We Unite Gaming

Gaming Boards => Video Game General Discussion => Topic started by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 06:03:43 am



Title: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 06:03:43 am
They are actually making it. I think I'll always like playing as the Nintendo characters more but this game looks pretty good in it's own right. Oh and it's called Playstation All stars Battle Royale.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/122/1223840p1.html

Everyone start posting about who is going to be in the game. They've included Parappa the Rapper so obviously you can go quite deep in your predictions.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Ps358 on April 27, 2012, 06:07:14 am
Ssb series will be better.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: June on April 27, 2012, 06:25:50 am
I don't even know who the Playstation characters are.  :-[

I want to play as Fat Princess.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 07:39:57 am
Obligatory.


(http://fuzzybuzz.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sackboy.jpg)
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg3q3xtMSQ1qajalzo1_400.jpg)
(http://www.gamegavel.com/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/infamous-2-confirmed-voice-actor.jpg)
(http://edwardcheeverreviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ico_02.jpg)
(http://www.ninjagaidengame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Ninja-Gaiden-Sigma-2-image2-567x250.jpg)
(http://lrastart.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Katamari.jpg)
(http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9000000/Crash-to-100-For-Ever-crash-bandicoot-9061802-1000-1000.jpg)


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 08:10:55 am
I don't think all of those belong to Sony.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 08:28:12 am
They've all been in PS exclusive games though. Snake was in SSBB.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 08:46:25 am
He was licensed over though, which costs money I think. I dunno I guess it would depend on if the devs were first party studios.

Actually I'm glad you brought that up. I wonder if Snake is going to keep his SSBB skillset in this game or if they will give him a new set. Another thing is that since they were nice enough to let Nintendo borrow Snake, maybe Nintendo will be a bro and let Sony borrow Mario. I will cream my pants if they let that happen


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 09:02:02 am
This guy:

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gamelife/2010/05/nier-nier-kaine-emil-weiss-visit-facade.jpg)


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 09:03:12 am
Hmmm, I'd actually rather not have Mario, but I'd like to see some character. Mario's just too overused.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 09:11:02 am
Yeah, you're right. HOnestly, my favorite Ninty character is Fox McCloud so I'd rather have him going at it with Sly.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 09:30:24 am
Why the hell would Mario be in a Sony fighting game?

No.  Just no.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 09:46:29 am
Why the hell would Snake be in a Nintendo fighting game?

Yes.  Just yes.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 10:05:01 am
Yeah, you're right. HOnestly, my favorite Ninty character is Fox McCloud so I'd rather have him going at it with Sly.
Haha that would actually be pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 10:16:02 am
Why the hell would Snake be in a Nintendo fighting game?

Yes.  Just yes.

I'm still asking myself that question.  It's just stupid.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 10:30:26 am
Why the hell would Snake be in a Nintendo fighting game?

Yes.  Just yes.

I'm still asking myself that question.  It's just stupid.

(http://i913.photobucket.com/albums/ac334/joelcastillo/rustledjimmies.jpg?t=1335540509)

Actually, I would love it if they could get Samus and Master Chief in the game and we can have a Killzone vs Metroid vs Halo match.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 10:43:41 am
Then the gaming giants should make a fighting game with all their star characters/franchises.  But if it's a Nintendo game, put Nintendo characters in it; if it's a Sony game, but Sony characters in it.

Doing otherwise is really just a gimmick of sorts.  It doesn't add anything to the game except a cameo.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 10:54:21 am
Doing otherwise is really just a gimmick of sorts. It doesn't add anything to the game except a cameo.
So? It's a cameo, but as long as they have a well-designed skillset what does it matter? Soul Calibur has a history of doing this.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 11:37:42 am
Doing otherwise is really just a gimmick of sorts. It doesn't add anything to the game except a cameo.
So? It's a cameo, but as long as they have a well-designed skillset what does it matter?

Well in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't.  I say that to preempt any argument you may make to the effect of "It's just a game."  Yeah, it is just a game.  Doesn't mean we can't have opinions on it.  You may not make that argument, so that's really more of a safety net.

But for a video game that's supposed to showcase a specific company's franchise characters, why would you want to import a character from a different company?  Give that skillset to one of your own characters.  I'm willing to bet Sony has at least 30 characters they could use for a game like this before even needing to bring out the obscure ones, let alone needing to import the star franchise character from another company into their game.

