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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale review thread

Tagged games:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 



Around the Network
Rafux said:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 

There you go. Reviews don't really matter for a game like this. It's all about the multiplayer.(local and online)



VGKing said:
Rafux said:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 

There you go. Reviews don't really matter for a game like this. It's all about the multiplayer.(local and online)

Completely agree. Thanks god I never read that review back in 1998 or I may have pass on one of the best games ever.



I think this quote, "Copying Nintendo's own celebration seems not only wrong-headed but borderline offensive (Metro GameCentral)," is proof enough that some reviewers never intended to judge this game based on its own merits.

Honestly, this looks like another ZombieU to me, where you can throw out the score. As of right now, there are five reviews that rate it a 90 and four reviews a 65 or less. It seems very much a game that depends greatly on personal taste--and how objective you can be about a new IP that is strongly influenced by an existing IP. Personally, I don't see the point in going overboard with the comparisons when both IPs are exclusive to different consoles, but it seems to be a big deal to some.

Regardless, I think this is yet another game where someone on the fence should read the reviews rather than base anything on the meta-score.



Rafux said:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 


Seriously. Games like this have rough starts, but eventually they come into their own. 



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:
JWeinCom said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
JWeinCom said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Slimebeast said:

Dante's Inferno 75% Meta - "shameless God of War rip-off got what it deserved"

(Sony fans' comments here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=96873 )

All-Stars Battle Royale 76% Meta - "WTF, unfair reviews of a great game!"


Dantes inferno did not pushing anything that god of war did, It was just a reskinned game. Allstars was setup to be simple, but can be taken seriously as a tournament style brawler. It took what SSMB did to the next level, the presenation just sucked, thats all. I am in it for the core mechanics and the characters and dlc, not any

I love people trying to say this game is deeper and more nuanced than a franchise that's been being dissected by incredibly gamers for upwards of a decade.  Gives me a nice hearty chuckle.  Maybe PSAllStars will be a more tourney capable fighter than Smash (I don't think it will be) but if it is it will take a dedicated community years to help it reach that level.

Reviews seem fair.  Based on the engine alone, I'd give it an 8ish score if you were to view the game in a vacuum.  Judging by reviewers comments, the presentation and extras are meh which should bring it down a bit. 


The presentation and gameplay flaws are what makes it an eight to me and I agree that eight  is what it should be. The lowest score should be 7.5 at the worst. At its core the mechanics from the demo are quite strong and I've played smash, but theres just something about this one. Just my opinion though.

Probably because you're a Sony fan.  I don't mean that as an insult.  I enjoy Smash way more than I would enjoy other similar fighters because it has my favorite characters in it.  I'm sure Sony fans feel the same way.


Actually, the game is just fun as is, you don't have to be a fan of Sony. Smash is fun too, but its its own way. This game is more frantic and forces you to rack up tru skill kills and find out who truly is the best and slickest brawler out there. Smash isnt about that, its more about beating people while surviving a level. 

If you think Brawl doesn't take skills, then you're not very good at it.



JWeinCom said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
JWeinCom said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
JWeinCom said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Slimebeast said:

Dante's Inferno 75% Meta - "shameless God of War rip-off got what it deserved"

(Sony fans' comments here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=96873 )

All-Stars Battle Royale 76% Meta - "WTF, unfair reviews of a great game!"


Dantes inferno did not pushing anything that god of war did, It was just a reskinned game. Allstars was setup to be simple, but can be taken seriously as a tournament style brawler. It took what SSMB did to the next level, the presenation just sucked, thats all. I am in it for the core mechanics and the characters and dlc, not any

I love people trying to say this game is deeper and more nuanced than a franchise that's been being dissected by incredibly gamers for upwards of a decade.  Gives me a nice hearty chuckle.  Maybe PSAllStars will be a more tourney capable fighter than Smash (I don't think it will be) but if it is it will take a dedicated community years to help it reach that level.

Reviews seem fair.  Based on the engine alone, I'd give it an 8ish score if you were to view the game in a vacuum.  Judging by reviewers comments, the presentation and extras are meh which should bring it down a bit. 


The presentation and gameplay flaws are what makes it an eight to me and I agree that eight  is what it should be. The lowest score should be 7.5 at the worst. At its core the mechanics from the demo are quite strong and I've played smash, but theres just something about this one. Just my opinion though.

Probably because you're a Sony fan.  I don't mean that as an insult.  I enjoy Smash way more than I would enjoy other similar fighters because it has my favorite characters in it.  I'm sure Sony fans feel the same way.


Actually, the game is just fun as is, you don't have to be a fan of Sony. Smash is fun too, but its its own way. This game is more frantic and forces you to rack up tru skill kills and find out who truly is the best and slickest brawler out there. Smash isnt about that, its more about beating people while surviving a level. 

If you think Brawl doesn't take skills, then you're not very good at it.


Whoa, whoa there Princess Peach, don't get your panties in a bunch. I never said that, I am saying half the reason people are attacking it is because it is quite technical. Brawl is a simple game to play, but difficult to master type situation. The technical nature of Allstars sets the players so far apart you literally have to learn one player after another much like an actual fighting game. In brawl I've been able to translate one move to another person quicker. Every player has their strength and weakness, so you can plan your attacks, if you know who you are taking on. Online is random, so most of the time you're in the dark about who you will be facing. 



Rafux said:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 

To be fair, the first smash brothers was kinda terrible.  It was ugly, had sluggish controls, a limited roster, and really not that much to do when you thought about it.  Even for its time, the 7.5 was fair.  

Now Melee and Brawl, THOSE games were masterpieces, but the original was an experiment, and frankly it kinda sucked.  it was a show of a good idea, but they didn't master it untuil 2001 when Melee came out.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 said:
Rafux said:

 

What the hell!? I just found out Gamespot gave 7.5 to the original Super Smash and that game was fucking amazing.

 

I'm done with Gamespot I'm not defending them anymore it seems like they judge this kind of games mostly on its length.

 

 

To be fair, the first smash brothers was kinda terrible.  It was ugly, had sluggish controls, a limited roster, and really not that much to do when you thought about it.  Even for its time, the 7.5 was fair.  

Now Melee and Brawl, THOSE games were masterpieces, but the original was an experiment, and frankly it kinda sucked.  it was a show of a good idea, but they didn't master it untuil 2001 when Melee came out.  


Yes the single player was short and didn't have that much value but the multiplayer was perfect for its time. This was the only game my friends and I played.

For some reason the sequels didn't feel the same.



I swear the online of this game is amazing! Errors/slow downs are very rare. Much better than the shitty online of ssb



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!