If you are satisfied with the characters that are in the game, please knock yourself out. It's not a mascot brawler for me without the actual mascots that made the Playstation brand what it is today. And you are taking this 2D thing quite literal. Obviously they turned their distaste down a couple of notches due to the struggles the PS3 had to endure. They simply couldn't afford to reject games anymore. But to me a mascot brawler is to show people what the company is all about, where it came from and where it goes. A 2D game with this kind of past and a cast full of 3D originated characters is hypocritical.

Do you even own a PS3? Because if you don't then this question isn't geared towards you. No offense.

"you are taking this 2D thing quite literal."

i am?

you're the person who posted the article apparantly as indisputable proof that sony doesn't support or make 2d games....

my rebuttal is simply that that can't be true seeing as how devs have been releasing 2d games on ps3 all gen, do you disagree?

"They simply couldn't afford to reject games anymore."

which games were rejected?

"If you are satisfied with the characters that are in the game"

for the most part i actually am i'd have liked for crash and spyro to be in but they haven't been all the that important to me since ps1 and so they aren't really game breaking for me

as for lara and cloud i can't say i really care if they get in or not as i never played their games 

...although i'm not really sure how we jumped to my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the roster

"It's not a mascot brawler for me "

i may be wrong but i don't really think the game is supposed to be targetted at nintendo fans anyway 

playstation fans are also displeased but as i explained the issue of third party characters from my understanding isn't an issue that can be helped

"A 2D game with this kind of past and a cast full of 3D originated characters is hypocritical.'

the past point aside isn't mario kart comparable as it has 2d characters in a 3d racing game?

same for spin offs like strikers, golf etc

I said Sony DID discourage 2D games on their platform. DID. Like past tense. Look it up, I said it multiple times in the course of this conversation.

Also, SCEA initially rejected Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It was not until Konami threatened to not port Metal Gear Solid 1 to the US that SCEA greenlight the port of Castlevania. Dragon Force also also got rejected by SCEA besides the fact that the game was fully translated because it was realised on the sega saturn in the US.

Like I said, if you like the characters, good for you. 

That Mario Kart comparison has to be one of the worst I have ever read. It's hard for Nintendo to betray their roots with Mario Kart when the IP is like 20 years old and thus a part of their roots. Also, Nintendo never had a policy against 3D games so I fail to see the connection.

Sony, SCEA specifically, discouraged 2D games from the very first day they entered the industry. The document I linked was just a quick google copy and paste.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77553

It's not about them "now" doing a 180, of course there were a few other 2D games. It's just really, really, really funny that they practically sum up their entire history with a kind of game they actively discouraged for over a decade.

Yeah, the SSB games also had characters most people didn't know. The difference is, those characters were additions to the important faces and not front and center like they are in PSABR. SSB would be just as shitty with just Marth, Pepe and Nana, Lucas or Olimar and characters like Mario, Link, Samus, Fox, Donkey Kong missing. Sadly, I'm not the only person that thinks this way and even if I were, that doesn't automatically render my opinion false.

The dev team can do nothing against third parties not cooperating. But this shows Sony's problem really well. They are so dependant on third parties. What defined them and what people associate with Playstation all those years didn't belong to them in the first place. They are just the hardware manufacturer.

what confused me is why you'd bring a policy from the 90s that from what you've shown only affected 2 games and apply that to whats going on over a decade later

"if you like the characters, good for you." 

 thank you

'It's hard for Nintendo to betray their roots with Mario Kart when the IP is like 20 years old and thus a part of their roots. "

wasn't your point that 3d characters shouldn't be placed into a 2d game?

with mariokart aren't 2d characters being placed into a 3d racing game

with strikers aren't 2d characters being placed into a 3d soccor game

with gold aren't 2d characters being placed into a 3d golf game 

etc?

If you are satisfied with the characters that are in the game, please knock yourself out. It's not a mascot brawler for me without the actual mascots that made the Playstation brand what it is today. And you are taking this 2D thing quite literal. Obviously they turned their distaste down a couple of notches due to the struggles the PS3 had to endure. They simply couldn't afford to reject games anymore. But to me a mascot brawler is to show people what the company is all about, where it came from and where it goes. A 2D game with this kind of past and a cast full of 3D originated characters is hypocritical.

I said Sony DID discourage 2D games on their platform. DID. Like past tense. Look it up, I said it multiple times in the course of this conversation.

Also, SCEA initially rejected Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It was not until Konami threatened to not port Metal Gear Solid 1 to the US that SCEA greenlight the port of Castlevania. Dragon Force also also got rejected by SCEA besides the fact that the game was fully translated because it was realised on the sega saturn in the US.

Like I said, if you like the characters, good for you. 

That Mario Kart comparison has to be one of the worst I have ever read. It's hard for Nintendo to betray their roots with Mario Kart when the IP is like 20 years old and thus a part of their roots. Also, Nintendo never had a policy against 3D games so I fail to see the connection.

All of Nintendos IP's are so old that they all have their roots in 2D but that doesn't mean that Nintendo is forever forced to make 2D games. I think the perception that 3D is more advanced than 2D can be universally accepted. Nearly all of Nintendos IP's have successfully made the transition from 2D to 3D individually. There's 2D and 3D Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Metroid. Give me a call when there is a 2D Uncharted or God of War.

Long story short Sony is going back to a format that the company has already deemed inferior, many of their mascots started out and are to this very day 3D oriented. Nintendo has its roots in 2D and SSB reflected this by presenting the mascots in a way that most people remember them.

Exactly. But this gen with the PS3, some of their biggest characters are 1st party. Nathan Drake and Sackboy are perfect examples.

Don't you think its smart of Sony to try and make these no-name characters bigger? I think some characters there have some huge potential. Fat Princess is one of them.