Quote
Soul Calibur has a history of doing this.

Soul Calibur wasn't named "Namco Fighting Super Awesome Gametime," either.  It made no claims to be company-specific.  The name "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" kind of implies that the characters in the game will, you know, come from the Playstation platforms.  Not Nintendo or Microsoft, but Sony.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: MrPillow on April 27, 2012, 11:53:16 am
Um guys, Sony doesn't do Metal Gear, Konami. The series has had quite a few installments on Nintendo systems.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 12:10:53 pm
Um guys, Sony doesn't do Metal Gear, Konami. The series has had quite a few installments on Nintendo systems.
That's not the point. It's a ps exclusive.

But for a video game that's supposed to showcase a specific company's franchise characters, why would you want to import a character from a different company?  Give that skillset to one of your own characters.  I'm willing to bet Sony has at least 30 characters they could use for a game like this before even needing to bring out the obscure ones, let alone needing to import the star franchise character from another company into their game.
Because people who play that franchise will enjoy it, and even others who recognize Snake but never played a MGS game (like me) appreciated the inclusion. I've always liked easter eggs, and it seemed like a huge, blatant one to me. I liked that. Why would Call of Duty put the same teddy bear across most of their games instead of putting something more realistic there? Why would Totaka put the same tune in all of his games? It's not a very good melody; why not substitute a better sounding song in its place? Because it's fun, and that's what games should be about.

Quote
Quote
Soul Calibur has a history of doing this.

Soul Calibur wasn't named "Namco Fighting Super Awesome Gametime," either.  It made no claims to be company-specific.  The name "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" kind of implies that the characters in the game will, you know, come from the Playstation platforms.  Not Nintendo or Microsoft, but Sony.
I didn't even see it like that, but you're right. Having "Playstation" in the title would make the inclusion of non-exclusive characters seem wrong. At the same time, Smash Bros was never called "Super Smash Nintendo Characters".


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 12:28:52 pm
Because people who play that franchise will enjoy it, and even others who recognize Snake but never played a MGS game (like me) appreciated the inclusion.

So?  Just because some people like it doesn't mean it's justified or logical.

Quote
I've always liked easter eggs, and it seemed like a huge, blatant one to me. I liked that. Why would Call of Duty put the same teddy bear across most of their games instead of putting something more realistic there? Why would Totaka put the same tune in all of his games? It's not a very good melody; why not substitute a better sounding song in its place? Because it's fun, and that's what games should be about.

Are you seriously attempting to say that not having pointless Easter eggs in this game would make it not fun?  That is completely ridiculous.

Quote
I didn't even see it like that, but you're right. Having "Playstation" in the title would make the inclusion of non-exclusive characters seem wrong. At the same time, Smash Bros was never called "Super Smash Nintendo Characters".

... And they included non-Nintendo characters.  Okay.  Great.  That's fine.

Before you go off on me saying that, notice that I said I thought it was stupid.  I didn't say they shouldn't have done it.  I said it was stupid because they had traditionally had Nintendo-specific characters, but I didn't say it was wrong or it shouldn't have been done that way.

In my opinion, however, if you're naming something to the effect of "OUR FRANCHISE CHARACTERS Fight and Stuff," it should be your characters.  You want Easter eggs?  Go punch in the Konami code on random websites and have a blast.  Or call your game something that doesn't restrict your character pool.

And even then, a game could still have Easter eggs without putting non-company-related characters into their roster.  Use a trophy system like Melee did and have cameos from Mario and other special characters.  No need to make your supposedly company-specific roster showcase a character from another company.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: the KR3AT3R on April 27, 2012, 12:44:07 pm
 :D this ish is a good read!  O0


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 12:45:50 pm
Quote
So?  Just because some people like it doesn't mean it's justified or logical.
Logical? We're talking about a game where you fight over a floating ball that gives you the power to summon a space tank that can do barrel rolls. "It's just a game." I could get your point if this was a game based on realism or a serious one, but it's not. It was designed for fun, not developer superiority.

Quote
Are you seriously attempting to say that not having pointless Easter eggs in this game would make it not fun?  That is completely ridiculous.
Where did you get that from? Easter eggs do have a point, at least to those who appreciate them. I love finding things that developers have hidden, and I love cross-franchise inclusion. The point isn't to make a crappy game fun, it's to make a fun game have little bits of even more fun.

