Sony's "Smash Bros." Clone Looks Like a "Smash Bros." Clone
People have been referring to the rumored "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" as a Playstation-centric version of "Super Smash Bros" since it was first mentioned, but I doubt anyone was expecting it would be almost exactly the same game:
Wow. This is freaking SHAMELESS. I'm kinda surprised Nintendo hasn't sued their asses over this. I mean, it's almost freaking exact! It's like some fan made skins depicting Playstation characters and put them in Brawl!
Hell, I'll give Sony a benefit of a doubt. If they can pull off a Sony all-star "Smash Bros" brawler game and make it fun enough, I'd say go for. Just because Nintendo did it first doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a brawler game.
What's the difference between this being similar to Smash Bros. and every SNK and Capcom fighter looking nearly identical? Or Virtua Fighter vs. Tekken? Or Bloody Roar?
Or how about the first person shooter genre in general?
As I actually had some fun with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Smash-Up, I don't mind the idea of Nintendo spawning a new sub-genre of fighting game. I say, bring it on.
This seems to be everything Smash Bros is, but with Playstation fan service. I can understand why a gamer like Bob would be disinterested with this, which is fine, but for a guy like me who grew up with a Playstation 2 this has me pumped. I mean come on? Sly Cooper VS Parappa the rapper. Just take my money now.
I realize that there's a fine line between Smash Bros. style fighters becoming a sub-genre unto themselves (which would be awesome), and a game ripping Smash Bros. off. But, this... this isn't anywhere near that line. This is a pretty blatant clone.
I mean, I know it's still early but is there any sign at all this is anything other than Brawl with a different roster? Bid they change the mechanics at all? It sure doesn't like like they did.
Granted, there wasn't a LOT of gameplay in the video, but there do seem to be some changes to the mechanics (even if only very mild ones). While there do appear to be SSB style items like rocket launchers (I doubt that this is a default weapon for the fat princess), instead of having a smash ball the power ups (or whatever you want to call the mech-suit transformation sequence and possibly the flaming skateboard) appear to be based on picking up the white floating ghost things (possibly related to the orbs from God of War?) or attacking (similar to Street Fighter) to fill up the blue bar under each character on the bottom of the screen.
Also, notice that there is no percent counter for each character to display how far they are knocked back when hit, and it didn't even look like the main victory condition was going to be "ring out" since most of the levels (except the floating islands level) seemed to have barriers on both walls and no place to fall down (though this doesn't preclude the possibility of a ring out victory over the top of the screen, similar to the Metal Gear level from SSBB). Though, without any appreciable HP indicator either, the victory condition seems unclear.
Though it would not surprise me if Sony released a SSB clone with the only change to the mechanics being the addition of Street Fighter style specialty moves powered by the blue bar. What surprises me is that it took them this long to develop a big enough roster of characters to pull this off.
I've said it countless times before earlier today and I'll say it once more again. I find this incredibly hypocritical of Sony to make a clone of Smash Bros. when they've openly mocked Nintendo in countless articles in the past. Yeah, really classy.
And people wonder why I hate this company nowadays.
Just to be clear here - I have ZERO objection to Sony making a Mascot Fighter. In fact, I think it's a good idea. It's more that I'm dissapointed that they went the route of full-on borrowing SSB's aesthetic and motif rather than creating something unique of their own.
The SSB games - Melee in particular - was a really important step for the re-emergence of Nintendo as a modern player; you can see the seeds of what became "The Nintendo Aesthetic" both in terms of a unifying visual scheme and a fandom-relations approach being planted in them, and I was hoping to see Sony find the same thing. Sony ISN'T Nintendo, their roster for this is largely NOT Nintendo-like (it's more diverse, for one thing) and it would've been more interesting to see something that reflected that instead of "Here's exactly what Nintendo already did but with guys we own."
You know what, fuck it, this game looks awesome. And if I had a PlayStation 3, I'd totally be excited for it and buy it first day!
Actually, I'm STILL excited for it! I'd like to see what kind of characters they'd include!
Super Smash Bros. is an AWESOME fighting game, and after Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion, and now this, I want to see even MORE crossover games follow suit!
Well, this is what Sony does. In 18 years they have yet to produce a controller that is not a blatant Nintendo knockoff. So, I don't know why this game surprises me. It just does.
I knew Sony was going to make a Smash-Bros clone eventually. Competition is always a good thing. What I did not expect was for them to just copy Smash Bros completely. Sony already tried that with the Move and failed. What makes them think it'll work here?
Calling this a "Smash Bros. Clone" is like calling Mortal Kombat a "Street Fighter Clone". I think Yahtzee at one said something about how we used to call all FPSs "Doom Clones".
Point is, the platforming fighter should be it's own sub-genre. I like the format a lot more than the 2-D Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat/King of Fighters style or the 2-D Rotating Plain from Tekken and Dead or Alive. Why should Nintendo be the ONLY one with this style? That's right, THEY SHOULDN'T!
Wow. I mean, I rag on Nintendo a lot for shamelessly re-releasing the same game over and over again, but at least they shamelessly re-release their own games. I think the big problem with this, though, is that most of the PlayStation mascots are generally not 2D creations, i.e. start off or have installments of games in 2D. I don't see why they could have attempted a 3D fighter, fighting on a horizontal square rather than a vertical plane... ok, that's already been tried and hasn't worked well but it would've made the game at least feel like a different game.
I kinda want to give Sony some shit for this, but complaining about Sony cloning Smash Bros. is about the same as when EVERYBODY wanted to make the new Street Fighter back in the 90's
Yeah, it's not like this is the first Smash Bros.-clone ever made...
Still, the character choice seems a bit uninspired. This is a case of trying to beat Coke b BEING Coke.
Sony doesn't have the same pool of nostalgia inducing, lovable first party characters... So they SHOULDN'T TRY TO COMPETE. Not there.
What they DO have is a large library of third party fan favorites. It took Nintendo 3 games to dip into the pool, but if Sony wants to compete with Nintendo, they'd have to dive right in.
Add in someone from Legend of the Dragoon, a guy from one of the Wild Arms, some dude from Symphony of the Night... And boom, you got yourself fanboy boners popping up everywhere.
Expensive? Probably. It'd take some serious sweet talking and negotiating to get this to a reasonable price. But it'd get you a hell of a fanbase... And make it cheaper when in part 2 you add Cloud, Claire and Pyramid Head...
They're not even trying to be subtle about ripping off Smash Bros... still "Mascot-based-fighting-games" are nothing new in the industry. It's one thing to make one, its another to make a GOOD one.
I love cross-overs, so I'm definitely hoping my friend with a PS3 gets this game.
I don't CARE that it's Brawl for PlayStation. The "mash-up" levels thing sound kinda cool and different. I simply wish they had stated "it's Super Smash Bros. but with our characters." I don't think that's illegal, and it's certainly obvious.
Personally, having missed out on many of the characters depicted in the Smash Bros. series (My first console being the first Playstation) this is likely to engage me far more than the Smash Bros. games have. That is of course on the proviso that the game is actually good.
Look at the far left characters at 0:23, left again at 0:58, 1:29, 1:39. The game physics definitely seems to be geared toward ringing-out just like Smash Bros. And at 1:19 you can clearly see characters getting ringed-out.
It is entirely possible, though, that they just tore the physics mechanics from Smash Bros with out consideration for it's effects on game play, and as such didn't deign the levels to match with the mechanics at all. That, however, would just make it a poorly designed clone of Smash Bros... but, still a clone.
Sony will probably get my money for this until Sega releases Sega All Stars Match-up or whatever they call their Smash Bros. Clone.
I don't get the problem with this being a clone. There wasn't any hate for the Turtles clone, or the Cartoon Network clone. Is it just because it's Sony? If, indeed, this were Sega. Wouldn't people go, "Isn't that quaint?" But, because it's Sony, there's hate and derision. I don't understand it.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until we hear more concrete information on the fighting mechanics. I would hope that it isn't an exact clone of Smash Bros, but instead would introduce mechanics not seen in Smash Bros, perhaps with item usage, shielding and dodging, how powerful attacks and combos are triggered, grapple attacks, and the like. If it does turn out to be a pure ripoff of Smash Bros but still manages to be fun, I don't have much a problem with that since I can see a lot of people wishing this type of game existed.
One interesting thing I noticed is that the stages will be a crossover of two universes rather than a center-piece of one universe (the example in the video being Patapon invading Hades). I think this a really neat idea and that a lot of fun could be had with this concept.
I can see why Bob isn't terribly excited about this since he's a die hard Nintendo fan and not really a Sony-verse fan.
I was wondering when you were going to mention this, Bob. And while I see you (disappointingly) play the "Well, they stole this" angle, you do say that they have every right to make their own version. So we're cool.
I think this looks great, and yes, it's largely inspired by Smash Brothers. You don't look intelligent or insightful by pointing that out.
