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

Forums - Sony - Let's find out whether PSASBR is a rip-off or not.

JWeinCom said:
kupomogli said:
JWeinCom said:
 

And aside from both involving monster taming, Shin Megami and Smash share very little in terms of gameplay.  I'm not sure exactly which Shin Megami game introduced monster collecting, but the earliest I could think of was Devil Children which kind of ummmm... sucked...

You didn't really "collect" but the NES Digital Devil Story game, the first game released in the series allowed you to talk to enemies and recruit them.  The game was released a little over nine years before Pokemon, and the monster recruiting has been a staple for most games in the series since then.  Progress through the game, talk to new monsters, recruit them for help, fuse them to create other monsters, etc.  In the earlier games, the monsters didn't gain levels so you had to either fuse them for a more powerful monster or talk to a newer more powerful monster.  The point is is that you were recruiting and using monsters in order to progress through the game.  Pokemon isn't anything different except that you use only monsters, it's got the "gotta catch 'em all" aspect to it, the graphical style, and it's also a competitive versus style game. 

Playstation All Stars is similar in that respect.  The graphics and style of game are just like Super Smash Bros, so it's indeed a ripoff, but it's still its own game.


I only played Demikids so myu knowledge of the series is a bit sketchy, but from what I played it was only similar to Pokemon in the vaguest sense.  You did collect monsters, but that's about where the similarities ended.  Battles were standard party based affairs rather than the 1 on 1 of Pokemon, they fused instead of evolved, and you selected attacks from an ever growing list rather than the four move limit in Smash Bros.  Nothing like HMs to my recollection, and you battled random monsters and not other trainers.  No gyms, no badges, different art style, different presentation.  

The point is, you can make two different games about monster collecting, and not have the games be rip offs.  You can make two different four player fighters.  Nobody would call Powerstone a Smash Bros rip off.  You can even have two differnt crossover fighters like Dissidia and Smash.  In the case of PASBR, Sony simply takes way too much from their source and adds too little of their own to be classified as anything but a rip off.  And if people are fine with that, that's their business.  I'm not Nintendo's lawyer or anything.  

 

arcane_chaos said:


why I think PSASBR, it getting the rip-off tag is clearly because the what nintendo has created hasn't really been explored: theies no deny that Sony copied Nintendo's battle system, but then what makes Street Fighter/Tekken/Mortal/Blazblue so different from each other? all basically have: light/medium/heavy hit/block but the buttons are somewhat changed,(albeit Tekken moves in a 3 demensional space) or the standard L1 R1 to shoot or O to chrouch/hold to prone formual that has been ABUSED this gen.

I think are line of what a rip-off means come from are own understanding of the word, you can call PSASBR a rip-off and it will affect me none, and I will respect your opinion.

I'm not all that familar with Blazblue or tekken, but let's take Mortal Kombat vs Street Fighter 2.

One thing that immediately distinguishes MK is its graphical style.  Whereas SF2 is traditional sprites, MK used mocap and photorealistic (for the time) aesthetics.  They also emphasized blood and violence.

In MK 1-3, each character shares the same basic set of moves, with a few specials to differentiate.  Back and low kick will always do the same sweep, whereas down and hp will always do an uppercut.  Street Fighter 2 gives each character a wide variety of moves.  With Dhalsim down heavy punch will do a stretchy arm attack, E Honda will sweep the groung, and dhalsim will uppercut.  In addition the physics in general are way different.  Hitstun in early MK games were pretty much non existent which limited the potential of true combos.  You could heavy punch for an eternity until your opponent decided to put up their guard (which has a dedicated button).  In comparison, Street Fighter 2 had high hitstun which made a variety of combos possible.  In general, MK is a really stiff game compared to Street Fighter with fewer moves that can cancel into one another and so forth.

Another difference is the special move system.  MK focussed on tapping motions (i.e. right right kick for Liu Kang's flying kick) while Street Fighter utilized fluid motions (i.e. down forward punch for Hadokens).

Oh and fatalities.

So, from physics, to visuals, to controls, and even down to the sounds of the game, their are a whole lot of difference between the two games.  It's similar to the situation with Shin Megami Tensai and Pokemon.  Both games are about beating an opponent in a one on one battle, but within that framework, the games show more similarities than differences.  In the case of Smash Brothers vs PSABR, I find that the similarities far outweigh the differences, as Kantor does a pretty good job of pointing out.


I think you're overaching a tad bit, but somewhat proving my case; at it's core  street fighter and mortal combat are the same, you punch/kick/jump/ grab/throw, what Capcom and Netheralms studious add in is what separates them apart.

