gauge fuel and tyre wear gauge and even lack of a Turbo gauge. Say what you will but this is what racing sim fans want. That's just my opinion, it doesn't deserve its score for a lack of fundamental features."
It's like the first time in recent memory I almost 100% didnt agree with a reviewer's opinion. It's almost like bashing MGS for long cutscenes when that is something I love.
Opinions are opinions, not facts, guys. Reviewers are not the word of god.
It takes time to master the characters is a con???
Are you kidding me gamespot, maybe you should just stick with the COD "no-brain" formula.
Games becoming easier and easier and you coming up with such shit. No wonder the industry is suffering...KZ3, U3, Socom, Warhawk are all sold out to the casul market.
Bad future for the next generation.
Are you kidding me gamespot, maybe you should just stick with the COD "no-brain" formula.
This is so true. Its awfully sad
I mentioned this before but it reminds me of a friend i have he didn't want to play Kz3 because he didn't know how to play. But he played every single cod on the market. Even after i told him its pretty much the same control he still wasn't interested.
Then i put Cod 4 on and all he was doing is quick scoping people.
And also 2 more training camps for absolute beginners and then intermediate to advanced.
What more do they need? For the game to play itself?
I`m sorry to say, and yes I own a PS3. That`s the console I`ve played most on this generation. Don`t blame me, blame Sony for giving this game to the wrong developers. They are not Nintendo!
I will be buying this game, & I will enjoy it regardless of what the reviews say! Simply because of the hours me & my friends put into the beta alone.
They reviewed it for what it is, a fighter. The main appeal here is not the fact it is a fighter, but that all the Sony mascots are together in a game.
Based on that, I think I will like it a lot personally but I totally see how, from a fighting game fanatic or one who had not grown up with PS characters would not enjoy it as much.
each single characters have their own style of gameplay which u need to master...check the ign 2hours exclusive gameplay to see what i mean.
this time i agree with ign review gamespot should choose someone else for this mark is a lame reviewer
It looks like a fun, accessible fighter but plays like a serious one, which for some would be great, others will find it a little odd and frankly, difficult.
Not sure if I agree with them yet as I dont get the game until Friday, but I see the point they were making at least.
just food for thought: what if the game is really as bad as the reviewer says? What excuse will you all come up with then?
The complaints, by and large, are weak. So who's the one making excuses?
What's the excuse for that Hicken?
All i saw the last month on gamespot was shitload of halo4-ac3 adds,news every ten minutes ffs.
One thing I definitely agree on is the topic on health bars. I didn't like the way the AP system works. I played maybe 6 or 7 matches but from what I can recall, it was a fighting frenzy the whole game. The way the opponents interact with each other in the game was about the same throughout the matches. I guess that's why They put emphasis on the arenas, so the game isn't to stagnant. I the game had health bars or another mechanic, I believe it would have been better. Like the reviewer said, their is nothing more satisfying then watching/making a clutch moment in a games. With the AP system I can imagine their arn't many clutch moments.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I don't play fighting games that much but this video is just AWESOME. Pumps the heart.
People need to stop relying on sites for reviews and find the actual journalists themselves. Find someone who likes the same games you do, then you are more likely to get an opinion which more aligns with how you would perceive the game. Relying on the actual site as a brand and judging a review because its IGN or GameSpot is just an oxymoron. Because all sites contain good journalists and terrible ones. It's up to you to find the good ones.
It's a good score.
Played the beta, enjoyed it, will be buying the second Crash Bandicoot or Snake are put in. Anyone find out who the final boss is yet?
"It copies SSB."
It does, but it uses those elements in a different way. Almost every element is different, and the ones that remain are changed to work with the game, so these elements are welcome. I have always wanted a Sony beat-em up, since SSB, and now when one is made, people act like it's a trashy rip-off. Why fix something that isn't broken? Look at all of the fighting games that every console has to offer. SSB was fun, and competitive at the same time. Why is that bad to have in a fighting game?
"It was a poorly made game."
I doubt it. This game set the stage with what could be done in the future. Super Smash Bros 1 is definitely not as great as it's counterparts (although some may say otherwise,) and Playstation Allstars Battle Royale is only the first one! They are testing the waters for a possible sequel, and if people hate on this game for being a simple clone, then why would Superbot bother with making another?