Reply
Gaming Beast
Registered: 03/04/2008
Offline
1776 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

Apr 29, 2012

Glad I could help .

As for thoe modes you mentioned, Team battles were confirmed at the end of the GTTV episode (1 vs 3 or 2 vs 2). I haven't heard anything about the other 3 you mentioned, but things like custom matches and special event battles will be in the game.

http://technabob.com/blog/2012/04/27/playstation-all-stars-battle-royale/

Message 11 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 03/04/2008
Offline
1776 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

Apr 29, 2012

I think you're forgetting that the penalty for taking damage is that you're filling up your opponent's super bar as you do so, therefore giving him the fuel he needs to perform a special attack and kill you. If you don't dodge or defend yourself you're basically leaving yourself open to your opponent's super attack!

I like this system from what I've seen. A lot. Why? Because it does something that Smash Brothers' "percentage" system does not: It actually rewards players who fight. Let's compare the two fighitng systems, assuming we're playing 5-life stock battle on both.

In Smash Bros, your objective is to be the last man standing and to keep your percentage as close to zero as possible. The higher your percentage gets, the easier you become to kill (because even a light punch can kill someone at 200% very easily). Since you're more likely to get hit (and have your percentage rise up) if you fight people, the best strategy would be to just wait on the side and let the other 3 people fight each other until 1 opponent is left, most likely with only one life left and a high percentage. At this point, you don't even need to strategize. Just button mash; a weak punch is enough to make him go flying. So in a percentage system like Smash Bros, people who fight are punished and made weaker, but people who don't fight are rewarded with enemies that are easier to kill.

In Battle Royale's fight system, it looks like someone with 1 life has an equal chance of winning the match as someone with 5. If I just go and hide on one side of the map and wait for the other 3 to duke it out, I'm actually at a disadvantage. I may still have my 5 lives vs their one or two, but the key difference is that they've been filling up their super meter for super attacks, and I have not. If I just stand on the side and don't fight, I can't build up my super meter, and therefore I can't kill my opponent. Both players actually have to fight each other with their skill to build up their supers and EARN their kills fair and square, instead of the game giving them a huge handicap. Even if your opponent has already used up all his supers on other players, he is still at no disadvantage once it's just you vs. him. The two of you would just start from square 1 and build up your super bars for kills.

Battle Royale's system rewards people who fight and survive. Smash Bros. system rewards people who survive, but punishes those who fight. That's why I think Battle Royale's fighting system has a HUGE advantage from a gameplay standpoint; It just doesn't make sense to punish players who fight in a fighting game.

Message 12 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 04/14/2012
Offline
259 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 1, 2012

IceColdKilla44 wrote:

I think you're forgetting that the penalty for taking damage is that you're filling up your opponent's super bar as you do so, therefore giving him the fuel he needs to perform a special attack and kill you. If you don't dodge or defend yourself you're basically leaving yourself open to your opponent's super attack!

I like this system from what I've seen. A lot. Why? Because it does something that Smash Brothers' "percentage" system does not: It actually rewards players who fight. Let's compare the two fighitng systems, assuming we're playing 5-life stock battle on both.

In Smash Bros, your objective is to be the last man standing and to keep your percentage as close to zero as possible. The higher your percentage gets, the easier you become to kill (because even a light punch can kill someone at 200% very easily). Since you're more likely to get hit (and have your percentage rise up) if you fight people, the best strategy would be to just wait on the side and let the other 3 people fight each other until 1 opponent is left, most likely with only one life left and a high percentage. At this point, you don't even need to strategize. Just button mash; a weak punch is enough to make him go flying. So in a percentage system like Smash Bros, people who fight are punished and made weaker, but people who don't fight are rewarded with enemies that are easier to kill.

In Battle Royale's fight system, it looks like someone with 1 life has an equal chance of winning the match as someone with 5. If I just go and hide on one side of the map and wait for the other 3 to duke it out, I'm actually at a disadvantage. I may still have my 5 lives vs their one or two, but the key difference is that they've been filling up their super meter for super attacks, and I have not. If I just stand on the side and don't fight, I can't build up my super meter, and therefore I can't kill my opponent. Both players actually have to fight each other with their skill to build up their supers and EARN their kills fair and square, instead of the game giving them a huge handicap. Even if your opponent has already used up all his supers on other players, he is still at no disadvantage once it's just you vs. him. The two of you would just start from square 1 and build up your super bars for kills.

