Well I disagree. Countering a super, landing a super on multiple targets, executing a combo perfectly etc feels absolutely fantastic. Countering a dante lvl 2 with a sly lvl 1 was one of the most awesome and fun moments for me in any fighter ever...dat timing. I also disagree about the variety of moves. There are no clone characters in this game. The closest to a clone are the two coles but even they are very very different overall. The combat system is more similar to a non-brawler fighting game.  Each character has a diverse set of moves and they are very unique. So not sure how you can say it has no 'variety'. I mean let's take drake for an example...one of his moves is falling through a floor! another is kicking a barrel...another is using a zipline...another one is one big machine guin that brutes in UC2 used..another is punching..another is a drop kick etc. The game has issues but variety is definitely not one of them. Add an actual robust combo system to the mix and you have a winner

I'm not sure what to tell you about the variety in items...No two items were similar in nature at all. I mean we had a RPG, an axe, freeze bomb, herme's shoed, crows etc. If you said they should have had more items I would have agreed but lacking variety? Hell no. 

But let's be honest here. Read what you just typed. You are constantly saying how it's NOT like smash. Constantly complaining how the gameplay is different. It's fine if you don't like it tho but that's part of the issue. It's a different game. Different approach is needed. To me All stars is about building up your supers and properly managing them. You have consider the pros and cons of executing a super all the time because it can change your current situation real fast. Since everything outside of lvl3s can be blocked, avoided or countered it gives the game a whole different take on strategy as well. Build ups are very cruicial to this. 

This is the main reason the game didn't sell well. They made a mistake going for that smash-like presentation/art style. It made people expect a clone and go in with that mind set to meet up with a different game altogether. It's was such a stupid mistake. They should have gone for either a powerstone/gow:A style gameplay OR change the art style altogether. Because it sadly overshadows the depth the gameplay has

So, exactly how, from a gameplay standpoint is All Stars superior to Smash Bros?  And if it isn't superior in any way, then what is its point?  Maybe someone is into platform brawlers, but if not normally a big fan, why would someone own both, or pick All-Stars over Smash Bros. unless they are a fan of Playstation characters, and don't mind having the inferior game?

And this is an editorial that compares the two:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/10053-PlayStation-All-Stars-Vs-Super-Smash-Bros

Any reason why the All Stars way to win is superior to Smash Bros?

That's one of the things I love about GOW:A multiplayer. Just fighting someone like a traditional fighter gets you 100 points per kill. If you do a brutal kill (the gory animation of slashing legs off for example) you get 25 extra points. In addition you can kill people by hitting them off maps witch also gives you a 25 point ring out bonus. On top of all of that you can get 100 points by killing people with traps you set. That variety is really important and I can see why on its surface All Stars lacks that. However though Smash (and most fighters) isn't that much better since you can really only kill people two ways: smashing them off or hitting them at such a high damage they insta fly off. The knockback does do a good job though of dynamically changing play style as a fight progresses.

I need to watch some videos of GOW:A in action, the multiplayer as you describe it sounds really fun^^

@the bolded parts:

It is true that the only way to kill an enemy in SSB is to knock him off stage, but you have got at least ~100 different attacks (with items included) to achieve the finishing blow. In PSABR you have exactly three per character. Add the dramatically changing dynamic of the match caused by the plethora of items and the needed change of tactics with increasing damage and the huge number and variety of stages ( The stages in PSABR just don't feel as good as in the SSB games - IMO) and compare them to PSABR where those elements are present, but to a somewhat lesser degree (less items, less stages, fixed knockback).

-> SSB games also may limit your choices, but they don't let you really notice it.

You need to play all stars. It has 12 attacks per character plus 3 supers plus throws and a few characters can parry plus items and combos...

This. So.much.this. Every time I boot this game up it makes me expect a Super Smash Bros. clone, which it isn't and I end up disappointed - simply because I favored SSB more to begin with. If we count out all the issues I have with this game which result from my brain expecting SSB the small amount of items and the lack of a Ring-Out system are the only big issues remaining.

I own the game^^

Remember, I was talking about attacks which are able to kill the enemy. Only Super LVL 1,2 and 3 allow this -> 3

In SSB you have U/D/S - Smash, 4 Special Attacks per character, the regular ground and air attacks, different grabs and the Final Smash, almost of which allow you to deliver the finishing blow. Now you have to add in the masses of Assist Characters, Pokemon and the other items which also can kill an enemy.
-> More attacks to kill an enemy with than I can count

Of course items etc. also exist in PSABR, but they don't allow you to directly kill your enemy (all they do is helping you gain AP to build up Super LVL's -> indirect), which I wanted to clarify.

My bad :( I didn't catch that part. However I'm technically right. The Medusa item turns people into stone in which any move can kill them. Hahaha joe-1, khlover-0