PSABR is not a carbon-copy of SSB, from what T've seen there's no percentage linked to each character, and players have 3 levels of  speacials that they can use and that's the only way you can get knocked off the map unlike SSB where when you reach about 150%, you're screwed, and the specials randomly pop up and you have to fight to get it

these differences are what will make PSASBR different and we haven't even seen the other modes that will be included, so who knows what the end product will be.



Around the Network
Kantor said:

Fair point. They went with what was known to work rather than taking risks, which is understandable.

Shadow of the Colossus was a very risky game. It was unlike anything else that had been developed. It could have been hated by everyone, but it wasn't, and it ended up being one of the best games on the PS2. We do need people like Team Ico to push boundaries and take risks like that. But not everyone can do it. Hell, look at how much trouble it's giving them with The Last Guardian, and that game isn't even out yet.

Though they did need to be Sony mascots, since that's the central premise of the game. That in itself is not copying.

But it's not a rip-off, and it's not a clone. It's a fairly safe game which is inspired a great deal by Smash Bros. That weird Arab Uncharted ripoff was a ripoff, and looked terrible to boot.

I think I finally know what you mean. It's not like they ripped off the Nintendo characters to make their version.

But that would be worthy of a lawsuit at that point. I don't think any off us mean rip-off to that extent. I think what most of us mean is that, in almost all other aspect of variabilty, PABR chose the smash route. As such it's as much a rip-off as Pepsi was of Coke. Now we all love both.

@Risk of innovation. I completely agree, and as for TLG, it's really a pity they couldn't focus their efforts better and reduce scope to just get another great game out. There can be innovation and success, look at AC and UC.



arcane_chaos said:
JWeinCom said:
kupomogli said:
JWeinCom said:
 

And aside from both involving monster taming, Shin Megami and Smash share very little in terms of gameplay.  I'm not sure exactly which Shin Megami game introduced monster collecting, but the earliest I could think of was Devil Children which kind of ummmm... sucked...

You didn't really "collect" but the NES Digital Devil Story game, the first game released in the series allowed you to talk to enemies and recruit them.  The game was released a little over nine years before Pokemon, and the monster recruiting has been a staple for most games in the series since then.  Progress through the game, talk to new monsters, recruit them for help, fuse them to create other monsters, etc.  In the earlier games, the monsters didn't gain levels so you had to either fuse them for a more powerful monster or talk to a newer more powerful monster.  The point is is that you were recruiting and using monsters in order to progress through the game.  Pokemon isn't anything different except that you use only monsters, it's got the "gotta catch 'em all" aspect to it, the graphical style, and it's also a competitive versus style game. 

Playstation All Stars is similar in that respect.  The graphics and style of game are just like Super Smash Bros, so it's indeed a ripoff, but it's still its own game.


I only played Demikids so myu knowledge of the series is a bit sketchy, but from what I played it was only similar to Pokemon in the vaguest sense.  You did collect monsters, but that's about where the similarities ended.  Battles were standard party based affairs rather than the 1 on 1 of Pokemon, they fused instead of evolved, and you selected attacks from an ever growing list rather than the four move limit in Smash Bros.  Nothing like HMs to my recollection, and you battled random monsters and not other trainers.  No gyms, no badges, different art style, different presentation.  

The point is, you can make two different games about monster collecting, and not have the games be rip offs.  You can make two different four player fighters.  Nobody would call Powerstone a Smash Bros rip off.  You can even have two differnt crossover fighters like Dissidia and Smash.  In the case of PASBR, Sony simply takes way too much from their source and adds too little of their own to be classified as anything but a rip off.  And if people are fine with that, that's their business.  I'm not Nintendo's lawyer or anything.  

 

arcane_chaos said:
 


why I think PSASBR, it getting the rip-off tag is clearly because the what nintendo has created hasn't really been explored: theies no deny that Sony copied Nintendo's battle system, but then what makes Street Fighter/Tekken/Mortal/Blazblue so different from each other? all basically have: light/medium/heavy hit/block but the buttons are somewhat changed,(albeit Tekken moves in a 3 demensional space) or the standard L1 R1 to shoot or O to chrouch/hold to prone formual that has been ABUSED this gen.

I think are line of what a rip-off means come from are own understanding of the word, you can call PSASBR a rip-off and it will affect me none, and I will respect your opinion.

I'm not all that familar with Blazblue or tekken, but let's take Mortal Kombat vs Street Fighter 2.

One thing that immediately distinguishes MK is its graphical style.  Whereas SF2 is traditional sprites, MK used mocap and photorealistic (for the time) aesthetics.  They also emphasized blood and violence.

