By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Sony's Smash Bros. competitor all but confirmed, test images revealed

Rainbow Yoshi on 27 November 2011
Tridrakious said:
Here I thought the rivalry was Microsoft vs. Sony. But man this is a heated war between Sony and Nintendo fanboys...I've been out of the fight for a long time.


Good that I'm in support of both then.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 27 November 2011
Rainbow Yoshi said:


I've got to admit, this is post is one of your best for a while as it is not silly in anyway.

Anyway to the point. Nintendo came up with a fantastic idea when they formed Super Smash Bros. and Sony is really the only other company in gaming to form a vast host of playable characters. I hope Sony don't call this Sony Smash Bros. because I am sure "Smash Bros." is copyrighted.


Capcom, Konami, and Namco - to name only three - have larger stables of iconic characters than Sony do.



leatherhat on 27 November 2011
ElGranCabeza said:
leatherhat said:
ElGranCabeza said:
This is gonna suck and sell horrible and I'll tell you why:

1) No recognizable character worldwide. Kratos is not that famous in EU/Japan, Drake not famous in Japan, and everything else not famous anywhere
2) Developer is unknown. Remember when Sony gave 3 of its biggest mascots to the horrible Nihilistic Software and they made one of the worst games of all time? They then rewarded them by having them make Resistance Vita which so far looks pretty fucking bad? Yeah, expect more of the same. MNR was supposed to be Mario Kart like but it sucked and the load times actually put me to sleep. Nothing Mario Kart about that.

I thought for sure you would support this game

Why? The concept itself is pretty stupid, but Nintendo is able to pull it off because their characters are pretty damn popular worldwide, this has bomba written all over it, even more so than the Mario Kart clone, MNR.

You are a retard if you doidn't get the sarcasm 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

o_O.Q on 27 November 2011

....well this thread really went to shit, i knew from the beginning that the nintendo fans wouldn't be able to contain their hate on this one ( even though we don't really know anything aside from it being a cross over fighter ) but still lol i wasn't expecting this



M.U.G.E.N on 27 November 2011
IamAwsome said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
IamAwsome said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
IamAwsome said:
PullusPardus said:
RolStoppable said:
PullusPardus said:

where is my Jak and Daxter sequel then? =[

Sony milks an IP for what it's worth and then moves on. Jak and Daxter fell below the treshold where it was worth continuing, so its developers were encouraged to move on to something new. Of the three PS2 platformer series, only the bestselling one was continued on the PS3. Everything that doesn't sell well enough anymore is either discontinued or handed to a second tier development studio.


@Bolded

so how is that different from Nintendo?

Nintendo also doesn't hand it's most valuable IPs to less competent developers, the only time they did was when they handed Metroid to, at the time, unproven Retro. This gen alone, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance, God of War, Sly Cooper, and what was supposed to be Playstation Move Heroes, all at one point, were seeded to smaller developers, and I'll bet that Resistance, LBP, and inFamous will be in the hands of smaller devs next gen. Do you see Nintendo handing Mario and Zelda off to whoever asks for it? No. 


umm I don't think they just hand it over to people who 'ask' for it >_> doubt that's how it works

and fyi, even people mentioned games like move heroes as bad games that came out of such a move, no one mentioned Ready at dawn games etc. They were fantastic games and the quality was very very high. so no, not everything is about ninty vs sony. they are different companies, they do things differently, doesn't mean A is better than B or vice versa. and also aren't there bunch of spin off mario games done by smaller devs? who made Mario Tennis?

According to an article on g4tv.com, it works something like that, but not exactly. 

The PSP GOW games were good, but the difference is that Ready at Dawn is a proven dev (They made Daxter), and Nhilistic isn't (They've been in business since '95 and haven't made a decently reviewed game yet). 

It's not necesserily about Nintendo vs Sony, it's just that Sony makes some questionable decisions reguarding their IPs. 

Mario Tennis was made by Camelot, which unlike Nhilistic, is a proven dev. 


Daxter is also an important game for Sony and Ready at Dawn did wonders with that one as well

All I'm saying all companies have made such deceisions. and I would say don't rely on g4tv for anything factual like that. Chances are the company showed some promise in the work they presented Sony. could be hit or miss really. And Resistance is an IP that is declining in popularity, it's not like they gave them Uncharted or GOW

and I'm just curious, what have camelot done to make them a proven dev? I just checked on wiki and it all just lists some genesis IP >_> I would hardly call that as as being 'proven' ..maybe we just have different ideas of that term. I mean you do realize Nhilistic have made some known games before too right? Like Conan, Marvel Nemesis etc. 