But, as many other people have said, how many DOZENS of 2D fighters copied Street Fighter II in the '90s? How many 2d side-scrollers copies Super Mario Brothers in the '80s and early '90s?
Heck, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night stole Super Metroid's gameplay/exploration mechanic, and it's considered one of the greatest games of all time.
Companies/developers using other's concepts is by no means new, and I find it HUGELY disingenuous of people acting like it's some kind of new (or Sony-centered) phenomenon.
I mean, Nintendo had to release a second analog stick add-on to the 3DS (if they haven't made a new model already) when the PSVita (with its dual analog setup) was revealed.
Am I going to say Nintendo "shamelessly" ripped off Sony's portable dual-analog concept? No, but I will say that competition makes a person look at their own product and see how they can improve it (as Nintendo did with the 3DS add-on).
As for the game itself, from what I've heard, you don't get KO's by knocking players off the ring (as in SSB: you get KO's by killing (for lack of a better term) opponents with super moves.
There are three levels of super moves, with each level being progressively more effective at killing multiple enemies at once. These levels are accumulated through your standard attacks/combos.
In a way, it's almost an arms race to build up your super meter so you can kill enemies, but certain moves allow you to steal from opponent's super meters.
To put it in Capcom fighting terms, if Super Smash Brothers is Street Fighter, PlayStation All-Stars looks to be Marvel vs. Capcom.
One aspect of this game Nintendo is going to be watching very closely is its online implementation (both online play features AND DLC) because, like most Wii games (Monster Hunter Tri being the exception), Brawl's online feature was a complete and utter failure.
I also like how this game is mashing up their franchises in other ways: the levels themselves are mash-ups (Hades fighting Patapons is HILARIOUS. Pata-pata-pata-PON!), and, from what I've heard, the soundtrack will be composed of songs that mix themes from said franchises, which I think is really neat.
While Sony's characters aren't as "iconic" (SUCH an overused word, but I digress) as Nintendo's, they do have a good number of memorable franchises.
They've also said All-Stars is going to have some third-party characters, as well. And since everyone and their mom is putting up character wish-lists, here's mine!
-Fei Fong Wong (Xenogears) -Kos-Mos/Telos (Xenosaga) -Gray Fox/Cyborg Ninja Raiden (Metal Gear Solid series, since Snake is already in Brawl) -Crash Bandicoot (Sony needs their original mascot in there, despite him now being multi-platform) -Cloud Stryfe (Final Fantasy VII) -Alucard (Castlevania: SotN) -Cap'n Hands (Loaded) -Kain and/or Raziel (Legacy of Kain series) -Barry (Resident Evil...didn't see THAT ONE coming, did'ja? Come on, you know you want to see the guy actually called Jill Valentine "the master of unlocking.")
And those aren't including the characters everyone knows are going to be in the game (Nathan Drake, Wander, Jak and Daxter, Ico, etc.).
Also, if Sony REALLY wants to make this stand apart from SSB they'll put it on the Vita, making it the first portable mascot fighter (or at least beating SSB to the portable market), and give it cross-platform play.
That'd make me finally bite the bullet and get a Vita.
One more example of most of what is wrong with the modern video game industry: Let's take a game that's already been made, slap OUR coat of paint on top of it, and try to make a quick buck. Bonus points for preying on the nostalgia of long-time gamers to try to induce a knee-jerk reaction buy for an otherwise mediocre game.
I'm not upset that "Sony is copying Nintendo"; if you want to get technical you can really argue that SSB was just an outgrowth of the 'throw known characters together into a fighter' concept of Capcom's Vs. Series. What I'm upset about is that this is just another version of the same lame-ass development mentality that's given every game and their dog lately a WOW COOL ZOMBIE MODE and a reference to Portal (usually via the word Aperture) every time there's any sort of teleporting involved.
In other words, it's more of the tired, trite me-too-ism that's dragged Hollywood down; a bunch of creatively bankrupt megacorps with absolutely no new ideas of their own, desperately grasping for something, ANYTHING, that will pull in customers simply because they've seen or heard it before and cows like to chew on the same cud over and over.
"One more example of most of what is wrong with the modern video game industry: Let's take a game that's already been made, slap OUR coat of paint on top of it, and try to make a quick buck. Bonus points for preying on the nostalgia of long-time gamers to try to induce a knee-jerk reaction buy for an otherwise mediocre game."
You don't say. Funny, because that sure sounds like Nintendo's business strategy for their IP for a long time running.
Oh, I definitely agree -- for example Other M was a giant pile of dogshit, and that has NOTHING to do with the story that everybody loves to argue about, but because AS A GAME it was awful in comparison to Metroid games made almost 20 years ago. But that didn't stop the Big N from breaking out the Metroid-flavored paint buckets to sell it to a bunch of people that just wanted another Metroid game.
Guys, Nintendo isn't going to "sue Sony" because the conventional thinking is that you can't (successfully) sue (in America) based on a "look & feel" ripoff. Capcom v. Data East set a legal precedent for that. (If you were playing games in the 90's, you might remember it as the "Fighter's History" case.)
Morally, I don't see a problem with this game. Yes, it's a direct 1:1 ripoff with the only differences being the character set and the mashup theme to the levels. But so what? Smash Bros wasn't just another ordinary "fighting game." It defined its own genre. This Playstation game is just the second franchise in that genre.
If all those ripoff games are allowed to exist in the iphone market, if FortressCraft is allowed to exist alongside MineCraft, I don't see why this game can't exist.
The theme music took it too far, I think. How does that orchestral score even relate to Sony? They should have tried to find their roots for that theme song. Some kinda heavy metal riff or something.
I mean, come on. Kratos? Fat Princess? Twisted Metal Van Robot? These are not the classy, kid-friendly, household name characters from Nintendo's roster, they shouldn't try to market them as such.
But I guess consumers are dumb and you need to really, REALLY push the idea that the Smash Brothers Clone is a Smash Brothers Clone. All without ever saying the words "Smash Brothers Clone." That's gotta suck.
Wasn't that just 3 minutes of some dude saying "we totally didn't make a Smash Brothers Clone, and here's why," then listing all of the features of a Smash Brothers game?
@Sandra: You DO realize you are taking one off examples and trying to compare them to a DECADE LONG PATTERN, right?
That is why Sony get's such special treatment where everyone understands but moves on with something like Castlevania: SotN.
That said, stop defending them. The studio was made to make this game 2 and a half years ago. So in late 09... even the timing suggests "Well, they stole this" is likely true.
Now would I say hate on them for it? No... thats what a Nintendo Fanboi does. And coming to their defense like this makes you just as bad...
"you do say that they have every right to make their own version. So we're cool." Wtf was that?
Just do yourself a favor and laugh at it all! For god sake, it's a video game!
A-WHHAAAAA? Sony blatantly copied one of Nintendo's most successful ideas? That's never been done before!
That said, as long as Sony and its fanbase are willing to admit they're constantly suckling from the teet of Nintendo's innovation, I'm willing to admit this looks like it could be a fun game. I mean, I saw Parappa the Rappa and Fat Princess in those matches; that alone makes it worth it.
One last thing though. . .why is everyone in that video. . .glowy? I realize it's probably to distinguish characters from the dark backgrounds of the game, but it just looks silly.
I dunno who Sandra is, but my name's Sam. Since you refer to my quotes directly, I'm assuming you were talking to me. As such, a little effort to get my name right would be nice.
At any rate, how has Sony been copying Nintendo for a decade, as you claim?
So the PS2 took stole ideas such as backwards compatibility and multimedia functionality, both concepts Sony brought to gaming via the PS2, from the Gamecube, despite the GC being released well AFTER the PS2? Not buying it.
I'll openly admit that the Move was Sony's Wiimote and that All-Stars is Sony's Smash Brothers, but people acting like Sony is the only company that borrows ideas from others is ludicrous.
At the end of the day, it is just a game, and one that I'm looking forward to.
It just bothers me that people are harping on Sony when this type of thing happens all the time.
I mean, everyone does realize that Nintendo is trying to pass a low-grade iPad off a an "innovative" console controller, right?
Or did they just rip the top screen off a DS, enlarge it, and say "new controller!" Could really be considered either, I think... at least since it has buttons as well as a screen (the big limitation on tablet gaming imho).
Also, allow me to laugh at you VERY directly now... Gamecube? Multimedia? What the HELL did a Gamecube play besides it's own games? (Seriously, physical disc size prevented you from putting a CD or DVD in, so tell me.)
And since WHEN was the gamecube backwards compatible? Everything previous to it was CARTS, so unless you can point out an NES, SNES, or N64 cart port on the cube... *shakes head*
Seriously, you are just making shit up now. And proving my point at the same time. You take this WAY too seriously. Laugh, damn you! It's funny. It's really ****ING FUNNY!
With the exception of the part about my name, I really was just talking. Not lecturing, not yelling and certainly not trying to chastise you or anyone else.
Apologies if it came across that way.
