[Penguin]

Getting hit builds your enemies AP, which gives them there supers, which gives them kills. Even with out looking at the button layout screen, the most natural thing a person does when playing any game the first time is to test all the buttons and see what they do. This not being the fist time he played the beta I would have expected he did that. Especially if they planed on making a video of it show people how it played.

But, and I hope I explain this well, that doesn't really matter.

You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter.

Case in point, believe there's a point in the video where he respawns and is instantly KOed again.

[SmithnCo]

I thought the Quicklook was actually pretty solid. Sure, they didn't get all the mechanics like we do by now and Jeff was mostly just button mashing, but they didn't make the game look bad like they sometimes inadvertendly do (for example Brad Shoemaker playing SOTC HD). While they did start out saying that "it doesn't matter if you get hit", they came around after a while and said that it actually does matter, the reason why it matters is just a bit more abstract compared to other fighting games. Overall they seemed positive about it, aknowledging the obvious inspiration, without being too hung up on it. As someone who has played this beta quite a bit, i thought the Quicklook did a good job getting people potentially interested. Obviously a Quicklook by a bunch of people from this thread would be more eventful, in depth regarding the gameplay mechanics and what not, but i never felt the game was being misrepresented or made look bad by them. I had to laugh when they got a connection error after the first "opponents found" message, because that sometimes happens to me, but at least neither of the two Sly level 3 supers in the video glitched. Have Superbot fixed that with an update?

Yup. I thought they did well showing the game. Definitely not one of their more egregious QLs. *coughmgs2hdcough*

[corporate cheerleader]

They can fix the respawn KOs by giving players temporary invincibility.

[Zabuza]

Yup. I thought they did well showing the game. Definitely not one of their more egregious QLs. *coughmgs2hdcough*

What happened in the MGS2 QL?

[Leona Lewis]

That code should've been Byronic's.

Is there a way for me to invite him? Maybe he should've redeemed before thanking the guy :-p

[thepotatoman]

But, and I hope I explain this well, that doesn't really matter. You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter. Case in point, believe there's a point in the video where he respawns and is instantly KOed again.

Its a sound concern, which is why 1v1 and 2v2 is going to be so much more fun.

[SmithnCo]

What happened in the MGS2 QL?

IIRC they spent way too much time on the roof of the strut you start out on, not knowing you have to crawl under the gate.

[thepotatoman]

What happened in the MGS2 QL?

http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-...ction/17-5245/

From about 13:00 til 21:00

[Man-is-Obsolete]

But, and I hope I explain this well, that doesn't really matter. You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter. Case in point, believe there's a point in the video where he respawns and is instantly KOed again.

Well if you sit idle and allow someone else to build that meter then you too have earned the punishment of getting killed by a super. If I see someone building meter you better believe I am foolhardy after him and doing every thing I can to slow him down or even deplete meter via items or throws.

Also like said it matters even more in 2 v 2 and 1 v 1.

[Mushroomer25]

I felt the Quick Look came off as fairly negative, though I think that's more just Jeff not enjoying Smash Bros-styled fighters.

I'm curious if this beta will be used to make any actual gameplay improvements. From my understanding, it was sent out to test network strength. Hopefully they're listening to the feedback.

The damning moment for me though was Fat Princess' Level 3. I mean. Honestly. It's Pit's final smash. Almost exactly.

[Kurod]

You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter.

In this game you should never be sitting on the bench. The mechanics punnish that kind of play. If you want to win you need AP. If you want to get AP you need to throw yourself in the fray. If you're being hit you aren't getting AP while one or more of you're opponents are. You're falling behind and if you continue to do so you will be steamrolled.

[Penguin]

Its a sound concern, which is why 1v1 and 2v2 is going to be so much more fun.

Which is why curious to see more.. and offline play

Well if you sit idle and allow someone else to build that meter then you too have earned the punishment of getting killed by a super. If I see someone building meter you better believe I am foolhardy after him and doing every thing I can to slow him down or even deplete meter via items or throws. Also like said it matters even more in 2 v 2 and 1 v 1.

I was using an extreme example to make a point.
That it really doesn't matter so much that you are getting hit. It's more than you probably should be the one doing the hitting.
Even still doesn't change much if the other person can build their AP.

[Oyashrio-Sama]

But, and I hope I explain this well, that doesn't really matter. You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter. Case in point, believe there's a point in the video where he respawns and is instantly KOed again.

