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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Straight To The Point: What REALLY went wrong with PlayStation All Stars: Battle Royale?

Solid-Stark on 11 February 2013

All Stars is a good game. But that's all it is. Its not up there with Smash Brothers.

Two things really bum me out about All Stars: the soundtrack and the roster.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Around the Network
hunter_alien on 11 February 2013

The gameplay is surprisingly addicting, and easily stands on its own against SSB. The only issue this game had was the lack of characters and a terrible advertisement campaign. Nothing more, nothing else. A game like this is built on the strength of its character, alas, this one had only a few truly iconic ones.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

dsgrue3 on 11 February 2013

Loved smash bros formula, hated PSABR formula. Felt like wasted punching and randomness.



benao87 on 11 February 2013

I think the game lacks a true identity. It spent so many time trying to differentiate from SSB, yet fans still ask SSB features in it. Not trying to bash the op, but I think the game needs more features specially built for it. Yes, take all the "inspiration" you need from SSB and other brawlers and fighters, but work on a different identity.



Complete comic

theprof00 on 11 February 2013

The problem is that they were playing super smash brothers brawl and not super smash brothers melee.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 11 February 2013

Also no cloud, no sephiroth, no crash, no pyramid head, no RE's Nemesis, no spyro, no lara croft, no snake, no alucard, no Jill Valentine, no Welkin, no aya brea, no tomba...



Chark on 11 February 2013

The real problem with all stars is it came out over 10 years too late.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

enditall727 on 11 February 2013
richardhutnik said:
STOP BLAMING YOUR HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR A TITLE THAT HAS A BASE ON NINTENDO CONSOLES ON ANYTHING BUT IT BEING A NICHE TITLE.

Seriously guys. You get all these absurdly high expectations for a title that has ONE freak exception for its inspiration on the Nintendo platform, and you think that the title in a genre that is underperforming is going to BLAM, become the TOP selling title in a genre. This is a NEW franchise, going up against MULTIPLE platform titles from established franchises that are know. And you want it to do what? Someone even said 5 million + in sales? Want to know what is the real problem? The real problem is you have delusional expectations that make you disappointed.

These are the things you need to be concerned about regarding All-Stars, NOT "it flopped, wah wah wah":
* Do you enjoy playing it?
* Did it sell enough to be profitable and get a sequel if you enjoyed it?

CALM THAT ASS DOWN.

 

This is about why Sony and SuperBot seperated..



enditall727 on 11 February 2013
JWeinCom said:
enditall727 said:
JWeinCom said:
enditall727 said:
Salnax said:
Another possible problem: unintuitive gameplay.

When you play a regular fighter or Smash Bros, you want to inflict as much damage as possible while taking as little as possible. Hence, you have a balance of offense and defense. In PSASBR, there's relatively little reason to defend, especially since a Kill counts for more than a Death. Honestly, being hit only matters when somebody is using a Super Move, and other than the Level 3's those can be tricky for noobs to land.


Well, what do you think about them adding a new curve to the battle system? What if every time you hit an opponent, it took away a certain amount of from your Super bar? Like you gain 10 points to your bar by hitting an individul but it also takes 5 points away from the Super bar of the person you hit. It would keep people more on their toes because it's not like they could sit around and hold a Super as long as they wanted. It would add a slight twist to everybodies strategy.

 

I think it could work. Does anybody agree?


I don't think that would work.  Basically, you're indirectly healing half of the damage you do.  This would do a few things.  First of all, it would lengthen the match tremendously.  Back and forth matches could take quite some time.  Secondly, it would give an even bigger advantage to characters like Raiden who have a very good level 1 super, since building up to higher levels would be much more difficult.  It would be incredibly difficult to get up to level 3 if you're against an evenly matched character.