Quote
easter eggs are the devil stop liking things i don't like
Please explain why you find them so pointless. I understand your point about snake in brawl, but what makes you think easter eggs are such a waste of time?


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 01:08:31 pm
Quote
So?  Just because some people like it doesn't mean it's justified or logical.
Logical? We're talking about a game where you fight over a floating ball that gives you the power to summon a space tank that can do barrel rolls. "It's just a game." I could get your point if this was a game based on realism or a serious one, but it's not. It was designed for fun, not developer superiority.

And here I thought you'd understand that this conversation is taking place within the context of video games.  Looks like I assumed too much.

We're talking about what is logical with regards to the title of a game and its content.  Having a game called "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" and featuring Mario or Pikachu or Link or Zelda or Ganondorf or Captain Falcon or Fox as a main character in the game is completely illogical.  Do you not understand that?

Quote
Where did you get that from? Easter eggs do have a point, at least to those who appreciate them.

And that "point" is irrelevant at best.  Do you pleasure yourself when you find an Easter egg or something?  Do you have aneurysms if you don't find any Easter eggs?  No?  Then I guess their presence isn't too terribly important, and certainly not important enough to justify showcasing a character that isn't your own in a game that markets itself as your characters fighting each other.  It's great that you like Easter eggs, but you and others liking them doesn't justify their involvement in this scenario to the extent that you would have them present.

Quote
I love finding things that developers have hidden, and I love cross-franchise inclusion. The point isn't to make a ****ty game fun, it's to make a fun game have little bits of even more fun.

Is the game going to be unplayable to you if it doesn't have Easter eggs?

Unless it is some massively important aspect of a game to you, I don't see why you're so adamant that a non-company character be used by Sony in a game about Playstation characters fighting each other.  Why can't they be present in a lesser role, like trophies?  Why can't a stage pay homage to something subtly?  You're suggesting a false dichotomy by acting like either Easter eggs are there in a big way or they aren't, and that's simply not the case.  In fact, Easter eggs were originally meant as small, insignificant surprises; they weren't indicative of a prominent cameo like we're discussing.

Quote
Quote
easter eggs are the devil stop liking things i don't like
Please explain why you find them so pointless. I understand your point about snake in brawl, but what makes you think easter eggs are such a waste of time?

It's my opinion.  It isn't law.  I'm fine with Easter eggs, but it doesn't bother me if they aren't there.  But, as you are suggesting that it would be perfectly okay for Mario to make an integral appearance in a game advertised as a game about Playstation-specific characters, I feel like I have to comment on how completely stupid that would be.  It's not that I'm against Easter eggs.  They're charming, and I appreciate the respect they pay to their referenced games.  That said, what you're suggesting is a completely unnecessary and, frankly, within the context of Sony's game, inappropriate addition of what you're calling an Easter egg.

Nice exaggeration, by the way.  You should apply for a position at FOX.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 01:24:13 pm
:D this ish is a good read!  O0
Sorry, K. I really tried to keep it going, but I just can't keep up with the amount of condescension and general douchebaggery. You're welcome to keep it going in my stead.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 01:25:15 pm
Quote
easter eggs are the devil stop liking things i don't like


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 01:27:00 pm
You got the last word, just give it a rest.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 01:29:15 pm
All I'm saying is that you should kind of expect a snarky reply when you deliberately misrepresent someone's argument.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 01:40:52 pm
I only did that after you kept talking down at me. It really gets old.

Quote
Are you seriously attempting to say that not having pointless Easter eggs in this game would make it not fun?  That is completely ridiculous.
^If the points were reversed, I would have simply asked you if that was in fact what you meant (which it wasn't) instead of telling you you were being ridiculous by saying so.

Stop acting like you're some supergenius and I'm a lowly ignorant backwater troll. You're always doing it, and it just drains all the integrity from any discussion.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 01:45:59 pm
Quote
Are you seriously attempting to say that not having pointless Easter eggs in this game would make it not fun?  That is completely ridiculous.
^If the points were reversed, I would have simply asked you if that was in fact what you meant (which it wasn't) instead of telling you you were being ridiculous by saying so.

I'm quite sure you would have.

And I'm sorry, but that's precisely what you were implying.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but it is the impression your paragraph gave.