In MK 1-3, each character shares the same basic set of moves, with a few specials to differentiate.  Back and low kick will always do the same sweep, whereas down and hp will always do an uppercut.  Street Fighter 2 gives each character a wide variety of moves.  With Dhalsim down heavy punch will do a stretchy arm attack, E Honda will sweep the groung, and dhalsim will uppercut.  In addition the physics in general are way different.  Hitstun in early MK games were pretty much non existent which limited the potential of true combos.  You could heavy punch for an eternity until your opponent decided to put up their guard (which has a dedicated button).  In comparison, Street Fighter 2 had high hitstun which made a variety of combos possible.  In general, MK is a really stiff game compared to Street Fighter with fewer moves that can cancel into one another and so forth.

Another difference is the special move system.  MK focussed on tapping motions (i.e. right right kick for Liu Kang's flying kick) while Street Fighter utilized fluid motions (i.e. down forward punch for Hadokens).

Oh and fatalities.

So, from physics, to visuals, to controls, and even down to the sounds of the game, their are a whole lot of difference between the two games.  It's similar to the situation with Shin Megami Tensai and Pokemon.  Both games are about beating an opponent in a one on one battle, but within that framework, the games show more similarities than differences.  In the case of Smash Brothers vs PSABR, I find that the similarities far outweigh the differences, as Kantor does a pretty good job of pointing out.


I think you're overaching a tad bit, but somewhat proving my case; at it's core  street fighter and mortal combat are the same, you punch/kick/jump/ grab/throw, what Capcom and Netheralms studious add in is what separates them apart.

PSABR is not a carbon-copy of SSB, from what T've seen there's no percentage linked to each character, and players have 3 levels of  speacials that they can use and that's the only way you can get knocked off the map unlike SSB where when you reach about 150%, you're screwed, and the specials randomly pop up and you have to fight to get it

these differences are what will make PSASBR different and we haven't even seen the other modes that will be included, so who knows what the end product will be.

Right, but that's the only difference people have been able to point out so far.  Aside from the way they do specials, what is difference?  With MK, you could point out the physics, the visual style, the overall combat system and mechanics, input method for special moves, etc.

With PSABR, that's not the case.  They have double jumping, brawls floaty jump mechanics, the physics and the way people fly back from an attack (not the case in most fighting games), the visual style, airdodging (something I don't recall seeing in any other fighter), the input method for attacks, and so on.

So when comparing Street Fighter vs MK you can make broad generalizations.  Both have punching, both have kicking, etc.  In Brawl vs PSABR, you can get way more specific.  Both have similar airdodging mechanics, rolling is done the exact same way and is universal, the jump mechanics seem the same, the input method for moves is the same.  Maybe the final product will shock me with something astounding unique, but right now, I can only base my opinion on what I've seen which is basically the beta.  If the final product shows me that I've been wrong, I'll happily admit that.



Well JWein you've made a lot of good points and I can't say I really disagree with you on any of them. Btw I bought the Wii for smash :D of course i've used it for other games but it was the one thing that made me have to have it. Thanks for the nice chat.



Thanks ikol, and sorry if I was a little irritable at first.  We were just on two different wavelengths and first, but I get what you're saying now too.  Street Fighter 2 was what made me beg my parents for an SNES back in the day.  :)  Nice talking to you.



Around the Network

Also to everyone that want to use Mortal Kombat being a rip off of Street Fighter please stop its not the same level of similarity. Try something like SF to King of Fighters :P That's about how close SSB and PSABR are. Only real difference is chars and a few combat changes that change the flow of the fight.



JWeinCom said:
arcane_chaos said:
JWeinCom said:
kupomogli said:
JWeinCom said:
 

 


I

 

arcane_chaos said:
 


why I think PSASBR, it getting the rip-off tag is clearly because the what nintendo has created hasn't really been explored: theies no deny that Sony copied Nintendo's battle system, but then what makes Street Fighter/Tekken/Mortal/Blazblue so different from each other? all basically have: light/medium/heavy hit/block but the buttons are somewhat changed,(albeit Tekken moves in a 3 demensional space) or the standard L1 R1 to shoot or O to chrouch/hold to prone formual that has been ABUSED this gen.

I think are line of what a rip-off means come from are own understanding of the word, you can call PSASBR a rip-off and it will affect me none, and I will respect your opinion.

I'm not all that familar with Blazblue or tekken, but let's take Mortal Kombat vs Street Fighter 2.