This wouldn't be a bad idea for a side mode (something the game desperately needs), but it's not a great idea for the main mode.  This is actually the way I feel about the super thing they have here too.  They should have had a more traditional mode (like Smash has stamina mode) that could be the default gameplay style (perhaps with supers just dealing extra damage or something, and then label what we have now as "pro mode".  This would make the game a little more noob/party game friendly.

enditall727 said:
JWeinCom said:
Apparently only games with commercials airing every two seconds sell well (oh and there were most definitely commercials). Like, remember all of those Ni No Kuni ads? Kid Icarus: Uprising clearly had more ads than PS All Stars. It's not like there was an open beta, or in store demos in every store I went to (these are usually national decisions so I imagine it's the same elsewhere), and lots of coverage on gaming websites.

People saw the game, got to play the game, and they said no thanks. It's a mediocre game with sales to match.


no, the game will just sell at its best possible potential in the specific region at the time with a good commercial behind it.

 

The quality of the game matters as well..

People seem to be acting like TV commercials are the only form of advertisement, which is not true.  Plenty of games succeed without any form of commercial.  I also don't think it's true that PSASBR had less than normal advertisement.  PSASBR had far more advertisement than the average game.  It wasn't call of duty level advertisement, but way more than most games received. 

nah, i think it could work.

 

and how would you be indirectly healing half of the damage you do? The damage could be maybe 1/3rd of the AP earned with each attack landed . They could also just balance everything out with the faster characters

 

It would give people more of an appreciation for the ability to block

 

and what ads are you talking about with PSASBR? give me some examples on these advertisements that was "far more" than the average game


First off people don't block because the game's made mode is free for all.  It's the same thing in Smash where it's just too chaotic to really block. In 2P matches blocking would work fine except that a lot of attacks are too quick to/ranged to punish.

Anyway though, if you're draining AP from you're opponent, you're taking away their ability to kill you, basically prolonging your life, and essentially healing yourself.  Especially in FFA, it would make getting anything more than a level 1 very hard.

As for ads... I mentioned all that already.  There were instore demos at every retailer where Sony has paid adspace.  This means Best Buy, Target, and Gamestop at least.  Sony did not put any other games in their displays over the holiday.  They have a youtube video with 3.8 million views that linked directly to the preorder page, and now links directly to retailers web sites to purchase.  They had commercials out for it.  They had an E3 stage demo for it.  Open Beta.  Super bot trotted it out to every fighting game event including Evo.  Web sites had a ton of coverage on it.  IGN in particular did a lot of stuff on the game.   Sony didn't just plop this into retailers with no advertising at all (like they did with Sly).


Anyway though, if you're draining AP from you're opponent, you're taking away their ability to kill you, basically prolonging your life

 

*looks around*

That's the point. You want to try to make sure that the opponent doesn't get his super while you are building yours at the same time. It could be chaotic

 

C'mon now Mr. Feeny. most of that stuff named on the ad part is pretty much redundant when being involved with Sony advertising it for the most part. A lot of games get demos at stores wtf. They do that with basically every game that gets a demo so that is nothing special. a Beta is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!!. A beta is a beta. EVERY game gets coverage on websites. IGN DOES NOT equal the masses. IGN makes vids for basically every game so i dont know how you see that as Sony advertising Battle Royale.

 

Super bot trotted it out to every fighting game event including Evo

yea, i'm pretty sure those people at the event already knew about Battle Royale because.. it is.. a FIGHTING game... at a FIGHTING event

 

The commercial is the main way to get the word out for a game the quickest at its release



JWeinCom on 11 February 2013
enditall727 said:
JWeinCom said:


First off people don't block because the game's made mode is free for all.  It's the same thing in Smash where it's just too chaotic to really block. In 2P matches blocking would work fine except that a lot of attacks are too quick to/ranged to punish.

Anyway though, if you're draining AP from you're opponent, you're taking away their ability to kill you, basically prolonging your life, and essentially healing yourself.  Especially in FFA, it would make getting anything more than a level 1 very hard.