You can't just set on the bench, you can't just hang back and steal kills like in SSB. You have to get in the fray and duke it out. You have to build your AP like everyone else. When your getting hit your not building AP, but your opponent is. Especially now that people are learning combo's that can build there AP bars up super quickly. You need to view your opponents Super bar as your life bar. The higher it is, the bigger the chance your going to get killed.

[Dacvak]

I don't get this. I did watch it but not sure what you mean. Could you give your reasons?

How?

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic. To be honest, I'm surprised people think this looks good (with regards to actual gameplay elements - the characters, stages, and concept are great!)

But here's why I think this game looks like crap:

I take a lot of issue with some of the things GiantBomb poked at in their QL. First off, there's much less of a personal gain/detriment in the actual core fighting. You just need to get hits - it doesn't really matter how you get them. This will end up with people constantly targeting the guy who sucks the most.

Let's say you and I are both playing and we're great at the game. We're playing with two people who are completely awful at it. Instead of logically pairing up against each other (since we're similar skill level), it makes more sense for us to beat up on the people who suck, since it still builds meter. There's just not enough of a reward/detriment to who or how you fight, as long as you build meter. In fact, you could just sit in the corner and try to collect meter-building items the whole match. Maybe that would work.

The idea that your attacks don't do anything AGAINST the specific player you're targeting is a terrible, terrible idea. There should be proper cause and effect when fighting.

There are small things that irk me, too, like the lack of a proper score being displayed. Or that the only indication that someone is blocking is their personal animation, and not something more visually-apparent, like the classic "bubble" in Smash. The visual indicators in the game (tiny things that companies like Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and Valve work to perfect, and we take for granted) really freaking suck in this game. But, whatever, I'll get over small aspects like that.

The next that spells doom is the fact that the levels are completely enclosed. Open levels are what made Smash possible, and anyone who makes the argument that "this isn't Smash Bros" is only kidding themselves - this IS Smash Bros, that's what it's modeled after - get over it. See, if the levels were open, then at least there could be a Smash clone mode in the game. I guess this is more of a personal opinion, but since this game is very clearly Smash Bros, it should at least have a way to play it like Smash Bros. Forcing their seemingly arbitrary ruleset just for the sake of being different seems like a terrible way to go about it.

But that's not even the biggest reason why this game looks bad, or at least shouldn't be taken seriously. It's the way you actually score points - the Supers in the game. What a stupid, broken way of scoring. It causes a few glaring problems from the getgo, so let me dive right in.

First off, it makes each character's vast moveset essentially pointless. Since the only way to actually score any points is the Super, you'll end up basing who you choose to play as on the character with the best Super. And, trust me, there will be definite "good Supers" and "bad Supers" in this game, and that aspect alone will cripple characters' potential.

Additionally, it adds a TON of weight to the Supers - far more than is comfortable. If you blow a level three super, you lose the match. You just lose. And fighting games, especially party fighting games, are decidedly unpredictable - you'll undeservingly fail at Supers all the time, essentially being punished arbitrarily. No fighting game should place so much emphasis on ONE move - it needs to be a balance.

Not to mention (and we've seen it in the QL video) that, despite invincible frames, people can essentially get spawn killed. In fact, who you kill in this game doesn't even matter, as long as you get the kills! That means that your target will always be whoever is most convenient. And the idea of one-hit-kills in general is just such an awful way to score... It'd be like a game of soccer where the goal is closed off until one team had possession of the ball for X amount of time, at which point the goal opens up, and there's no goalie to defend.

I just can't stress enough how flawed the concept of scoring in this game is. It's different entirely for the sake of being different. Someone said "well, you better not make this like Smash or Street Fighter - make something new!", and then the devs just duct taped some shitty concept together and said "this has to work, because it's our only option." It's just so silly. Can you imagine playing Street Fighter where the only way to win would be to land a super? Other moves wouldn't decrease their HP, but landing a Super would be a one-hit-kill? (I know my analogies aren't perfect, but you get what I mean.)

Does that mean that this game will absolutely be terrible? No. Not at all. In fact, it'll probably be a fun party game. But the depth of Smash was always that it was both a fun party game, and a legitimate, fair fighting game. Your own personal opinions aside, Smash has had one of the most active and dedicated competitive scenes of all fighting games - it's a legitimate fighting game.

Can the All-Stars concept be saved with aspects of the game we've yet to see? Absolutely. There could be a slew of game modes that focus on the actual fighting, as opposed to just the Super. There could be an HP mode, which would totally change the way you play the game. There might even be some sort of "break through the wall at X amount of damage" Smash mode, which would allow the current stages to work with the Smash Bros concept. There could be TONS of different ways to play that we're not seeing.

