Let's take all of the worst characters in the history of Playstation...

[Kirov]

Oh hey what’s this at the Dev stuidio? A Wii? I wonder what game they are playing on that?

[Polantaris]

>Can only kill opponents with super attacks.
>Supers come in 3 levels. With the highest being OP as hell.
>In the mean time you're just bashing your opponents around to build up your supers.

HAHAHAHA. Sounds boring as f'uck. Can't even copy Smash Bros. correctly. E3 this year is gonna be hi-larious.

Honestly, that's really not that bad of a concept. How many times in Smash Brothers have you died the second you spawned from some bullpomegranate? That can't happen here.

Depending on how your "Supers" are built up will determine how skill oriented the game is as well (Equal ratio between getting hit and hitting? Do hits you give build it up more? Do taking hits build it up at all?)

There's also some nice and interesting differences, like the mixed up maps where there's multiple game themes in a single map. That's never been the case in Smash Brothers.

Honestly this so far seems like a decent twist on Smash Brothers. People are too quick to bash games that have a similar appeal. That's what most Monster Hunter fans (Myself included, I'm sad to admit) did when God Eater was announced. That turned out to be a pretty damn good game. Do not bash this game simply because it was clearly based upon Smash Brothers.

The only part so far that bothers me is the characters. So far none of them are very interesting. They said they're going back to the PS1 days and the only example they can give for that is Sly? They said they are going to do 3rd party characters and have nothing to show? Give me something to be interested in outside of unique mechanics. If I hate every character they add to the game, it doesn't help me wanting to play it. Catering to new gamers isn't fun either. OH MAN, KRATOS! I'M SO SURPRISED! What's next, Nathan Drake? Yeah, some generic douchebag with a pistol. Awesome character idea.

The biggest thing that worries me here is DLC. "Huge potential for DLC with this game," is what the guy says. I'm calling $5 unbalanced characters now.

[Abbeh]

The sad thing is, regardless of how much people are currently bashing it, this game will probably still sell like hotcakes.

I don't think the difference between Nintendo and Playstation characters will make all that big of a difference in the end. Smash worked well because we've known and loved some of the classic Nintendo characters for years, yes... but they're always in our face and coming out with new games with those same characters.

Sony, on the other hand, has the chance to play the nostalgia card and draw people in to play as a character they remember from their childhood that they haven't seen in years. (Whether or not they'll do this right, well...)

[Razmos]

Oh hey what’s this at the Dev stuidio? A Wii? I wonder what game they are playing on that?

They are all wearing hoods... they are like reapers, taking souls.

[CrazyForDex]

OH MAN, KRATOS! I'M SO SURPRISED! What's next, Nathan Drake? Yeah, some generic douchebag with a pistol. Awesome character idea.

I agreed with you until this part. Uncharted is the s'hit and Nathan Drake is the man. Shame on you, sir.

[Mark]

Honestly, that's really not that bad of a concept. How many times in Smash Brothers have you died the second you spawned from some bullpomegranate? That can't happen here.

That's what makes Smash Bros. SMASH BROS. You can die at any time and in a multitude of ways. Makes it fun and unpredictable. (Unless you're a tourney turd and playing the game like it wasn't meant to be played.)

This game is just the exact opposite. You already know how you're gonna die and it doesn't seem as fun. Oh and don't even try to defend the maps. Giant hulking monsters in the background doesn't make it original. Kraid would like a word with you.

[Smooth Criminal]

Smash Bros is successful because Nintendo has been using the same characters for over 20 plus years, it's virtually no wonder why we have so much attachment and nostalgia value to a lot of Smash Bro's cast. I can't pretend that I've played through all the games they'll be picking characters from, but in Sony's defense: if we thought about how this roster works compared to Nintendo's, a lot of these characters have that kind of attachment to devout Sony fans- especially with the inclusion of some PS1-era characters. But that's not everyone here. To most of people and those who probably focus on different games that make up our experience with Sony's past consoles, some of these characters just don't work for us. Are Chimera from Resistance (I believe there's been no formal announcement, but it was confirmed somewhere) and Colonel Radec REALLY iconic to Playstation gaming? In other words, do I really want to play as that generic, bland enemy I shoot at all the time or a villain from a fairly average FPS game campaign? That's something you've got to think about.