As for ads... I mentioned all that already.  There were instore demos at every retailer where Sony has paid adspace.  This means Best Buy, Target, and Gamestop at least.  Sony did not put any other games in their displays over the holiday.  They have a youtube video with 3.8 million views that linked directly to the preorder page, and now links directly to retailers web sites to purchase.  They had commercials out for it.  They had an E3 stage demo for it.  Open Beta.  Super bot trotted it out to every fighting game event including Evo.  Web sites had a ton of coverage on it.  IGN in particular did a lot of stuff on the game.   Sony didn't just plop this into retailers with no advertising at all (like they did with Sly).


Anyway though, if you're draining AP from you're opponent, you're taking away their ability to kill you, basically prolonging your life

 

*looks around*

That's the point. You want to try to make sure that the opponent doesn't get his super while you are building yours at the same time. It could be chaotic

 

C'mon now Mr. Feeny. most of that stuff named on the ad part is pretty much redundant when being involved with Sony advertising it for the most part.  a !. A beta is a beta. EVERY game gets coverage on websites. IGN DOES NOT equal the masses. IGN makes vids for basically every game so i dont know how you see that as Sony advertising Battle Royale.

 

Super bot trotted it out to every fighting game event including Evo

yea, i'm pretty sure those people at the event already knew about Battle Royale because.. it is.. a FIGHTING game... at a FIGHTING event

 

The commercial is the main way to get the word out for a game the quickest at its release


"That's the point. You want to try to make sure that the opponent doesn't get his super while you are building yours at the same time. It could be chaotic"

And that's a bad gameplay mechanic, because it turns the game into a tug of war.  It makes the game much longer, and it heavily favors characters with strong level 1 supers.  And if you're playing a 4 player match you're statistically likely to get hit much more than you hit others, making it nigh impossible to build a super in FFA.

"A lot of games get demos at stores wtf. They do that with basically every game that gets a demo so that is nothing special."

No they do not.  First of all any game that's rated M or above will not get a store demo.  That's a legal issue, so unless Walmart is going to card everyone who walks in... that's going to be a whole lot of games that don't have in store demos.  Second of all, demos are 99% of the time paid space.  I worked at a best buy, and we didn't just put any game we wanted in demos, because advertisers paid for that space and we'd get hit with massive fines if a Sony rep walked in and saw Ni No Kuni in their display.  The displays are changed by vendors at MOST once a month.  Most of the time it's way less than that.  So no, not every game with a demo get's put on display.  Not even close.  And that's space that's paid for by Sony so calling it anything other than an ad is silly. 

"Beta is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!"

A beta is a way to showcase a product.  If people played a beta (or demo) and like it, they'll buy the game.  Just because they call it a beta doesn't mean it isn't a form of advertisement.

" IGN DOES NOT equal the masses. IGN makes vids for basically every game so i dont know how you see that as Sony advertising Battle Royale."

IGN is the biggest gaming web site out there.  And they do not cover every game equally.  By my unofficial count, they did about 78 articles on Playstation All Stars.  For Soul Calibur V?  13.  Kid Icarus Uprising had about 40, but keep in mind, we knew about that game since E3 2010 and it launched in march.  So we knew about that game for far longer.  IGN had a large amount of coverage on the game, and IGN is the largest outlet read by gamers.  And, guess who's most likely to buy this game?  You got it, gamers.

"yea, i'm pretty sure those people at the event already knew about Battle Royale because.. it is.. a FIGHTING game... at a FIGHTING event"

Yeah, they knew about it, saw it, weren't impressed, and didn't buy it.  Not to mention people unimpressed with the E3 Demo, Gamescom Demo, etc.  But Sony just did that for their health.  These events clearly are not meant to advertise products.

"The commercial is the main way to get the word out for a game the quickest at its release."

Yeah, and commercials are the only way to advertise things.  Because it's 1990 and things like the internet don't exist.  Ni No Kuni and Xenoblade succeeded because of all those TV commercials, right?   Not to mention that they advertised this.  We don't know how many times they actually showed the ad because the only evidence is "der I didn't see the ads" or "der I saw lots of ads."