As for the PS2/Gamecube sentence, I definitely could have phrased it better, but I was trying to mock the idea of the PS2 taking the features I mentioned from the Gamecube since, as you pointed out, Gamecube had neither of those things.
But it's no biggie.
I think we've both said all we feel like about this, so I'm moving on.
yeah, that's pretty fucking pathetic. In terms of charm Sony's characters don't have anywhere near Nintendo's level. Then again, Sony isn't exactly known for truly CREATING something instead of just copy-pasting from others.
Come on. Im waiting for years for some talented studio to make a "maskot fighting game", but without the mascots. The Mechanics, the principal idea is great. And i would like to see it in different flavours.
But the musik, the colour pallet, the effects, the physics, everything just screams smash brothers. Thats pathetic.
And no, i don thave a problem with sony making there own. But the look&feel is just to simular.
SotN riped off Super Metroid, but gave it enought own ideas and stuff, that, in the end you cant really compair them. Thats what i want from this to be.
@Aiddon RE: "Then again, Sony isn't exactly known for truly CREATING something instead of just copy-pasting from others."
Your statement is REMARKABLY ignorant of video gaming history. If you believe that everything, or even MOST of what Nintendo has done in its tenure is truly original, you have neglected to avail yourself of video gaming both before Nintendo became big, and non-Nintendo gaming WHILE Nintendo was big. If you believe that Sony has brought nothing original to the table in its own time, you simply have not been paying attention.
Aiddon doesn't care about video game history he only cares about what his mind has created as a facimily of both reality and history.
For example in his mind the N64 was the first console to use disks and also Sony TOTALLY never created anything. Like at all. Because of reasons, reasons that totally exist also.
At any rate I'm fine with this. I like Smash Bros and I don't particularly care if it uses ideas from another series as long as they're good ideas.
Though I was hoping for more of a one-on-one fighter in the vein of something like MK 9 or the recent Soul Calibur game. I always thought characters like Cole from Infamous or...any of the Assassin's Creed guys would look extremely cool in that game (and since they added Enzio to Soul Caliber 5 already...)
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Power Stone do the whole platformer fighting game first, or around the same time. Given the development time for games is a couple of years, and they were both released in 1999, that'd mean they were both developed either at the same time or one slightly before the other.
At any rate I'd like to see an Xbox-centric one-on-one fighter in the mold of Mortal Kombat since it'd be quite easy to extrapolate several characters from various Xbox games like Marcus Fenix, Gordon Freeman, Master Chief and Soap McTavish into some interesting powers--at the very least the fatalities would be absurdly violent.
Jeremy Jahns did a video on this too, saying he thinks they were just taking a cue from Nintendo because Smash Bros distilled the platform-fighter concept into it's fully developed form already.
I have to agree.
I tend to believe in the evolutionary process of mediums like gaming and movies in a way that mirrors real life. In other words the traits that are most beneficial tend to be the ones that get passed on the more.
No one plays a Virtual Boy but everyone owns a Wii, if you catch my drift.
So in my opinion it only makes sense for games to eventually homogenize to some degree as designs, aesthetics and gameplay becomes more and more streamline.
That's why people sometimes talk about games being "too easy" now--they're not, they're getting more and more "better" for lack of a more specific term, and so the controls are easier to pick up, the saving is now more streamline, the games themselves have more uniform level design and aesthetic because the ones who didn't have these elements never succeeded and never passed on their...for the sake of the argument (and a pun) let's call it a "game-geney".
This sometimes runs the risk of games seeming more homogenous than they really are, but that's happened before.
Every platformer used to be Mario, then Sonic came out and every one had fast running animals, then Crash Bandicoot led to the "crazy animals" period for about a second and now the genre is kind of a satire of itself with more recent titles.
Cycles like that happened in fighting games too. In the same way that EVERY fighting game used to be Street Fighter, then every one was Mortal Kombat, then every one was Tekken/Virtua Fighter and now we're back to 2.5D because Street Fighter IV did so well.
I'd imagine that since Smash Bros is the foremost platform-fighter today, most of those that follow in it's footsteps as the genre (still nascent genre) evolves will also follow it's design.
Though like I said I was hoping more for a one-on-one fighter but then hey maybe Microsoft will get their ass in gear now and make one.
I don't have anything about they "copying" Nintendo. That's how a genre starts.
BUT, as somebody mentioned before, it copies a little too much. It copies not only the gameplay but also the aesthetics of SSB, which doesn't fit the game since Sony's characters aren't cute mascots like Mario or Pikachu, or cartoonish heroes like Link and Samus. (PaRappa the Rappa and Fat Princess being obvious exceptions).
I did a 25 page paper about the ENTIRETY of gaming history as a term project for a history class. It went as far back as the 50s in terms of the timeline I had to research. I can even name arguably what the first videogame and its designer were. Don't try that pseudo-Joseph Campbell bullshit on me just because you wanna try to sound smart. Sony lacks two things in terms of game design: lateral-thinking and creativity. Instead of thinking outside the box or taking a step to the side, they just blunder through awkwardly. But then again that's what happens when you're not REALLY a game company but just an electronics manufacturer with a games division
Nintendo used to produce playing cards and own a cab company...I guess they're not REALLY a games company then.
What does "blunder through awkwardly" even mean? That's not even a statement of fact that's a half-assed insult to people you don't even know about shit you, clearly, have no god damn idea about.
Ok, person who CLEARLY isn't bullshitting, what does lateral thinking ACTUALLY MEAN? What does thinking out of the box have to do with a mascot fighter with Parappa the Rappa fighting Sweet Tooth? What EXACT part of his post do you think is in any way Campbellian and what does that, precisely, mean IN CONTEXT. Show us all you actually know what these terms mean, I fucking dare you.
Also, this is the first time I've heard a person unironically say "think outside of the box" since at least 02 or 03. That's a marketing cliche so cliche it became meta-cliche and started meaning the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Aiddon apparently thinks it means.
Like, besides the fact it's a marketing buzzword from a decade ago, it basically is a way to insult someone's intelligence in a movie or something now by having execs sitting around a table talking about "thinking outside the box".
It was a joke on My Little Pony, for pity's sake! "Oh I think outside of the box, so I have to think inside the chimney!"
I'm also pretty sure it was used as a joke on Futurama once.
@ANYONE saying the game doesn't look like a Smash Bros. clone but rather got its inspiration from Smash Bros, you're denying facts you know. The game looks EXACTLY like someone modded Brawl to have Sony characters.
Get for real. Nintendo didn't gain fame UNTIL making games. If they fail in the game market they have nothing. That's what makes Nintendo a game company. Plus they give the customer the most bang for the buck without relying on downloadable content sales. Sony is NOT A VIDEO GAME COMPANY. Their sales don't totally rely on video games because they also make TVs, speakers, and other electronic goods. I agree with what the guy up there said, Sony always fails in creativity. They wait for someone else to come up with an awesome idea that sells and copy it.
You are so far up Sony's rear end that you are literally blinded to the truth. Smash Bros. A copy of Street Fighter? Get for real you're making yourself sound so ignorant. I have no problem with Sony wanting to make a fighting game. But when they are DIRECTLY cloning Smash Brothers, that's the problem. The thing I have with Sony is they have publicly mocked Nintendo, but copy all their ideas (the PSMove, including motion control ability in their PS3 controller, and now this). They always blantantly copy Nintendos ideas. The that also makes me laugh is the guys who post "oh this isn't a clone" is the same people who post on Vitas poor sales articles "Sales done matter" who ALSO were the same ones who posted on 3DS selling bad articles a year ago "ITS GONNA FAIL VITA>3DS"who ALSO put on Wii articles before it launched "Wii is retarded its gonna fail motion control is gay" WHO ALSO PUT ON PSMOGE ARTICLES "this isn't a clone of Wii it looks so awesome I can't wait for motion controllers on PS3". Funny how everything came back to bite the fanboys square in the butte (cough. Cough. Wii creaming PS3 and 360 saleswise and Vita getting massacred by 3DS plus Sony blatantly copying Nintendos ideas. Cough.)
All that sounds interesting. But the problem is it won't sale near the amounts of copies Super Smash Brothers does. A lot of the hardcore gamers won't get it cause its a clone (except the fanboys in denial). Plus the characters aren't household names. Kids, teenagers and everyone (excluding the Sony fanboys) would rather get a game where Mario is in Hyrule Temple fighting DK, Kirby, and Pikachu rather than Drake battling Sackboy and Kratos and Zeb in Hotshot golf arena. It just doesn't sound fun.
Wow Jannie...grats on fail. I don't even have a dog in this fight, but you come off looking like an absolute Prat.
As to the context, the rationals have said it. Yes, people borrow ideas. Good Designers borrow, great designers steal. However, there is a vast and unavoidable difference between stealing an idea, tweaking it, and making it your own. Zelda, Castlevania, and Metroid all began from the same base concept: Explore an open world to obtain items that allow you to explore previously blocked areas. The three series' have evolved to the point where they are all unique and distinct.
