I wouldn't go as far as a rip-off because Sony hasn't really taken anything from Nintendo(let me explain)

I define a rip-off as a game that steals from another franchise from characters/character models/story/world design

in PSABR I don't see any red capped-looking plumber, some brown-colored looking ape, or some green capped warrior, and as of yet I haven't seen any map that looks like anything from the SSB world

I would definitely call it a copy-cat game, what Nintendo did with SSB hasn't been dove into, I didn't hear all this outcry(somewhat) when S-E did "Dissidia" or when NB did "Tales of VS." true there fighting style is way different then SSB or PSASBR, but they had the same goal in mind: to give their fans somewhat for a what-if scenario of seeing the most noticeable characters of their franchise to fight along side or against each other.

PSASBR seems like it will have more than just one mode, so that might be something Superbot is doing to further distance themselves apart and give their fans more to look forward to.

Dissidia is unique enough to seperate itself from anything else out there I think. As far as Im aware, there's nothing out there like it.

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.

Regardless by definition smash is more competitive than PABR due to stock mode (you know how many stocks are left), as well as the fact that you can disable the unbalanced supers.

imho PABR is more of a party game. The combos you pull off are for fun, but yeild little reward apart from maybe some more AP.

Other than bias, and taking game considerations into account, I can't see how PABR is more competitive than smash, are the combo's more difficult to pull off? I'd be hard pressed to believe it.

It is an rip off like Move was...And considering Move is already almost forgotten by the consumers I don't expect much from it...Anyway first reply naild it

At the risk of sounding stupid, what is this "stock mode" I keep seeing? And the fact we haven't seen what BR has to offer (in terms of modes etc) is what annoys me about the naysayers.

Stock is just a fancy way of saying "lives" in smash.

I'm pretty sure they'll implement it as a mode for PABR now that you mention it, the beta is probs only time mode.

So... it doesn't count if you rip off game mechanics?  Your definition is incredibly narrow.

As for Dissidia, there was no outcry because it was not even the slightest bit similar to Smash Bros.  Nobody is claiming that Nintendo has the sole rights to make a crossover fighter.  They weren't the first and they won't be the last.  The big difference is that Square didn't take Brawl's mechanics and swap Mario for Cloud.  They created a unique fighting engine that made sense considering their franchises heritage, implemented their own visual style, and shifted the emphasis of the fighting franchise to accomodate story.

Oh, and Smash Brothers has way more than one mode.  I think it has like, the most modes of just about any fighter O_o...

@happydophin They said the reason its like Smash. The fans wanted a smash game with sony chars. I've personally been wanted a copy of smash with sony chars for years and by the end of next gen wouldn't my xbox making their version.

I think everyone here has excepted the game came from Smash bros and I think the real probably is the words used to talk about it. Rip off is taken as an insult and starts the war of no its inspired by. The thing that should be pretty clear by now is that both sides are preaching to the choir. No one is going to change their views on if they like the game not bc they've already decided how they feel

and thus is why I call it a copy-cat game; we can't call every game the emulates another gameplay mechanics as a rip-off...should we critize every game that copied Mario, Halo: combat evolved, God of war(or DMC for that matter) or Uncharted 2's(or Gears of War) mechanics? I'm not saying PSASBA is some newly creative IP, but it will do enough that it can seperate itself from the competition.

and as I said in my previous post, Dissidia's gemaplay is vastly different from SSB, I was just stating that Sony has the same concept in mind; of giving their fans a little fanservice, is it that bad that they copied SSB's gameplay?