PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale Review- The Geek Link

Tyler Lee of The Geek Link writes- For several years now, Nintendo’s Super Smash Bros. series has become a household name; the go to game if you want to grab your favorite iconic characters and have a knockdown, drag out battle with them. Now Sony has thrown their own game into the mix with PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale. It gives you the option of taking your favorite characters from your PlayStation system; such as Kratos, Sly Cooper, or Cole McGrath, and pitting them against each other. PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale’s execution produces a fun way for you and your friends to mindlessly duke it out with characters that have no business in each others’ games, as long as you don’t plan on playing on your own for more than an hour.

The story is too old to be commented.
Tokyo_reject2222d ago (Edited 2222d ago )

this game is soooo fun with friends...onlines alittle just cause you feel like u should be playing with friends, laughing, and having a great time...but the single player just leaves me feeling empty when i win lol
4/5 for me....lowest is 3.5/5 lol

SamuraiZero2222d ago

I can understand where you're coming from. I just feel for $60, the single player should be a bit more....well more. Multiplayer was a blast.

Tokyo_reject2222d ago

Why are people disagreeing with me lol??? do they think the game is GREAT....or HORRIBLE????

I have to say....if they think its horrible...they must not have any friends to play it with HA!!!!

Nexgensensation2222d ago

Its always in a group setting, no one is really playing the single player and everyone plays on stock on multiplayer. so for a game to have such a crap single player and such a vague multiplayer how does this game get higher than a 1.5 or 2?

Like what tokyo_ reject said "This game is soooo fun with FRIENDS!!" "but the single player just leave me feeling EMPTY!!"

Blastoise2222d ago

I don't understand what you're talking about...

The multiplayer is great, the single player isn't so great. 3/5. Obviously the multiplayer made up most of the points. It's a game that relies on playing with other people, and it has an online that works fine. So, why does it deserve a 1.5 or 2 out of 5?

admiralvic2222d ago

While I don't exactly agree with this, a lot of it has to do with "lop sided" value.

On one hand the game has good balance (for the most part) and some think it's fun to play against real people / friends.

On the other hand... many people were less than thrilled with the roster, the campaign is really short with virtually no replay value, almost no story, not a lot of modes, menu could be better, AI is dumb, online can be problematic if you play with a Vita user (might have gotten patched, haven't played since), etc.

Many people are seeing All-Stars does the important things right (online MP / gameplay), but does a poor job at virtually everything else... Since this is a common belief, I think a lot of people are expecting another Declassified situation. Since Declassified has a similar break down, but is commonly seen as a 2 or 3 out of 10. A bit of this probably has to do with the higher price tag, but I assume this is where that mentality comes from.

Nexgensensation2222d ago

Just like what admiralvic stated.

for the most part this game bread and butter is it's social attitude, but for the single player?

all I'm saying is this. where's the integrity? where is the credibility? it is like if sony release anything its already labeled GOTY.

Enough with the backward politics already

WeAreLegion2222d ago

Everyone I know has played through the single player as every character and they still do it to level up. :) Obviously, it's the most fun when you are playing with three other people.

smikey11232222d ago (Edited 2222d ago )

@nexgensensation Multiplayer is arguably what this is made for, so why would the game get such a low score when the multiplayer is fine. Granted the single player is pretty shallow and feels tacked on, that doesn't mean that the entire game is bad.

Nexgensensation2222d ago

1.) the game is priced at 60$ new.

2.) with that 60$, all your getting is a multiplayer game, and a very short single player.

3.) this game is classified as a full game and not a psn title.

4.) this game is not even worth renting, if you did, you wouldn't be able to play online without that online code. therefore forcing a money saving gamer to play a empty single player

5.) this game deserve a 2 out of 5 is because, there is no story, which makes the single player shallow and the only fun you really have is on the online/local multiplayer, which is stripped away if you buy this game used or rented.

No story
decent gameplay(due to multiplayer)
a unique presentation(due to dynamic background)
no replay value
as for a full 60$ retail game the overall value way below standards.

smikey11232222d ago

The same argument can be used about many games now that come with an online pass. They are used to prevent used game sales that don't give the developers and cut of the money. So how is that a strike against the game? The multiplayer is fun. That is primarily what the game was meant for, so it actually hit it's desired outcome. Would it have been better with a fuller and more defined single player? Sure. But the fact it has an online pas doesn't in any way hinder gameplay, just sales of used games and rentals.

StreetsofRage2222d ago

Let's be real here... this game failed. Plain and simple.

jukins2222d ago

how so? sales are decent people seem to be having fun with it, myself included so how did it fail? oh thats right you didnt like it so its an auto fail.

Show all comments (16)