One thing that immediately distinguishes MK is its graphical style.  Whereas SF2 is traditional sprites, MK used mocap and photorealistic (for the time) aesthetics.  They also emphasized blood and violence.

In MK 1-3, each character shares the same basic set of moves, with a few specials to differentiate.  Back and low kick will always do the same sweep, whereas down and hp will always do an uppercut.  Street Fighter 2 gives each character a wide variety of moves.  With Dhalsim down heavy punch will do a stretchy arm attack, E Honda will sweep the groung, and dhalsim will uppercut.  In addition the physics in general are way different.  Hitstun in early MK games were pretty much non existent which limited the potential of true combos.  You could heavy punch for an eternity until your opponent decided to put up their guard (which has a dedicated button).  In comparison, Street Fighter 2 had high hitstun which made a variety of combos possible.  In general, MK is a really stiff game compared to Street Fighter with fewer moves that can cancel into one another and so forth.

Another difference is the special move system.  MK focussed on tapping motions (i.e. right right kick for Liu Kang's flying kick) while Street Fighter utilized fluid motions (i.e. down forward punch for Hadokens).

Oh and fatalities.

So, from physics, to visuals, to controls, and even down to the sounds of the game, their are a whole lot of difference between the two games.  It's similar to the situation with Shin Megami Tensai and Pokemon.  Both games are about beating an opponent in a one on one battle, but within that framework, the games show more similarities than differences.  In the case of Smash Brothers vs PSABR, I find that the similarities far outweigh the differences, as Kantor does a pretty good job of pointing out.


I think you're overaching a tad bit, but somewhat proving my case; at it's core  street fighter and mortal combat are the same, you punch/kick/jump/ grab/throw, what Capcom and Netheralms studious add in is what separates them apart.

PSABR is not a carbon-copy of SSB, from what T've seen there's no percentage linked to each character, and players have 3 levels of  speacials that they can use and that's the only way you can get knocked off the map unlike SSB where when you reach about 150%, you're screwed, and the specials randomly pop up and you have to fight to get it

these differences are what will make PSASBR different and we haven't even seen the other modes that will be included, so who knows what the end product will be.

Right, but that's the only difference people have been able to point out so far.  Aside from the way they do specials, what is difference?  With MK, you could point out the physics, the visual style, the overall combat system and mechanics, input method for special moves, etc.

With PSABR, that's not the case.  They have double jumping, brawls floaty jump mechanics, the physics and the way people fly back from an attack (not the case in most fighting games), the visual style, airdodging (something I don't recall seeing in any other fighter), the input method for attacks, and so on.

So when comparing Street Fighter vs MK you can make broad generalizations.  Both have punching, both have kicking, etc.  In Brawl vs PSABR, you can get way more specific.  Both have similar airdodging mechanics, rolling is done the exact same way and is universal, the jump mechanics seem the same, the input method for moves is the same.  Maybe the final product will shock me with something astounding unique, but right now, I can only base my opinion on what I've seen which is basically the beta.  If the final product shows me that I've been wrong, I'll happily admit that.

but that's what I'm trying to point out, how can we sit here and call it a rip-off based on the information we have at hand. the end game can be completely different than what we've seen now, for all we know Superbot can revamp the entire control scheme.

and you somewhat overglossed my statement my point was that the fighting machanics are the same, but what both studios add in is what makes them different.(like the physics you mentioned with MK..which isn't really physics heavy...the animation of the characters is what makes them seem more fluid)



ikol said:
Also to everyone that want to use Mortal Kombat being a rip off of Street Fighter please stop its not the same level of similarity. Try something like SF to King of Fighters :P That's about how close SSB and PSABR are. Only real difference is chars and a few combat changes that change the flow of the fight.


I've always thought Tekken vs. Dead or Alive would be a good one.  Both similar 3D fighters with focus on martial arts, combos, juggling etc.  Both follow series-long storylines about corporations, personal rivalries etc.  Tekken focues more in Mishima family feuds. DoA separates from Tekken with a gameplay change (countering).  Different set of characters, more focus on uhm... busty ladies in DoA :P

But they're both very similar and co-exist well together.  



Also a good one kresnik. I always hated the Tekken rip off SF argument :P



arcane_chaos said:
JWeinCom said:
arcane_chaos said:
JWeinCom said:
kupomogli said:
JWeinCom said:
 

 


I

 

arcane_chaos said:
 


why I think PSASBR, it getting the rip-off tag is clearly because the what nintendo has created hasn't really been explored: theies no deny that Sony copied Nintendo's battle system, but then what makes Street Fighter/Tekken/Mortal/Blazblue so different from each other? all basically have: light/medium/heavy hit/block but the buttons are somewhat changed,(albeit Tekken moves in a 3 demensional space) or the standard L1 R1 to shoot or O to chrouch/hold to prone formual that has been ABUSED this gen.