And about the roster- Sony wants to focus on what it thinks its image is. To Sony, its image is probably its top-selling exclusives as well as well-known games from its past: so right now, God of War, MGS, Resistance, Killzone, and Uncharted probably represent Sony. Think about that for a second as well. (And yes, Fat Princess was a terrible addition, wtp)

And so with that in mind, I really don't know. I want to like this game, but the characters don't seem fun- even with Sly Cooper and Parappa. I do want to see Katamari slipped in somehow, but The Prince probably won't be a character- it'll probably appear in some kind of Assist Trophy-like item or in the form of a map.

Oh and don't even try to defend the maps. Giant hulking monsters in the background doesn't make it original. Kraid would like a word with you.

LOL. Dialga and Palkia in the Spear Pillar map as well. But anyways: quoted from Skype, from a Sony fanboy I was talking to about this game:

[4/27/2012 5:32:09 PM] *Name Cut Out*: does smash brothers have that background stuff?

"Giant hulking monsters in the background are going to make this game kill the Smash Bros series."<-THIS IS WHAT SONY FANBOYS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

[Polantaris]

I agreed with you until this part. Uncharted is the s'hit and Nathan Drake is the man. Shame on you, sir.

Sorry, I never found Uncharted to be that great of a game and even if it's the best game ever Nathan Drake is not exactly the most unique character in existence. He's a normal guy with some guns and decent acrobatic skills.

That's what makes Smash Bros. SMASH BROS. You can die at any time and in a multitude of ways. Makes it fun and unpredictable. (Unless you're a tourney turd and playing the game like it wasn't meant to be played.)

This game is just the exact opposite. You already know how you're gonna die and it doesn't seem as fun. Oh and don't even try to defend the maps. Giant hulking monsters in the background doesn't make it original. Kraid would like a word with you.

Yes, that's what makes Smash Brothers Smash Brothers. And not having it makes this game this game. Everyone is peaching that the game is exactly the same and you just said yourself that it's not.

Last I checked "Giant hulking monsters in the background" is not the only feature that's part of the maps. Also they were in Smash Brothers, so that's not even part of the unique aspect to them. I'm talking about how they're combining elements from multiple games and merging them into one map, which was never done in Smash Brothers. In Smash Brothers, X map has a theme from Y game and that's it. There's never a combination of themes to create a unique map using elements from several games at once.

[Mark]

Sorry, I never found Uncharted to be that great of a game and even if it's the best game ever Nathan Drake is not exactly the most unique character in existence. He's a normal guy with some guns and decent acrobatic skills.



Yes, that's what makes Smash Brothers Smash Brothers. And not having it makes this game this game. Everyone is peaching that the game is exactly the same and you just said yourself that it's not.

Last I checked "Giant hulking monsters in the background" is not the only feature that's part of the maps. Also they were in Smash Brothers, so that's not even part of the unique aspect to them. I'm talking about how they're combining elements from multiple games and merging them into one map, which was never done in Smash Brothers. In Smash Brothers, X map has a theme from Y game and that's it. There's never a combination of themes to create a unique map using elements from several games at once.

Sorry, man. Defend it all you want. It's just Smash Bros. with Sony "characters."

Gonna bomb hard. Watch.

[Sarah]

Sorry, man. Defend it all you want. It's just Smash Bros. with Sony "characters."

Gonna bomb hard. Watch.

It definitely won't be a hit like SSB but that's because the PS3 has constant other good releases to choose from, rather than one decent/nostalgic franchise game every few months.

[Mark]

It definitely won't be a hit like SSB but that's because the PS3 has constant other good releases to choose from, rather than one decent/nostalgic franchise game every few months.