This? This is just lazy, uninspired game design. When Mortal Kombat copies SF2, it added comboes, added fatalaties, went with a live action capture system. The feel of the game was different, it wasn't just "And now, Street Fighter with... uh... Ryu and Ken, dressed in blue and green now!"
I have no idea what a "prat" is but it sounds British and insulting. Is that like "douche"?
Anyway...on further introspection I'm actually questioning what exactly we're accusing Sony of "stealing" here.
No one is saying the game isn't a ripoff, course it is, but the big question is "of what"?
Well, nothing Nintendo owns, that's for sure. OWNS, that's the key word here. No characters are taken over, no story elements, no actual ideas per se since we're now parsing out the legit-ness of ideas and what is proper protocol for using them.
What you're all getting butthurt over is AESTHETICS not ideas. They're two very, very different concepts I assure you. Ideas are things like story, characters, etc. and none of that is used here--aesthetics are things like what it looks like, how it "feels" (subjectively speaking) or maybe how it plays, which is not copyrighted. Indeed it's not even POSSIBLE to copyright something that vague.
What precisely would you even say in that case? He stole the way that the game "feels"? He stole the use of items in a battlefield?
That's the thing though when you talk about something "stealing" something it first has to BELONG to the people who have it. I can't steal something that no one ever owned, and no one has ever owned any of the things we associate with Smash Bros save for the characters and, very tenuously, the story. Unless Mister Hand shows up at some point Sony hasn't "stolen" anything, or really even "borrowed" anything since, again, you have to OWN something to have it borrowed from you.
If you want to say Sony ripped off--which is to nebulously say, copied--the notion of platforming based mascot fighters, then yes they certainly did. But they didn't steal it since Nintendo never owned it, copyrighted it or trademarked it. And rushing to defend Nintendo's honor when you KNOW damn well if there was any actual "theft" or copyright infringement here they'd bend Sony over a table is simply nonsensical.
Sony obviously is playing catch up to the concept of a mascot fighter, and have chosen to use almost identical aesthetics for their own that Smash Bros uses...and I'm not denying that. What I'm questioning is what precisely that even means in context of if the game is good or bad?
And I'm not the only one who asked this question, a game called Fighter's History posed a similar question years ago, and courts sided with Data East, concluding that some things in a genre are basically obligatory. Scenes-a-Fair is the term if I'm not mistaken, but I'm sure I spelled that wrong and have relatively little direct knowledge of the case, so you'd have look up Fighter's History itself to get a real rundown on it.
Anyway, my point is that IDEAS and AESTHETICS are two separate things. What Sony has copied, incompletely at that, is aesthetics which as far as I know can't be and aren't protected under law. Ideas, sometimes, and characters definitely are but Sony didn't take those so it didn't "steal" anything.
At worst you can say it's a clone, but that's hardly a criticism against it since one can just as easily say that Duke Nukem is Doom clone and Doom is a Wolfenstein clone and in neither case do I hear fanboys getting their shorts in a knot over that...or does it only count of Nintendo made it first (assuming of course they DID, because as I said Power Stone was out at almost exactly the same time, so it could have come first thus ironically making Smash Bros a ripoff of Power Stone).
Also, Metroid and Castlevania are perfect examples of that "scenes-a-fair" concept. They actually HAVE genre all their own, called Metroidvania, which basically means "it's an action game with RPG elements that's kinda like Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night" and includes things as diverse as Shadow Complex, a couple of Mega Man games and most of the Metroid series.
By all rights you could say that Symphony of the Night ripped off Super Metroid (I certainly noticed the, not-at-all undesirable, similarities as a kid) or that Shadow Complex ripped off Symphony of the Night since all of these games share far more similarities in gameplay, feel and design style than this game and Smash Bros...but then again Metroid and Shadow Complex are sci-fi and Symphony of the Night is gothic fantasy so as you can see aesthetics in this case are closer to "tropes" or "genre staples" or even "cliches" than they are "ideas" in any real sense.
Also it occurs to me I'm liberally mixing the terms copyright and trademark here, but I know almost nothing about such issues so excuse me if I use the wrong word to describe a copyright infringement or trademarks or suchlike.
I disagree with the defending of this "clone". Granted gaming companies have been copying each other for quick sometime, but they have at least the decency to change an outlying mechanic, or at the VERY least change the aesthetics and make the game look different. This game is literally NO DIFFERENT than a SSMB game. The only thing truly different is the character set and the health bar is now actually a bar as oposed to a number set (whch makes the damage output slightly more ambiguous, if ya ask me).
Sorry Sony, but you don't see Nintendo trying to make an exact replica of Twisted Metal or Killzone, so this seems in incredibly poor taste.
True, but then again, Killzone sucks by both FPS and other game standards, while Nintendo pretty much started/popularized the whole 'Driving vehicles that can fire at each other' theme in the first place. Twisted Metal just made it a lot less cartoony and not about racing... and not as much fun...
In the meantime, it's taking Nintendo an awfully long time inbetween Super Smash Bros games, and there's not exactly a cornucopia of these games being released that are worth getting, so they've got MY money if nothing else.
But see that's my point, none of those things are somehow beholden to Nintendo because Nintendo didn't invent them, nor did they or could they trademark/copyright/whatever these rather vague notions that seem to collectively be what Smash Bros "is".
The only thing that Nintendo actually owns IS the character set, and as long as Sony didn't use that then you can't justify blasting them for...what? Nebulously copying the aesthetic of a genre that may, or MAY NOT (Power Stone), even be something Nintendo did first?
My point is that, unless and until someone plays it and figures out the controls suck or something like that, it's not objectively fair or true to criticize the game for being similar to another game...I brought up the Fighter's History case because it was basically this same problem, and the courts SIDED WITH THE OTHER GUY over Capcom.
Again, I'm not exactly a legal expert, nor do I have direct knowledge of the case, but from what I understand by reading the law certain concepts, aesthetics and gameplay are considered OBLIGATORY if not mandatory within certain genres.
It's a mountain of legalese I can't properly reproduce but the idea is basically that. Unless an actual intellectual property is being stolen, like I said unless Mister Hand shows up, then objectively Sony isn't in the wrong here. No one is.
Who is this "Mister Hand"? Are we talking about MASTER HAND. Sorry, but it helps your arguemnet to know what the name of the final boss is.
Anyway, as a decently big Sony fan (Ratchet, Jak, Sly, etc.) I gotta say there is nothing here of real interest to me. I remeber loving Smash Bros. as a kid but, I kinda grew to dislike this series mainly because of the fanbase. The game itself isn't too good either (especially Melee. Shit AI, fucked up physics, terrible character balance, etc.). I thought Brawl was pretty decent but, I really see no point in playing what is basically the same shit with Sony characters who are much less iconic and memorable than the Nintendo cast (granted, only like 5 Nintendo franchises are TRULY iconic. I didn't know who the fuck Ness was until Smash Bros.).
The game even seems to have something similar to a "Final Smash" in the form of Bar-Based super attacks like in 2D fighters. Only good thing I can say is that Ring-Outs don't seem like the main way to defeat opponents but, other than that, this game is nothing new. I still have Smash 64 lying around somewhere. Think I'll just play that instead.
I personally think Nintendo should let super smash bros be made of playstation it would be great since i don't want to buy it on computer and don't want to get my wii out everytime i want to play it. It would be great since Nintendo don't seem to be doing well. The wii u didn't seem to be a success.
79 comments:
...
Really...?
I have to admit I do see the smash brothers style especially when it comes to the gameplay.
Probably won't pick this up seeing as I already have Brawl and Melee. I don't play those as much as I used to.
Is it just just me or did the cameraman seem really bored?
Wow. This is freaking SHAMELESS. I'm kinda surprised Nintendo hasn't sued their asses over this. I mean, it's almost freaking exact! It's like some fan made skins depicting Playstation characters and put them in Brawl!
Hell, I'll give Sony a benefit of a doubt. If they can pull off a Sony all-star "Smash Bros" brawler game and make it fun enough, I'd say go for. Just because Nintendo did it first doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a brawler game.
Nintendo hasn't sued because they're too busy laughing.
Fat Princess!?
Hahhahaha!
Take my money. I want it now!
And why are you people surprized at this game being, basicaly, a clone?
How many game clones has their been since 1980? How many platformers in the 80-90s coping mario? How many space age racing games? How many WW2 FPS?
And you're complaining about this one? really?
What's the difference between this being similar to Smash Bros. and every SNK and Capcom fighter looking nearly identical? Or Virtua Fighter vs. Tekken? Or Bloody Roar?
Or how about the first person shooter genre in general?
As I actually had some fun with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Smash-Up, I don't mind the idea of Nintendo spawning a new sub-genre of fighting game. I say, bring it on.