Battle Royale's system rewards people who fight and survive. Smash Bros. system rewards people who survive, but punishes those who fight. That's why I think Battle Royale's fighting system has a HUGE advantage from a gameplay standpoint; It just doesn't make sense to punish players who fight in a fighting game.

I'm gunna go ahead and disagree with that being that great of a gameplay advantage over smash and its primiarly due to our seemingly difference of opinnons on smash being a fighting game. At face value, yes they are both fighting games but i think more importaint than that they are party games. Games meant to be played when there are 4 or more people present for a gathering. Party games need a low barrier for entry so that everyone can enjoy them without much specific or general knowledge of the game.

The thing you are faulting smash for has been pretty key in it's sucess, the fact that anyone can play it and feel like they can win, your girlfriend who doesn't really play games can run and chuck items at people and have fun and potentially win, your small sibllings can enjoy it, It's the reason why there are lots of people who don't play games still have played and enjoyed smash. Hell its the reason i can still enjoy smash when playing with 3 people who play smash hardcore.

You are only looking at the game from a competitive standpoint which henders a game by restricting it's audence, which is a terrible idea for the first entry into a new series. Before smash could even have a competitive audence it had to have a big enough pool of people of all types of gaming experince backgrounds to enjoy it. General fun needs to take prority over balance and a competitive scence will flow naturally out of that.

Message 13 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 12/11/2008
Offline
179 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 1, 2012

I’m not entirely sold on the K.O. only system, though I acknowledge that it’s something that could work and work well. What turned me off was the lack of ring outs. That and the lack of a score, but I saw in an interview that the game mode present at the event intentionally does not have one. One thing I love about SSB is the high-end tension that comes with not knowing when someone can knock you off the stage, and while you are being knocked off, what can be done to recover and prevent your death.

I suppose, in a sense, that has been replaced with not knowing when someone is going to perform a Super on you, but there seems to be a lack of environmental risk and danger. Hades strikes me with his blade – and nothing happens – I wouldn’t feel threatened or enticed to use my environment as a weapon. I love the level design so far, I think the mixing up of Playstation IP’s is brilliant, but right now it’s all bark and no bite.

I think the K.O. only system could work (though I honestly hope they include some kind of health system in another mode), but one thing I think SSB does so well is that it flexes the idea of the player not being the only enemy. I think the fish in Sandover Village kills you and other environmental hazards strip you of your AP, but I feel like there isn’t enough of that after watching the gameplay videos.

I don’t think they need instant ring outs like they have in SSB (Supers essentially do that), but the idea of tossing someone far enough from the stage so that they can’t recover and tactically using the stage to score points, in my opinion, adds strategical value and depth. Like most of us, I haven’t played the game yet, so I can’t fairly critique this new system; this is only my observation.

Message 14 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 03/04/2008
Offline
1776 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 2, 2012

webbut wrote:

I'm gunna go ahead and disagree with that being that great of a gameplay advantage over smash and its primiarly due to our seemingly difference of opinnons on smash being a fighting game. At face value, yes they are both fighting games but i think more importaint than that they are party games. Games meant to be played when there are 4 or more people present for a gathering. Party games need a low barrier for entry so that everyone can enjoy them without much specific or general knowledge of the game.

The thing you are faulting smash for has been pretty key in it's sucess, the fact that anyone can play it and feel like they can win, your girlfriend who doesn't really play games can run and chuck items at people and have fun and potentially win, your small sibllings can enjoy it, It's the reason why there are lots of people who don't play games still have played and enjoyed smash. Hell its the reason i can still enjoy smash when playing with 3 people who play smash hardcore.

You are only looking at the game from a competitive standpoint which henders a game by restricting it's audence, which is a terrible idea for the first entry into a new series. Before smash could even have a competitive audence it had to have a big enough pool of people of all types of gaming experince backgrounds to enjoy it. General fun needs to take prority over balance and a competitive scence will flow naturally out of that.

I agree that PS All Stars' core fighting mechanics themselves aren't quite as casual-friendly as those of Smash Bros, but I also think that this is exactly the point of the game. In all of SuperBot's interviews, the game's director describes everyone at the studio as fighting game fanatics, so I think it's safe to assume that even SuperBot looks at this game as a fighter first and a casual party game second. That's not to say they're completely ignoring the casual crowd; items and environmental hazards still exist in the game, which will give casual players opportunities to find some degree of success.