Yeah. Almost forgot about Weaboo RPGs, the 4th editions of SF4. MvC and FPS. My bad.

[CrazyForDex]

It definitely won't be a hit like SSB but that's because the PS3 has constant other good releases to choose from, rather than one decent/nostalgic franchise game every few months.

Uh, that really isn't good reasoning for how a game will be recieved. "Oh, this system's game did well because it's the only good game for that system while this system's game did poorly because there are tons of good games to choose from." Nah.

Preference is preference. Saying there are not "good" games for a system at a given time is subjective, whether or not you care about reviews is your own prerogative. I can think of several releases that were very good games and popular and also came out near the release date of other big titles. SSB is popular because it is an awesome party play game that utilizes a lot of very popular characters. While Nintendo does not release a lot of worthwhile games for hardcore gamers anymore, I would not say that this is the main reason that their games had the success they did. This Sony game, while adding some new elements, looks a lot like SSB and at least from the videos I've seen and things I've read, looks like a pretty close carbon-copy. If it bombs, it's because Sony did not do a good enough job of making their own unique game while providing reasons for people to buy it, not soley because people have other options of things to buy.

[Polantaris]

I'm not saying the game is not going to be pomegranate. I'm just saying that it's got it's own merits that can potentially make it a success. People are too quick to jump down the "ITS A COPY OF SMASH BROTHERS! KILL IT!" route, and I've seen that before and in many other situations the same has been done and said for other games and the people who say it end up eating their words because the game turns out to be pretty good.

It's honestly too soon to be jumping to such conclusions. As far as I can tell the only point of reference is that single GTTV episode, which:
1) Shows about 5 characters.
2) Shows about 3 maps.
3) Barely goes in depth about how the game even plays.
4) Shows nothing about the controls.
5) Barely shows mechanics.

All we've seen are physics and camera mechanics similar to Smash Brothers, and we've seen some mechanics that we can only imply as to their purpose, because they were not explained. 95% of games share qualities between other games.
SF VS Tekken
CoD VS BF
Old FF VS DQ
DQMonsters VS Pokemon
The list goes on.
I don't remember every game that has similar mechanics to another getting chastised like this, especially when we have little information about the game. Sure, we have a basic concept to how the game plays, but for all we know negative response to the whole Super system could lead it to be completely changed. It's been known to happen in plenty of other games, where negative response causes the developer to change the entire game.

[Lozmaster]

It definitely won't be a hit like SSB but that's because the PS3 has constant other good releases to choose from, rather than one decent/nostalgic franchise game every few months.

It's weird of you to make such a good joke post sarah, but good one. Especially if we're considering 2008 when the last smash bros game came out.

[Miek]

The only way I would be playing this or acknowledging this game's existence is if there is a female I can vicariously live through

otherwise I'm going to say it's going to bomb hard!

[Razmos]

Who the hell is Nathan Drake?

Gimme some Lara Croft.

[Dredragon]

What' the point in making a game like this if most of these characters are so unknown? Jeez.

[Twilight]

I don't understand how this looked like a great idea at any stage in the development process. I don't even know who this game is supposed to be marketed to...

[Dystopiq]

Is it that difficult for you people to see this and not draw comparisons to the SSB series? You know, Shonen Jump did it too. And if I recall, so did Onimusha and no one got their underwear in a bunch.. But hey I'm just the guy who isn't drawing conclusions from a game I've never played or throwing incredibly biased opinions around with no experience to give legitimacy to those thoughts.

[Kirov]

Some people are bashing it really hard but I can’t see how you could not compare it to Smash Bros since it is exactly that. It is Sony’s take on that formula.

Going of on a slight tangent here but Jump Super Stars and Jump Ultimate Stars were two awesome games. They were full of iconic characters from series such as Bleach, Dragon Ball and Naruto to name but a few. Oh and just another little thing, both of those games were published by Nintendo themselves.