This seems to be everything Smash Bros is, but with Playstation fan service. I can understand why a gamer like Bob would be disinterested with this, which is fine, but for a guy like me who grew up with a Playstation 2 this has me pumped. I mean come on? Sly Cooper VS Parappa the rapper. Just take my money now.
I realize that there's a fine line between Smash Bros. style fighters becoming a sub-genre unto themselves (which would be awesome), and a game ripping Smash Bros. off. But, this... this isn't anywhere near that line. This is a pretty blatant clone.
I mean, I know it's still early but is there any sign at all this is anything other than Brawl with a different roster? Bid they change the mechanics at all? It sure doesn't like like they did.
I am psyched for this, I don't care what anyone else thinks, especially biased fanboys (not toward anyone in particular, just in general).
@thealmightynarf
Granted, there wasn't a LOT of gameplay in the video, but there do seem to be some changes to the mechanics (even if only very mild ones). While there do appear to be SSB style items like rocket launchers (I doubt that this is a default weapon for the fat princess), instead of having a smash ball the power ups (or whatever you want to call the mech-suit transformation sequence and possibly the flaming skateboard) appear to be based on picking up the white floating ghost things (possibly related to the orbs from God of War?) or attacking (similar to Street Fighter) to fill up the blue bar under each character on the bottom of the screen.
Also, notice that there is no percent counter for each character to display how far they are knocked back when hit, and it didn't even look like the main victory condition was going to be "ring out" since most of the levels (except the floating islands level) seemed to have barriers on both walls and no place to fall down (though this doesn't preclude the possibility of a ring out victory over the top of the screen, similar to the Metal Gear level from SSBB). Though, without any appreciable HP indicator either, the victory condition seems unclear.
Though it would not surprise me if Sony released a SSB clone with the only change to the mechanics being the addition of Street Fighter style specialty moves powered by the blue bar. What surprises me is that it took them this long to develop a big enough roster of characters to pull this off.
@Daniel:
Sony hasn't been in the "game" as long as Nintendo has either. And it took 14 years since 1985 before Nintendo made the first Super Smash Bros.
I've said it countless times before earlier today and I'll say it once more again. I find this incredibly hypocritical of Sony to make a clone of Smash Bros. when they've openly mocked Nintendo in countless articles in the past. Yeah, really classy.
And people wonder why I hate this company nowadays.
Just to be clear here - I have ZERO objection to Sony making a Mascot Fighter. In fact, I think it's a good idea. It's more that I'm dissapointed that they went the route of full-on borrowing SSB's aesthetic and motif rather than creating something unique of their own.
The SSB games - Melee in particular - was a really important step for the re-emergence of Nintendo as a modern player; you can see the seeds of what became "The Nintendo Aesthetic" both in terms of a unifying visual scheme and a fandom-relations approach being planted in them, and I was hoping to see Sony find the same thing. Sony ISN'T Nintendo, their roster for this is largely NOT Nintendo-like (it's more diverse, for one thing) and it would've been more interesting to see something that reflected that instead of "Here's exactly what Nintendo already did but with guys we own."
You know what, fuck it, this game looks awesome. And if I had a PlayStation 3, I'd totally be excited for it and buy it first day!
Actually, I'm STILL excited for it! I'd like to see what kind of characters they'd include!
Super Smash Bros. is an AWESOME fighting game, and after Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion, and now this, I want to see even MORE crossover games follow suit!
Well, this is what Sony does. In 18 years they have yet to produce a controller that is not a blatant Nintendo knockoff. So, I don't know why this game surprises me. It just does.
I knew Sony was going to make a Smash-Bros clone eventually. Competition is always a good thing. What I did not expect was for them to just copy Smash Bros completely. Sony already tried that with the Move and failed. What makes them think it'll work here?
Smash Bros. is a type of game I wouldn;t mind seeing cloned a few times. It's the only fighting game besides Soul Calibur that is actually fun.
Calling this a "Smash Bros. Clone" is like calling Mortal Kombat a "Street Fighter Clone". I think Yahtzee at one said something about how we used to call all FPSs "Doom Clones".
Point is, the platforming fighter should be it's own sub-genre. I like the format a lot more than the 2-D Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat/King of Fighters style or the 2-D Rotating Plain from Tekken and Dead or Alive. Why should Nintendo be the ONLY one with this style? That's right, THEY SHOULDN'T!
How the hell should nintendo sue them? its not like they copied there code. gameplay isn't copyright, programming is.
I love how people turn around and say, "If anyone calls this game bad, then essentially, they are saying that SSB itself is bad."
Yea...apparently, you haven't played Fighter's History....or Bubsy for that matter....
Case in point, you can make a game that borrows a lot from a game, and still make it bad.
Example: Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion XL, which I own....and is clearly cloning Brawl...
Wow. I mean, I rag on Nintendo a lot for shamelessly re-releasing the same game over and over again, but at least they shamelessly re-release their own games. I think the big problem with this, though, is that most of the PlayStation mascots are generally not 2D creations, i.e. start off or have installments of games in 2D. I don't see why they could have attempted a 3D fighter, fighting on a horizontal square rather than a vertical plane... ok, that's already been tried and hasn't worked well but it would've made the game at least feel like a different game.
Sony does what Nintendid
I kinda want to give Sony some shit for this, but complaining about Sony cloning Smash Bros. is about the same as when EVERYBODY wanted to make the new Street Fighter back in the 90's
Yeah, it's not like this is the first Smash Bros.-clone ever made...
Still, the character choice seems a bit uninspired. This is a case of trying to beat Coke b BEING Coke.
Sony doesn't have the same pool of nostalgia inducing, lovable first party characters... So they SHOULDN'T TRY TO COMPETE. Not there.
What they DO have is a large library of third party fan favorites. It took Nintendo 3 games to dip into the pool, but if Sony wants to compete with Nintendo, they'd have to dive right in.
Add in someone from Legend of the Dragoon, a guy from one of the Wild Arms, some dude from Symphony of the Night... And boom, you got yourself fanboy boners popping up everywhere.
Expensive? Probably. It'd take some serious sweet talking and negotiating to get this to a reasonable price. But it'd get you a hell of a fanbase... And make it cheaper when in part 2 you add Cloud, Claire and Pyramid Head...
actually, Bob... this is exactly what I expected. Completely. Without error.
What I wonder now is what the fanbois will do with this.... idiots are taking sides already.
They're not even trying to be subtle about ripping off Smash Bros... still "Mascot-based-fighting-games" are nothing new in the industry. It's one thing to make one, its another to make a GOOD one.
Sly and PaRappa and Kratos?
I love cross-overs, so I'm definitely hoping my friend with a PS3 gets this game.
I don't CARE that it's Brawl for PlayStation. The "mash-up" levels thing sound kinda cool and different. I simply wish they had stated "it's Super Smash Bros. but with our characters." I don't think that's illegal, and it's certainly obvious.
But I say sweet!
Personally, having missed out on many of the characters depicted in the Smash Bros. series (My first console being the first Playstation) this is likely to engage me far more than the Smash Bros. games have. That is of course on the proviso that the game is actually good.
@ Daniel
Look at the far left characters at 0:23, left again at 0:58, 1:29, 1:39. The game physics definitely seems to be geared toward ringing-out just like Smash Bros. And at 1:19 you can clearly see characters getting ringed-out.
It is entirely possible, though, that they just tore the physics mechanics from Smash Bros with out consideration for it's effects on game play, and as such didn't deign the levels to match with the mechanics at all. That, however, would just make it a poorly designed clone of Smash Bros... but, still a clone.
Sony will probably get my money for this until Sega releases Sega All Stars Match-up or whatever they call their Smash Bros. Clone.
I don't get the problem with this being a clone. There wasn't any hate for the Turtles clone, or the Cartoon Network clone. Is it just because it's Sony? If, indeed, this were Sega. Wouldn't people go, "Isn't that quaint?" But, because it's Sony, there's hate and derision. I don't understand it.
of COURSE it's because it's Sony. Let's look at their history.
PSX's controller was an SNES controller with 2 more buttons.
DualShock got analog only after N64 introduced it.
Nintendo shows the Wiimote, and suddenly PS3 has motion control too!
And this is pretty much the short list.
When the pattern continues, expect hate. In my case, I do not hate, but I do laugh.
Super...SMASH...PlayStation! :D
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until we hear more concrete information on the fighting mechanics. I would hope that it isn't an exact clone of Smash Bros, but instead would introduce mechanics not seen in Smash Bros, perhaps with item usage, shielding and dodging, how powerful attacks and combos are triggered, grapple attacks, and the like. If it does turn out to be a pure ripoff of Smash Bros but still manages to be fun, I don't have much a problem with that since I can see a lot of people wishing this type of game existed.
One interesting thing I noticed is that the stages will be a crossover of two universes rather than a center-piece of one universe (the example in the video being Patapon invading Hades). I think this a really neat idea and that a lot of fun could be had with this concept.
I can see why Bob isn't terribly excited about this since he's a die hard Nintendo fan and not really a Sony-verse fan.