But they key word there is some. I think our opinions differ in that I don't believe the game's core mechanics should be so casual friendly that a casual player should feel just as confident in winning as an experienced veteran. This opens the door for exploits and frustration; a PS All star vet isn't going to have faith in the game's mechanics if his 6 year old son can easily beat him simply by button mashing or taking advantage of an exploit inherent within the game's fighting system. I understand that casual players are just looking to win any way they can, and that's valid, but I don't think that a handicap for them should be built into the game's fighting system itself. I think the game's accessibility for casual players should be built on top of the game's fight mechanics, and that would come in the form of items/power ups/environmental hazards which they can use to their advantage.

I've been playing Smash Bros for a while (ever since N64) and with many types of people, and there have been two things that I have always noticed. The "hardcore" fans generally prefer to turn most (if not all) items/powerups off and just fight hand to hand. They also preferred to fight in arenas with the least amount of environmental hazards as possible (Final Destination was always a popular one). Casual players, however, used those things as their bread and butter and that was where they found most of their fun when playing with each other. When kept separate, these two crowds could have fun with the game with few problems. But combinig them together almost always led to more frustation than fun.

That's why I believe PS All Stars has found a nice balance in its mechanics from what I've seen so far. A casual fighter and a hardcore fighter can brawl in the same match with neither feeling cheated or overpowered. A casual player can use power-ups and items as much as he/she wants, and a hardcore player won't feel cheated because his/her experience with the game's fighting mechanics will pay off. The same really just can't be said for Smash Bros, for both these reasons and the ones I discussed in my previous post.

Message 15 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 04/14/2012
Offline
259 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 2, 2012

IceColdKilla44 wrote:

I agree that PS All Stars' core fighting mechanics themselves aren't quite as casual-friendly as those of Smash Bros, but I also think that this is exactly the point of the game. In all of SuperBot's interviews, the game's director describes everyone at the studio as fighting game fanatics, so I think it's safe to assume that even SuperBot looks at this game as a fighter first and a casual party game second. That's not to say they're completely ignoring the casual crowd; items and environmental hazards still exist in the game, which will give casual players opportunities to find some degree of success.

But they key word there is some. I think our opinions differ in that I don't believe the game's core mechanics should be so casual friendly that a casual player should feel just as confident in winning as an experienced veteran. This opens the door for exploits and frustration; a PS All star vet isn't going to have faith in the game's mechanics if his 6 year old son can easily beat him simply by button mashing or taking advantage of an exploit inherent within the game's fighting system. I understand that casual players are just looking to win any way they can, and that's valid, but I don't think that a handicap for them should be built into the game's fighting system itself. I think the game's accessibility for casual players should be built on top of the game's fight mechanics, and that would come in the form of items/power ups/environmental hazards which they can use to their advantage.

I've been playing Smash Bros for a while (ever since N64) and with many types of people, and there have been two things that I have always noticed. The "hardcore" fans generally prefer to turn most (if not all) items/powerups off and just fight hand to hand. They also preferred to fight in arenas with the least amount of environmental hazards as possible (Final Destination was always a popular one). Casual players, however, used those things as their bread and butter and that was where they found most of their fun when playing with each other. When kept separate, these two crowds could have fun with the game with few problems. But combinig them together almost always led to more frustation than fun.

That's why I believe PS All Stars has found a nice balance in its mechanics from what I've seen so far. A casual fighter and a hardcore fighter can brawl in the same match with neither feeling cheated or overpowered. A casual player can use power-ups and items as much as he/she wants, and a hardcore player won't feel cheated because his/her experience with the game's fighting mechanics will pay off. The same really just can't be said for Smash Bros, for both these reasons and the ones I discussed in my previous post.

In that case we are in agreement until there is more information. I'm just hoping the game can find enough of a base core auduience for a large hardcore community to grow out of.

Message 16 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 04/18/2012
Offline
259 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 4, 2012

I both agree and disagree with @blazingkite, in terms of how this game should've been approached. In regards of what the game should be modeled like, I agree that SONY should've went with something more along the lines of Power Stone in terms of enivronments. However, battle wise is where I disagree, the game should've been something close to Gekido: Urban Fighters. The battle sysytem of Power Stone is way too easy, get the power stones and attack (which conitnues in a repetitive cycle). In the game I suggested, you build up your super move attacks by hitting your opponent, much like a 2D fighting game. There aren't any cheap tactics that can be pulled, it's actually a test of each players skill.