I think are line of what a rip-off means come from are own understanding of the word, you can call PSASBR a rip-off and it will affect me none, and I will respect your opinion.

I'm not all that familar with Blazblue or tekken, but let's take Mortal Kombat vs Street Fighter 2.

One thing that immediately distinguishes MK is its graphical style.  Whereas SF2 is traditional sprites, MK used mocap and photorealistic (for the time) aesthetics.  They also emphasized blood and violence.

In MK 1-3, each character shares the same basic set of moves, with a few specials to differentiate.  Back and low kick will always do the same sweep, whereas down and hp will always do an uppercut.  Street Fighter 2 gives each character a wide variety of moves.  With Dhalsim down heavy punch will do a stretchy arm attack, E Honda will sweep the groung, and dhalsim will uppercut.  In addition the physics in general are way different.  Hitstun in early MK games were pretty much non existent which limited the potential of true combos.  You could heavy punch for an eternity until your opponent decided to put up their guard (which has a dedicated button).  In comparison, Street Fighter 2 had high hitstun which made a variety of combos possible.  In general, MK is a really stiff game compared to Street Fighter with fewer moves that can cancel into one another and so forth.

Another difference is the special move system.  MK focussed on tapping motions (i.e. right right kick for Liu Kang's flying kick) while Street Fighter utilized fluid motions (i.e. down forward punch for Hadokens).

Oh and fatalities.

So, from physics, to visuals, to controls, and even down to the sounds of the game, their are a whole lot of difference between the two games.  It's similar to the situation with Shin Megami Tensai and Pokemon.  Both games are about beating an opponent in a one on one battle, but within that framework, the games show more similarities than differences.  In the case of Smash Brothers vs PSABR, I find that the similarities far outweigh the differences, as Kantor does a pretty good job of pointing out.


I think you're overaching a tad bit, but somewhat proving my case; at it's core  street fighter and mortal combat are the same, you punch/kick/jump/ grab/throw, what Capcom and Netheralms studious add in is what separates them apart.

PSABR is not a carbon-copy of SSB, from what T've seen there's no percentage linked to each character, and players have 3 levels of  speacials that they can use and that's the only way you can get knocked off the map unlike SSB where when you reach about 150%, you're screwed, and the specials randomly pop up and you have to fight to get it

these differences are what will make PSASBR different and we haven't even seen the other modes that will be included, so who knows what the end product will be.

Right, but that's the only difference people have been able to point out so far.  Aside from the way they do specials, what is difference?  With MK, you could point out the physics, the visual style, the overall combat system and mechanics, input method for special moves, etc.

With PSABR, that's not the case.  They have double jumping, brawls floaty jump mechanics, the physics and the way people fly back from an attack (not the case in most fighting games), the visual style, airdodging (something I don't recall seeing in any other fighter), the input method for attacks, and so on.

So when comparing Street Fighter vs MK you can make broad generalizations.  Both have punching, both have kicking, etc.  In Brawl vs PSABR, you can get way more specific.  Both have similar airdodging mechanics, rolling is done the exact same way and is universal, the jump mechanics seem the same, the input method for moves is the same.  Maybe the final product will shock me with something astounding unique, but right now, I can only base my opinion on what I've seen which is basically the beta.  If the final product shows me that I've been wrong, I'll happily admit that.

but that's what I'm trying to point out, how can we sit here and call it a rip-off based on the information we have at hand. the end game can be completely different than what we've seen now, for all we know Superbot can revamp the entire control scheme.

and you somewhat overglossed my statement my point was that the fighting machanics are the same, but what both studios add in is what makes them different.(like the physics you mentioned with MK..which isn't really physics heavy...the animation of the characters is what makes them seem more fluid)

Well, the game is coming out in just about three months I think.  It's incredibly unlikely that much is going to change between now and then.  We might see some character tweaking (early reports indicate that Kratos' lvl 3 is a bit OP for instance) but it's a bit late for them to really change the nitty gritty of the game.

Physics are going to be important in any game.  Obviously, they're more prominent in a game like Smash where characters are flying all over, but it's also important in any other fighting game.  Physics will always determine what moves can or can't hit, how fighting games will play in the air, etc.

As for your point, it is about what studios add in that makes games different, or in this case doesn't make them different.  What it comes down to is this: I don't think that the changes that Sony's made to the Smash formula are enough for this game to stand on its own.