I was wondering when you were going to mention this, Bob. And while I see you (disappointingly) play the "Well, they stole this" angle, you do say that they have every right to make their own version. So we're cool.
I think this looks great, and yes, it's largely inspired by Smash Brothers. You don't look intelligent or insightful by pointing that out.
But, as many other people have said, how many DOZENS of 2D fighters copied Street Fighter II in the '90s? How many 2d side-scrollers copies Super Mario Brothers in the '80s and early '90s?
Heck, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night stole Super Metroid's gameplay/exploration mechanic, and it's considered one of the greatest games of all time.
Companies/developers using other's concepts is by no means new, and I find it HUGELY disingenuous of people acting like it's some kind of new (or Sony-centered) phenomenon.
I mean, Nintendo had to release a second analog stick add-on to the 3DS (if they haven't made a new model already) when the PSVita (with its dual analog setup) was revealed.
Am I going to say Nintendo "shamelessly" ripped off Sony's portable dual-analog concept? No, but I will say that competition makes a person look at their own product and see how they can improve it (as Nintendo did with the 3DS add-on).
As for the game itself, from what I've heard, you don't get KO's by knocking players off the ring (as in SSB: you get KO's by killing (for lack of a better term) opponents with super moves.
There are three levels of super moves, with each level being progressively more effective at killing multiple enemies at once. These levels are accumulated through your standard attacks/combos.
In a way, it's almost an arms race to build up your super meter so you can kill enemies, but certain moves allow you to steal from opponent's super meters.
To put it in Capcom fighting terms, if Super Smash Brothers is Street Fighter, PlayStation All-Stars looks to be Marvel vs. Capcom.
One aspect of this game Nintendo is going to be watching very closely is its online implementation (both online play features AND DLC) because, like most Wii games (Monster Hunter Tri being the exception), Brawl's online feature was a complete and utter failure.
I also like how this game is mashing up their franchises in other ways: the levels themselves are mash-ups (Hades fighting Patapons is HILARIOUS. Pata-pata-pata-PON!), and, from what I've heard, the soundtrack will be composed of songs that mix themes from said franchises, which I think is really neat.
While Sony's characters aren't as "iconic" (SUCH an overused word, but I digress) as Nintendo's, they do have a good number of memorable franchises.
They've also said All-Stars is going to have some third-party characters, as well. And since everyone and their mom is putting up character wish-lists, here's mine!
-Fei Fong Wong (Xenogears)
-Kos-Mos/Telos (Xenosaga)
-Gray Fox/Cyborg Ninja Raiden (Metal Gear Solid series, since Snake is already in Brawl)
-Crash Bandicoot (Sony needs their original mascot in there, despite him now being multi-platform)
-Cloud Stryfe (Final Fantasy VII)
-Alucard (Castlevania: SotN)
-Cap'n Hands (Loaded)
-Kain and/or Raziel (Legacy of Kain series)
-Barry (Resident Evil...didn't see THAT ONE coming, did'ja? Come on, you know you want to see the guy actually called Jill Valentine "the master of unlocking.")
And those aren't including the characters everyone knows are going to be in the game (Nathan Drake, Wander, Jak and Daxter, Ico, etc.).
Peace out!
Also, if Sony REALLY wants to make this stand apart from SSB they'll put it on the Vita, making it the first portable mascot fighter (or at least beating SSB to the portable market), and give it cross-platform play.
That'd make me finally bite the bullet and get a Vita.
Last comment (unless someone responds directly to me), I promise!
One thing I'm glad All-Stars doesn't get from SSB? The FREAKING TRIP MECHANIC.
I can't possibly explain how much I ABHOR that about Brawl: Sonic the Hedgehog DOESN'T TRIP.
'Nuff said.
@ Sam Robards
Why put Barry in this game when Capcom can just add him as a secret character in a Marvel vs. Capcom game?
One more example of most of what is wrong with the modern video game industry: Let's take a game that's already been made, slap OUR coat of paint on top of it, and try to make a quick buck. Bonus points for preying on the nostalgia of long-time gamers to try to induce a knee-jerk reaction buy for an otherwise mediocre game.
I'm not upset that "Sony is copying Nintendo"; if you want to get technical you can really argue that SSB was just an outgrowth of the 'throw known characters together into a fighter' concept of Capcom's Vs. Series. What I'm upset about is that this is just another version of the same lame-ass development mentality that's given every game and their dog lately a WOW COOL ZOMBIE MODE and a reference to Portal (usually via the word Aperture) every time there's any sort of teleporting involved.
In other words, it's more of the tired, trite me-too-ism that's dragged Hollywood down; a bunch of creatively bankrupt megacorps with absolutely no new ideas of their own, desperately grasping for something, ANYTHING, that will pull in customers simply because they've seen or heard it before and cows like to chew on the same cud over and over.
@Anonymous:
"One more example of most of what is wrong with the modern video game industry: Let's take a game that's already been made, slap OUR coat of paint on top of it, and try to make a quick buck. Bonus points for preying on the nostalgia of long-time gamers to try to induce a knee-jerk reaction buy for an otherwise mediocre game."
You don't say. Funny, because that sure sounds like Nintendo's business strategy for their IP for a long time running.
@Kris Russell:
Oh, I definitely agree -- for example Other M was a giant pile of dogshit, and that has NOTHING to do with the story that everybody loves to argue about, but because AS A GAME it was awful in comparison to Metroid games made almost 20 years ago. But that didn't stop the Big N from breaking out the Metroid-flavored paint buckets to sell it to a bunch of people that just wanted another Metroid game.
Guys, Nintendo isn't going to "sue Sony" because the conventional thinking is that you can't (successfully) sue (in America) based on a "look & feel" ripoff. Capcom v. Data East set a legal precedent for that. (If you were playing games in the 90's, you might remember it as the "Fighter's History" case.)
Morally, I don't see a problem with this game. Yes, it's a direct 1:1 ripoff with the only differences being the character set and the mashup theme to the levels. But so what? Smash Bros wasn't just another ordinary "fighting game." It defined its own genre. This Playstation game is just the second franchise in that genre.
If all those ripoff games are allowed to exist in the iphone market, if FortressCraft is allowed to exist alongside MineCraft, I don't see why this game can't exist.
The theme music took it too far, I think. How does that orchestral score even relate to Sony? They should have tried to find their roots for that theme song. Some kinda heavy metal riff or something.
I mean, come on. Kratos? Fat Princess? Twisted Metal Van Robot? These are not the classy, kid-friendly, household name characters from Nintendo's roster, they shouldn't try to market them as such.
But I guess consumers are dumb and you need to really, REALLY push the idea that the Smash Brothers Clone is a Smash Brothers Clone. All without ever saying the words "Smash Brothers Clone." That's gotta suck.
Wasn't that just 3 minutes of some dude saying "we totally didn't make a Smash Brothers Clone, and here's why," then listing all of the features of a Smash Brothers game?
@Sandra:
You DO realize you are taking one off examples and trying to compare them to a DECADE LONG PATTERN, right?
That is why Sony get's such special treatment where everyone understands but moves on with something like Castlevania: SotN.
That said, stop defending them. The studio was made to make this game 2 and a half years ago. So in late 09... even the timing suggests "Well, they stole this" is likely true.
Now would I say hate on them for it? No... thats what a Nintendo Fanboi does. And coming to their defense like this makes you just as bad...
"you do say that they have every right to make their own version. So we're cool." Wtf was that?
Just do yourself a favor and laugh at it all! For god sake, it's a video game!
A-WHHAAAAA? Sony blatantly copied one of Nintendo's most successful ideas? That's never been done before!
That said, as long as Sony and its fanbase are willing to admit they're constantly suckling from the teet of Nintendo's innovation, I'm willing to admit this looks like it could be a fun game. I mean, I saw Parappa the Rappa and Fat Princess in those matches; that alone makes it worth it.
One last thing though. . .why is everyone in that video. . .glowy? I realize it's probably to distinguish characters from the dark backgrounds of the game, but it just looks silly.
Megabyte,
I dunno who Sandra is, but my name's Sam. Since you refer to my quotes directly, I'm assuming you were talking to me. As such, a little effort to get my name right would be nice.
At any rate, how has Sony been copying Nintendo for a decade, as you claim?
So the PS2 took stole ideas such as backwards compatibility and multimedia functionality, both concepts Sony brought to gaming via the PS2, from the Gamecube, despite the GC being released well AFTER the PS2? Not buying it.
I'll openly admit that the Move was Sony's Wiimote and that All-Stars is Sony's Smash Brothers, but people acting like Sony is the only company that borrows ideas from others is ludicrous.
At the end of the day, it is just a game, and one that I'm looking forward to.
It just bothers me that people are harping on Sony when this type of thing happens all the time.
I mean, everyone does realize that Nintendo is trying to pass a low-grade iPad off a an "innovative" console controller, right?