That being said, Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale is not a fighting game, it's a brawler, which is what Super Smash Bros is. Both games are platformer based, which is basically along the lines of Mario games. Fighting games have no such quality, the plane in which the characters fight is leveled, meaning the characters don't/can't jump from ledges or be above or below their opponents.

As for characters, since Superbot's stated that they will incorporate classic Playstation characters as well as some 3rd party ones into the game, my picks would have to be:

1st party: Classic

Tomba (seems like no one remembers him)

Dart (The Legend Of Dragoon)

Lylod (The Legend Of Dragoon)

Jersey Devil

Vahn (Legend Of Legaia)

Omega Boost

Main Character (Intelligent Cube)

1st party: Current Gen

Keats (Folklore)

Ellen (Folklore)

Yoshitsune (Genji: Days Of the Blade)

3rd Party: Classic (helped define the original Playstation)

Lara Croft

Squall

Cloud

Sephiroth

Chris Redfeild

Jill Valentine

Barry Burton

Rebecca Chambers

Ryu (Breath Of Fire)

3rd party: Current Gen

Alex Mercer

Fugue (Eternal Sonata)

Akiyama (Yakuza 4)

Kazuma Kiryu (Yakuza Series)

That's all I can think of at the moment, truthfully though, this game would have been better suited for last gen. The PS2 had so many exclusive games, compared to this gen.

I stand in the moonlit dawn, Free from clouds of attachment.

Actually I never mentioned the gems. I left the gems out because the system wouldn't work. But rewarding players for offensive like Street Fighter and punishing poor defensive play like Guilty Gear would be a good idea. For example if the game recognizes the player not attacking or attack cowardly the game should lower that players defense status effect you know. As for 3rd Party Characters good luck acquiring those licenses seeing as how far the game is in development.

The Last Lone Wolf Vandalier
Message 17 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 04/18/2012
Offline
259 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 7, 2012

SmashBot did confirm 3rd Party characters. Most likely.....

Spyro (Spyro the Dragon)

Crash (Crash Bandicoot)

Gabe Logan (Syphon Filter)

Lara Croft (Tomb Raider)

Old Snake (MGS4:GotP)

Ryu (Street Fighter)

Mega Man (Mega Man)

Cloud (Final Fantasy VII)

These franchises played a big role in Playstation 1 and 2 so it will be interesting to see which ones licenses was acquired

The Last Lone Wolf Vandalier
Message 18 of 77 (179 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 04/13/2012
Offline
196 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 8, 2012

Just one though on your addition of Ryu from BoF...  Which version? (theres 5 different looks to date)  Or should it go the SSB way and have a bunch of different costumes for the same chars? Either way, definately a good call, that was a good series that got forgotten in the mists of time.  Mby they could do the same for PS2's Dark Cloud characters?... Just saying...

On that note, the PS systems largely aren't "casual friendly" in terms of controls... or games.  I don't mean that in a bad way, rather that looking at what's already confirmed for this game, it looks to be targeting the hardcore Sony gamer crowd, who already know the system well.  The "casual" gamer wouldn't know where to start with this line up, and most of the humor and joy would be lost trying to explain it to them.  Ever see the Anime "Sgt. Frog"?  If you know little about Japanese culture, or the original Gundam series, 90% of the comedy is going to be lost on you, even if someone explains it to you.

Lastly, it's a brawler, lets not try to over complicate it.  Something to punish turtling, and effects to force a balance between offense and defense are plenty.  Items should exist to balance character issues such as limited reach or low damage but high speed.  Really, for what they want to accomplish here (as much as this causes physical pain to try and type) the base SSB system is a great foundation.


Message 19 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 04/22/2012
Offline
1532 posts
 

Re: Playstation All Stars Battle Royale Discussion

May 8, 2012

A PSVita version with cross-play would be nice, as for character, how about cole and drake? where's Nariko? and i don't think Final Fantasy character would be in this game though. but as for the roster, i'm hoping it's not large but also not small and should only have iconic character and 1 main character per games series.

I love Adam Levine
"One more ******* Love song and I well be sick......"
Message 20 of 77 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes