Reply
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 07/21/2010
Offline
1736 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

Feb 2, 2013

TONESTER_925 wrote:
Let this be a lesson to any developer releasing a brand new game to market, come out with everything you can muster and hold nothing back because you may not get another chance at it.

This is a great line to end on because it's so true. It seems like Superbot held back too much content in their "PSASBR2 is going to totally destroy the first game" mentality. Sadly, now they probably have to cram it all into this game as DLC because abysmal sales might mean Superbot never gets the chance to make a sequel.

Message 21 of 26 (164 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 03/04/2008
Offline
1779 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

[ Edited ]
Feb 2, 2013

I absolutely agree with points #2 and #3, but point #1 is beyond ridiculous.

 

Like many people have said before, this is a very small genre. A big reason why people are so comfortable with Smash's percentage system is because that's all this genre has really had for the past 10 years. Sony & SuperBot obviously wanted this franchise to be a strong contender in this genre, and the only way they would have done that was to create a fresh, unique fighting sytem that tons of people could get behind & have fun with. I think they did exactly that, and getting fighting game vets like Clock and Seth Killian to support the system was a very smart marketing move (at least for the hardcore fighters).

 

But like any new system, it of course had its fair share of haters. Not because it was bad, but because people just weren't familiar with it. Heck, tons of people hated the 1st Smash Bros because of it's "weird" percentage system when every other game on the planet used health bars. But now everyone loves it. So you can't fault SuperBot for trying to come up with their own unique take on the genre; that's how you build a franchise.

 

However, I absolutely, 100% agree with points #2 and #3. There just isn't enough content in the game by today's standards to justify $60 (20 characters is small and only 14 stages is VERY small). And the character lineup we got was decent, but not nearly as good as it should have been. There were far too many references to niche franchises (Mark of Kri? Really?) and not enough nods to iconic franchises (like Crash & Final Fantasy). And having TWO BioShock Infinite stages definitely didn't help.

Message 22 of 26 (158 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 08/19/2012
Offline
572 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

Feb 2, 2013
I know this game could have been a much greater success, but does nobody remember this?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/27/playstation-all-stars-sales-are-right-on-target

ouyofo.jpg

Message 23 of 26 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 11/15/2009
Offline
289 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

Feb 2, 2013
I wonder how many people who were bashing the super system actually played the game...
Message 24 of 26 (127 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Highlighted
Sackboy
Registered: 07/28/2012
Offline
489 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

Feb 2, 2013
The game is great (8/10 at least). It's not really a 'failure' but a missed opportunity. Character roster makes or breaks these kinds of games for people. I think using only supers to score points is fine but they can experiment with some things. To be honest a sequel should not happen without Crash, Spyro, Snake, AND Cloud.
Message 25 of 26 (127 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 08/19/2012
Offline
572 posts
 

Re: "Opinion: Why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale failed"

Feb 3, 2013

Xarf wrote:
I know this game could have been a much greater success, but does nobody remember this?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/27/playstation-all-stars-sales-are-right-on-target

bump

ouyofo.jpg

Message 26 of 26 (98 Views)
Reply
0 Likes