I just wonder when Microsoft is going to get in on this party fighter gig.
Maybe it's me, but for some reason, when I think Smash being an innovator, I think of Power Stone...and think I might be onto something
Yep, "Sam," Everyone does.
Or did they just rip the top screen off a DS, enlarge it, and say "new controller!" Could really be considered either, I think... at least since it has buttons as well as a screen (the big limitation on tablet gaming imho).
Also, allow me to laugh at you VERY directly now... Gamecube? Multimedia? What the HELL did a Gamecube play besides it's own games? (Seriously, physical disc size prevented you from putting a CD or DVD in, so tell me.)
And since WHEN was the gamecube backwards compatible? Everything previous to it was CARTS, so unless you can point out an NES, SNES, or N64 cart port on the cube... *shakes head*
Seriously, you are just making shit up now. And proving my point at the same time. You take this WAY too seriously. Laugh, damn you! It's funny. It's really ****ING FUNNY!
EDIT: enlarge the bottom part, I mean.
Megabyte,
With the exception of the part about my name, I really was just talking. Not lecturing, not yelling and certainly not trying to chastise you or anyone else.
Apologies if it came across that way.
As for the PS2/Gamecube sentence, I definitely could have phrased it better, but I was trying to mock the idea of the PS2 taking the features I mentioned from the Gamecube since, as you pointed out, Gamecube had neither of those things.
But it's no biggie.
I think we've both said all we feel like about this, so I'm moving on.
Peace out!
What you didn't mention is that it looks like an AWESOME Smash Bros. Clone. Totally pumped for this actually.
yeah, that's pretty fucking pathetic. In terms of charm Sony's characters don't have anywhere near Nintendo's level. Then again, Sony isn't exactly known for truly CREATING something instead of just copy-pasting from others.
Seriously?
Come on. Im waiting for years for some talented studio to make a "maskot fighting game", but without the mascots. The Mechanics, the principal idea is great. And i would like to see it in different flavours.
But the musik, the colour pallet, the effects, the physics, everything just screams smash brothers. Thats pathetic.
And no, i don thave a problem with sony making there own. But the look&feel is just to simular.
SotN riped off Super Metroid, but gave it enought own ideas and stuff, that, in the end you cant really compair them. Thats what i want from this to be.
@Aiddon RE: "Then again, Sony isn't exactly known for truly CREATING something instead of just copy-pasting from others."
Your statement is REMARKABLY ignorant of video gaming history. If you believe that everything, or even MOST of what Nintendo has done in its tenure is truly original, you have neglected to avail yourself of video gaming both before Nintendo became big, and non-Nintendo gaming WHILE Nintendo was big. If you believe that Sony has brought nothing original to the table in its own time, you simply have not been paying attention.
Aiddon doesn't care about video game history he only cares about what his mind has created as a facimily of both reality and history.
For example in his mind the N64 was the first console to use disks and also Sony TOTALLY never created anything. Like at all. Because of reasons, reasons that totally exist also.
At any rate I'm fine with this. I like Smash Bros and I don't particularly care if it uses ideas from another series as long as they're good ideas.
Though I was hoping for more of a one-on-one fighter in the vein of something like MK 9 or the recent Soul Calibur game. I always thought characters like Cole from Infamous or...any of the Assassin's Creed guys would look extremely cool in that game (and since they added Enzio to Soul Caliber 5 already...)
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Power Stone do the whole platformer fighting game first, or around the same time. Given the development time for games is a couple of years, and they were both released in 1999, that'd mean they were both developed either at the same time or one slightly before the other.
At any rate I'd like to see an Xbox-centric one-on-one fighter in the mold of Mortal Kombat since it'd be quite easy to extrapolate several characters from various Xbox games like Marcus Fenix, Gordon Freeman, Master Chief and Soap McTavish into some interesting powers--at the very least the fatalities would be absurdly violent.
Jeremy Jahns did a video on this too, saying he thinks they were just taking a cue from Nintendo because Smash Bros distilled the platform-fighter concept into it's fully developed form already.
I have to agree.
I tend to believe in the evolutionary process of mediums like gaming and movies in a way that mirrors real life. In other words the traits that are most beneficial tend to be the ones that get passed on the more.
No one plays a Virtual Boy but everyone owns a Wii, if you catch my drift.
So in my opinion it only makes sense for games to eventually homogenize to some degree as designs, aesthetics and gameplay becomes more and more streamline.
That's why people sometimes talk about games being "too easy" now--they're not, they're getting more and more "better" for lack of a more specific term, and so the controls are easier to pick up, the saving is now more streamline, the games themselves have more uniform level design and aesthetic because the ones who didn't have these elements never succeeded and never passed on their...for the sake of the argument (and a pun) let's call it a "game-geney".
This sometimes runs the risk of games seeming more homogenous than they really are, but that's happened before.
Every platformer used to be Mario, then Sonic came out and every one had fast running animals, then Crash Bandicoot led to the "crazy animals" period for about a second and now the genre is kind of a satire of itself with more recent titles.
Cycles like that happened in fighting games too. In the same way that EVERY fighting game used to be Street Fighter, then every one was Mortal Kombat, then every one was Tekken/Virtua Fighter and now we're back to 2.5D because Street Fighter IV did so well.
I'd imagine that since Smash Bros is the foremost platform-fighter today, most of those that follow in it's footsteps as the genre (still nascent genre) evolves will also follow it's design.
Though like I said I was hoping more for a one-on-one fighter but then hey maybe Microsoft will get their ass in gear now and make one.
Oh come on guys, The movie industrie does this kind for ripping since the dawn of time...
The name is stupid and lacks creativity.
I don't have anything about they "copying" Nintendo. That's how a genre starts.
BUT, as somebody mentioned before, it copies a little too much. It copies not only the gameplay but also the aesthetics of SSB, which doesn't fit the game since Sony's characters aren't cute mascots like Mario or Pikachu, or cartoonish heroes like Link and Samus. (PaRappa the Rappa and Fat Princess being obvious exceptions).
@Anon
I did a 25 page paper about the ENTIRETY of gaming history as a term project for a history class. It went as far back as the 50s in terms of the timeline I had to research. I can even name arguably what the first videogame and its designer were. Don't try that pseudo-Joseph Campbell bullshit on me just because you wanna try to sound smart. Sony lacks two things in terms of game design: lateral-thinking and creativity. Instead of thinking outside the box or taking a step to the side, they just blunder through awkwardly. But then again that's what happens when you're not REALLY a game company but just an electronics manufacturer with a games division
Nintendo used to produce playing cards and own a cab company...I guess they're not REALLY a games company then.
What does "blunder through awkwardly" even mean? That's not even a statement of fact that's a half-assed insult to people you don't even know about shit you, clearly, have no god damn idea about.
Ok, person who CLEARLY isn't bullshitting, what does lateral thinking ACTUALLY MEAN? What does thinking out of the box have to do with a mascot fighter with Parappa the Rappa fighting Sweet Tooth? What EXACT part of his post do you think is in any way Campbellian and what does that, precisely, mean IN CONTEXT. Show us all you actually know what these terms mean, I fucking dare you.
Also, this is the first time I've heard a person unironically say "think outside of the box" since at least 02 or 03. That's a marketing cliche so cliche it became meta-cliche and started meaning the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Aiddon apparently thinks it means.
Like, besides the fact it's a marketing buzzword from a decade ago, it basically is a way to insult someone's intelligence in a movie or something now by having execs sitting around a table talking about "thinking outside the box".
It was a joke on My Little Pony, for pity's sake! "Oh I think outside of the box, so I have to think inside the chimney!"
I'm also pretty sure it was used as a joke on Futurama once.
@ANYONE saying the game doesn't look like a Smash Bros. clone but rather got its inspiration from Smash Bros, you're denying facts you know. The game looks EXACTLY like someone modded Brawl to have Sony characters.
Get for real. Nintendo didn't gain fame UNTIL making games. If they fail in the game market they have nothing. That's what makes Nintendo a game company. Plus they give the customer the most bang for the buck without relying on downloadable content sales. Sony is NOT A VIDEO GAME COMPANY. Their sales don't totally rely on video games because they also make TVs, speakers, and other electronic goods. I agree with what the guy up there said, Sony always fails in creativity. They wait for someone else to come up with an awesome idea that sells and copy it.
You are so far up Sony's rear end that you are literally blinded to the truth. Smash Bros. A copy of Street Fighter? Get for real you're making yourself sound so ignorant. I have no problem with Sony wanting to make a fighting game. But when they are DIRECTLY cloning Smash Brothers, that's the problem. The thing I have with Sony is they have publicly mocked Nintendo, but copy all their ideas (the PSMove, including motion control ability in their PS3 controller, and now this). They always blantantly copy Nintendos ideas. The that also makes me laugh is the guys who post "oh this isn't a clone" is the same people who post on Vitas poor sales articles "Sales done matter" who ALSO were the same ones who posted on 3DS selling bad articles a year ago "ITS GONNA FAIL VITA>3DS"who ALSO put on Wii articles before it launched "Wii is retarded its gonna fail motion control is gay" WHO ALSO PUT ON PSMOGE ARTICLES "this isn't a clone of Wii it looks so awesome I can't wait for motion controllers on PS3". Funny how everything came back to bite the fanboys square in the butte (cough. Cough. Wii creaming PS3 and 360 saleswise and Vita getting massacred by 3DS plus Sony blatantly copying Nintendos ideas. Cough.)