Quote
Stop acting like you're some supergenius and I'm a lowly ignorant backwater troll. You're always doing it, and it just drains all the integrity from any discussion.

You're assuming much too much about my thoughts.  You should stop that.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 01:53:02 pm
Quote
I've always liked easter eggs, and it seemed like a huge, blatant one to me. I liked that. Why would Call of Duty put the same teddy bear across most of their games instead of putting something more realistic there? Why would Totaka put the same tune in all of his games? It's not a very good melody; why not substitute a better sounding song in its place? Because it's fun, and [fun is] what games should be about.

I'm guessing that's where you misinterpreted my words. Other than that, I can't see how you would assume beyond reasonable doubt that I was saying games should be all about Easter eggs.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 02:06:01 pm
Quote
I've always liked easter eggs, and it seemed like a huge, blatant one to me. I liked that. Why would Call of Duty put the same teddy bear across most of their games instead of putting something more realistic there? Why would Totaka put the same tune in all of his games? It's not a very good melody; why not substitute a better sounding song in its place? Because it's fun, and [fun is] what games should be about.

I'm guessing that's where you misinterpreted my words. Other than that, I can't see how you would assume beyond reasonable doubt that I was saying games should be all about Easter eggs.

That's not what I was saying you were saying.  You obviously assign greater value to Easter eggs than I do (which is perfectly fine and not a point of contention), and as you were continuing to emphasize their importance you made the implication that a game is objectively of lesser value without prominent Easter eggs such as we've been discussing with Mario and Sony's fighting game.  I was saying that games don't suffer if they lack Easter eggs -- they're just an added bonus.  Thus, they shouldn't be something integral to the game, but a small little Easter egg of a find.  Inconsequential, but nice.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 02:12:07 pm
Quote
I was saying that games don't suffer if they lack Easter eggs -- they're just an added bonus.  Thus, they shouldn't be something integral to the game, but a small little Easter egg of a find.  Inconsequential, but nice.
I had the same view from the start. My point is that instead of asking if I meant something else because you may have misunderstood me, you criticized me for a view that I never had.

Quote
The point isn't to make a ****ty game fun, it's to make a fun game have little bits of even more fun.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Laughing Turd on April 27, 2012, 02:15:24 pm
 :-\

This site sucks.


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: JabbaScrub on April 27, 2012, 02:17:17 pm
:-\

This site sucks.
I posted like 5 probable characters   :-[


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: the KR3AT3R on April 27, 2012, 02:19:13 pm
Quote

Nice exaggeration, by the way.  You should apply for a position at FOX.
I don't think he meets the age requirement, but I could put a word in to Dusster, Hughthehand, tabuu, and the guys on his behalf.  :P

 
:D this ish is a good read!  O0
Sorry, K. I really tried to keep it going, but I just can't keep up with the amount of condescension and general douchebaggery. You're welcome to keep it going in my stead.
Lol, no thanks.  I worked 58 hours this week so id like not to exhaust the little energy I do have. :-\


Title: Re: Super Sony Smash Bros.
Post by: Turboweasle on April 27, 2012, 02:20:46 pm
Quote
I was saying that games don't suffer if they lack Easter eggs -- they're just an added bonus.  Thus, they shouldn't be something integral to the game, but a small little Easter egg of a find.  Inconsequential, but nice.
I had the same view from the start. My point is that instead of asking if I meant something else because you may have misunderstood me, you criticized me for a view that I never had.

Quote
The point isn't to make a ****ty game fun, it's to make a fun game have little bits of even more fun.

I criticized a view that you implied.  You kept aggrandizing Easter eggs to such a point that it gave the impression that you thought games suffered extensively from lacking them.

And please stop thinking that I'm criticizing you.

Quote
Are you seriously attempting to say that not having pointless Easter eggs in this game would make it not fun?  That is completely ridiculous.

"That" is not a personal pronoun in this instance.  It is referencing an opinion, not a person.  Was I criticizing your argument/opinion?  Yes.  Was I criticizing you?  No.


:-\

This site sucks.

I have an idea: Maybe you could attempt to generate content you think is good instead of commenting on what you think isn't?

Yeah, arguments aren't exactly fun for the whole family.  They also generate activity.  If you want other kinds of activity, generate it.  Don't sit around and expect it to happen on its own.