I agree with you on the second paragraph. 

Camelot made the Shining series, which got a lot of praise back in the day. According to IGN, Conan took a lot of ideas from God of War, and got poor reviews as a whole, and Marvel got really bad reviews. I guess we do have different definitions. -__-

I believe you are misunderstanding me here, I'm not saying nhilistic is proven either but I wouldn't call camelot as a 'proven' either just cuz one game, especially not proven enough to give your most iconic character to them (found this game on a quick glance at mario wiki page as well, Hotel mario >_> ). it's not like Sony gave GT series to a small dev. Move heroes was a spin off casual title and Resistance is declining in popularity, so sony can in a sense can take a risk with them. I'm guessing similar scenario with MTennis (and I'm sure we can find other similar examples in ninty history). this is just business, nothing more nothing less. IF Nhilistic can actually put out a decent Resistance Vita game I expect to see more similar titles from then in coming years as well..if not meh it's the chance for another small dev to prove themselves I suppose



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Around the Network
o_O.Q on 27 November 2011
Dgc1808 said:
I hate all this talk of sales and how SONY doesn't have enough big names.

1) Not every character in Brawl was that popular. Metroid hasn't been doing big numbers for ages. Fire Emblem never did. SONY has a number of franchises that are on par or bigger than the likes of Fire Emblem, Pikmim, Metroid, Ice Climbers, Kid Icarus, Star Fox, F-Zero, and Earthbound. These days Kirby isn't even exactly selling that big compared to SONY's big names.

What's left is just Mario, Pokemon and to a lesser extent, Zelda. I actually loaded up the game just now to look at the roster again and really, there aren't that many franchises in this game anyway that SONY can't compete with. They even use character that hardly anyone knows about like ROB, Mr Game and Watch.

2) Does anyone give a shit about a game just being good anymore? Smash would still be fun without the Mario and Legend of Zelda cast, people. At my school, a lot of the people that play with certain character really don't know anything about their original games. They just like the character they're playing with in the game that they're playing and that's all that matter.

"Does anyone give a shit about a game just being good anymore?"

lol no for a fighting game to be good its characters must be popular who cares about all that other shit like game mechanics that actually you know... affect gameplay

the irony here is that as you said ( even though i used to play consoles like the n64 and cube with my cousins and friends ) aside from some of the mario characters, link and pokemon i didn't know of most of the ssb roster... guys like game and watch, ice climbers, pit, roy etc were completely unknown to me 



Lord_Yggdrassil on 27 November 2011

It's gonna be ****.



---

bouzane on 27 November 2011
Khuutra said:
Rainbow Yoshi said:


I've got to admit, this is post is one of your best for a while as it is not silly in anyway.

Anyway to the point. Nintendo came up with a fantastic idea when they formed Super Smash Bros. and Sony is really the only other company in gaming to form a vast host of playable characters. I hope Sony don't call this Sony Smash Bros. because I am sure "Smash Bros." is copyrighted.


Capcom, Konami, and Namco - to name only three - have larger stables of iconic characters than Sony do.


I certainly don't agree but I can understand both Capcom and Konami, however claiming that Namco has more iconic characters than Sony is just absurd.



enrageorange on 27 November 2011

its not the "iconic" characters that will be a problem in this game, its that most of sony's newer big hits have incredibly bad characters for a fighting game at least a super smash bros stype one. Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Moterstorm, etc. etc. have terrible characters to include in such a game. The only popular ones that would be interesting are sackboy, kratos, Col, Ratchet, Clank, and their older mascots. The problem is many current ps3 owners don't care for or haven't even played games with sony's classic mascots. Super smash bros includes the most popular nintendo characters ever, and those are the ones that sell the game while the lesser known characters please the hardcore crowd. Sony's equivalent popular characters would be generic army guys from call of duty, gangsters from Grand theft auto, and cars from gran turismo. Doesn't really sound too awsome does it.



bouzane on 27 November 2011
RolStoppable said:
bouzane said:
Khuutra said:

Capcom, Konami, and Namco - to name only three - have larger stables of iconic characters than Sony do.

I certainly don't agree but I can understand both Capcom and Konami, however claiming that Namco has more iconic characters than Sony is just absurd.

Namco has Pac-Man, Klonoa and the huge casts of Tekken and Soul Calibur. Namco has also a long history which means they have many lesser known characters from the arcade era and their Tales games.


They also have Dig Dug which would be fantastically sadistic in a fighting game. That being said, it still pales in comparison to the potential roster for Sony.