All that sounds interesting. But the problem is it won't sale near the amounts of copies Super Smash Brothers does. A lot of the hardcore gamers won't get it cause its a clone (except the fanboys in denial). Plus the characters aren't household names. Kids, teenagers and everyone (excluding the Sony fanboys) would rather get a game where Mario is in Hyrule Temple fighting DK, Kirby, and Pikachu rather than Drake battling Sackboy and Kratos and Zeb in Hotshot golf arena. It just doesn't sound fun.
Wow Jannie...grats on fail. I don't even have a dog in this fight, but you come off looking like an absolute Prat.
As to the context, the rationals have said it. Yes, people borrow ideas. Good Designers borrow, great designers steal. However, there is a vast and unavoidable difference between stealing an idea, tweaking it, and making it your own. Zelda, Castlevania, and Metroid all began from the same base concept: Explore an open world to obtain items that allow you to explore previously blocked areas. The three series' have evolved to the point where they are all unique and distinct.
This? This is just lazy, uninspired game design. When Mortal Kombat copies SF2, it added comboes, added fatalaties, went with a live action capture system. The feel of the game was different, it wasn't just "And now, Street Fighter with... uh... Ryu and Ken, dressed in blue and green now!"
I have no idea what a "prat" is but it sounds British and insulting. Is that like "douche"?
Anyway...on further introspection I'm actually questioning what exactly we're accusing Sony of "stealing" here.
No one is saying the game isn't a ripoff, course it is, but the big question is "of what"?
Well, nothing Nintendo owns, that's for sure. OWNS, that's the key word here. No characters are taken over, no story elements, no actual ideas per se since we're now parsing out the legit-ness of ideas and what is proper protocol for using them.
What you're all getting butthurt over is AESTHETICS not ideas. They're two very, very different concepts I assure you. Ideas are things like story, characters, etc. and none of that is used here--aesthetics are things like what it looks like, how it "feels" (subjectively speaking) or maybe how it plays, which is not copyrighted. Indeed it's not even POSSIBLE to copyright something that vague.
What precisely would you even say in that case? He stole the way that the game "feels"? He stole the use of items in a battlefield?
That's the thing though when you talk about something "stealing" something it first has to BELONG to the people who have it. I can't steal something that no one ever owned, and no one has ever owned any of the things we associate with Smash Bros save for the characters and, very tenuously, the story. Unless Mister Hand shows up at some point Sony hasn't "stolen" anything, or really even "borrowed" anything since, again, you have to OWN something to have it borrowed from you.
If you want to say Sony ripped off--which is to nebulously say, copied--the notion of platforming based mascot fighters, then yes they certainly did. But they didn't steal it since Nintendo never owned it, copyrighted it or trademarked it. And rushing to defend Nintendo's honor when you KNOW damn well if there was any actual "theft" or copyright infringement here they'd bend Sony over a table is simply nonsensical.
Sony obviously is playing catch up to the concept of a mascot fighter, and have chosen to use almost identical aesthetics for their own that Smash Bros uses...and I'm not denying that. What I'm questioning is what precisely that even means in context of if the game is good or bad?
And I'm not the only one who asked this question, a game called Fighter's History posed a similar question years ago, and courts sided with Data East, concluding that some things in a genre are basically obligatory. Scenes-a-Fair is the term if I'm not mistaken, but I'm sure I spelled that wrong and have relatively little direct knowledge of the case, so you'd have look up Fighter's History itself to get a real rundown on it.
Anyway, my point is that IDEAS and AESTHETICS are two separate things. What Sony has copied, incompletely at that, is aesthetics which as far as I know can't be and aren't protected under law. Ideas, sometimes, and characters definitely are but Sony didn't take those so it didn't "steal" anything.
At worst you can say it's a clone, but that's hardly a criticism against it since one can just as easily say that Duke Nukem is Doom clone and Doom is a Wolfenstein clone and in neither case do I hear fanboys getting their shorts in a knot over that...or does it only count of Nintendo made it first (assuming of course they DID, because as I said Power Stone was out at almost exactly the same time, so it could have come first thus ironically making Smash Bros a ripoff of Power Stone).
Also, Metroid and Castlevania are perfect examples of that "scenes-a-fair" concept. They actually HAVE genre all their own, called Metroidvania, which basically means "it's an action game with RPG elements that's kinda like Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night" and includes things as diverse as Shadow Complex, a couple of Mega Man games and most of the Metroid series.
By all rights you could say that Symphony of the Night ripped off Super Metroid (I certainly noticed the, not-at-all undesirable, similarities as a kid) or that Shadow Complex ripped off Symphony of the Night since all of these games share far more similarities in gameplay, feel and design style than this game and Smash Bros...but then again Metroid and Shadow Complex are sci-fi and Symphony of the Night is gothic fantasy so as you can see aesthetics in this case are closer to "tropes" or "genre staples" or even "cliches" than they are "ideas" in any real sense.
Also it occurs to me I'm liberally mixing the terms copyright and trademark here, but I know almost nothing about such issues so excuse me if I use the wrong word to describe a copyright infringement or trademarks or suchlike.
I disagree with the defending of this "clone". Granted gaming companies have been copying each other for quick sometime, but they have at least the decency to change an outlying mechanic, or at the VERY least change the aesthetics and make the game look different. This game is literally NO DIFFERENT than a SSMB game. The only thing truly different is the character set and the health bar is now actually a bar as oposed to a number set (whch makes the damage output slightly more ambiguous, if ya ask me).
Sorry Sony, but you don't see Nintendo trying to make an exact replica of Twisted Metal or Killzone, so this seems in incredibly poor taste.
True, but then again, Killzone sucks by both FPS and other game standards, while Nintendo pretty much started/popularized the whole 'Driving vehicles that can fire at each other' theme in the first place. Twisted Metal just made it a lot less cartoony and not about racing... and not as much fun...
In the meantime, it's taking Nintendo an awfully long time inbetween Super Smash Bros games, and there's not exactly a cornucopia of these games being released that are worth getting, so they've got MY money if nothing else.
Exploder Blade:
But see that's my point, none of those things are somehow beholden to Nintendo because Nintendo didn't invent them, nor did they or could they trademark/copyright/whatever these rather vague notions that seem to collectively be what Smash Bros "is".
The only thing that Nintendo actually owns IS the character set, and as long as Sony didn't use that then you can't justify blasting them for...what? Nebulously copying the aesthetic of a genre that may, or MAY NOT (Power Stone), even be something Nintendo did first?
My point is that, unless and until someone plays it and figures out the controls suck or something like that, it's not objectively fair or true to criticize the game for being similar to another game...I brought up the Fighter's History case because it was basically this same problem, and the courts SIDED WITH THE OTHER GUY over Capcom.
Again, I'm not exactly a legal expert, nor do I have direct knowledge of the case, but from what I understand by reading the law certain concepts, aesthetics and gameplay are considered OBLIGATORY if not mandatory within certain genres.
It's a mountain of legalese I can't properly reproduce but the idea is basically that. Unless an actual intellectual property is being stolen, like I said unless Mister Hand shows up, then objectively Sony isn't in the wrong here. No one is.
@Jannie
Who is this "Mister Hand"? Are we talking about MASTER HAND. Sorry, but it helps your arguemnet to know what the name of the final boss is.
Anyway, as a decently big Sony fan (Ratchet, Jak, Sly, etc.) I gotta say there is nothing here of real interest to me. I remeber loving Smash Bros. as a kid but, I kinda grew to dislike this series mainly because of the fanbase. The game itself isn't too good either (especially Melee. Shit AI, fucked up physics, terrible character balance, etc.). I thought Brawl was pretty decent but, I really see no point in playing what is basically the same shit with Sony characters who are much less iconic and memorable than the Nintendo cast (granted, only like 5 Nintendo franchises are TRULY iconic. I didn't know who the fuck Ness was until Smash Bros.).
The game even seems to have something similar to a "Final Smash" in the form of Bar-Based super attacks like in 2D fighters. Only good thing I can say is that Ring-Outs don't seem like the main way to defeat opponents but, other than that, this game is nothing new. I still have Smash 64 lying around somewhere. Think I'll just play that instead.
I personally think Nintendo should let super smash bros be made of playstation it would be great since i don't want to buy it on computer and don't want to get my wii out everytime i want to play it. It would be great since Nintendo don't seem to be doing well. The wii u didn't seem to be a success.
Post a Comment