| Kantor said: A rip-off? No. It just so happens that Brawl's genre has been largely ignored by other companies because they don't have enough mascot characters (Ubisoft or EA might be able to manage it as well). To those calling it a clone: what could they have done, within the genre, to make it any more different from Smash Bros? |
Easy, powerstone was very different.
They could change the aspect ratio of their characters as compared to the level, make some characters taller rather than chibi. Did they need to be Sony mascots? What about whole new characters with unique moves?
Why double-jump, why not some form of temporary gliding? Or a SFIII style high jump?
Could there be some kind of items they could pick up what are integrated in the victory system?
What about smaller levels, and more intricate levels like temple?
Why not full 2D or Stree-fighter IV style graphics?
Is rolling in all fighting games?
Did it have to be 2D, what about isometric? What about 3D?
For every alternative, the choice was in almost every case to go the smash route.
Honestly I have no problem with it, I just have an issue when the debate can't go past a baseline from where more discussion could be made. Here's a follow-up question:
How awesome is Shadow of the Colossus, despite the sense of adventure it shares with the legend of Zelda? How did it get there, was it by basing itself off of another idea? I wouldn't think so. Would we have had SotC if the PABR approach was taken? Probably not. What ideas could have been birthed had the studio taken a different approach, given the caliber of Sony's studios? COULD SONY AFFORD IT? (in caps to show that we are a sales chart and haven't even gotten to that level yet)
I just hope we can all evolve, all of us, and get to topics that are actually interesting when it comes to topics like these. This is constructive criticism.