With that being said, though, everything they've shown so far looks pretty terrible from a gameplay perspective.

[SSReborn]

I thought the Quicklook was actually pretty solid. Sure, they didn't get all the mechanics like we do by now and Jeff was mostly just button mashing, but they didn't make the game look bad like they sometimes inadvertendly do (for example Brad Shoemaker playing SOTC HD). While they did start out saying that "it doesn't matter if you get hit", they came around after a while and said that it actually does matter, the reason why it matters is just a bit more abstract compared to other fighting games. Overall they seemed positive about it, aknowledging the obvious inspiration, without being too hung up on it. As someone who has played this beta quite a bit, i thought the Quicklook did a good job getting people potentially interested. Obviously a Quicklook by a bunch of people from this thread would be more eventful, in depth regarding the gameplay mechanics and what not, but i never felt the game was being misrepresented or made look bad by them. I had to laugh when they got a connection error after the first "opponents found" message, because that sometimes happens to me, but at least neither of the two Sly level 3 supers in the video glitched. Have Superbot fixed that with an update?

I think someone from GAF that owns recording equipment and is really familiar with the games mechanics should do a beta breakdown for the 2nd discussion thread. Also in the case of Sly's Level 3 maybe it glitched due to something regarding the network when there were less players I have noticed that it hasn't been glitching as much. anymore. There hasn't been an update for this game and I was under the impression that they were just going to release another beta down the line that was more polished and further along instead of update the one they have kind of like KZ3 did.

[Ploid 3.0]

Part of the whole strategy is to avoid supers and cautiously build AP. It's better if others die as long as you don't die since it'll take points from you. You know how people control space in Street Fighter? When people have meter I pay attention to which level so I can imagine their super's hitbox and try to stay out of it as much as I can all while building my own meter.

Controlled chaos.

[Penguin]

In this game you should never be sitting on the bench. The mechanics punnish that kind of play. If you want to win you need AP. If you want to get AP you need to throw yourself in the fray. If you're being hit you aren't getting AP while one or more of you're opponents are. You're falling behind and if you continue to do so you will be steamrolled.

You can't just set on the bench, you can't just hang back and steal kills like in SSB. You have to get in the fray and duke it out. You have to build your AP like everyone else. When your getting hit your not building AP, but your opponent is. Especially now that people are learning combo's that can build there AP bars up super quickly. You need to view your opponents Super bar as your life bar. The higher it is, the bigger the chance your going to get killed.

I was giving an extreme example.
And neither of your responses answered why it matters if you get hit
It again focuses on why it's important that you are doing the hitting.

I get that it builds up your enemies AP, but like I said that can happen with or without your involvement anyhow.

I'll just drop it until we get more time with 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 play or whatever.

[Miutsu]

Yeah, but I got it in the email, I couldn't really resist it. That being said, I won't play it that much because it froze on me like 4 times already hahahaa

You sucumbed to the dark side eh :P

[Ploid 3.0]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic. To be honest, I'm surprised people think this looks good (with regards to actual gameplay elements - the characters, stages, and concept are great!) But here's why I think this game looks like crap: I take a lot of issue with some of the things GiantBomb poked at in their QL. First off, there's much less of a personal gain/detriment in the actual core fighting. You just need to get hits - it doesn't really matter how you get them. This will end up with people constantly targeting the guy who sucks the most.

I just wanted to comment on this real quick. In this game it's kinda hard to take advantage of free ap. Especially if the guy you want to avoid is good. It could be a bait and he'd end up getting a easy 2 kill because you was so comfortable and wanted to build a lot of meter with a juicy combo. If you just wait until he can't possibly run over to you you'd be sitting around not building meter. It can work but he's most likely pretty active and building himself. If you build so much meter trying to take advantage of the lesser guy without getting blindsided you could end up putting a big target on yourself because people will think you have some big plan. The whole match could be a big anti bully fest.

[thepotatoman]

You can't just set on the bench, you can't just hang back and steal kills like in SSB. You have to get in the fray and duke it out. You have to build your AP like everyone else. When your getting hit your not building AP, but your opponent is. Especially now that people are learning combo's that can build there AP bars up super quickly. You need to view your opponents Super bar as your life bar. The higher it is, the bigger the chance your going to get killed.

That's a true too. If you played time attack you could win pretty easy by running away until you can steal a kill. That is why everyone liked to play stock, because you are only in charge of your own health, and it doesn't matter who finishes off the guy that took to many hits.

Stock mode won't work as well because you could get killed 3 times in a row by supers from attacks that you weren't involved with, and the guy that allowed those supers to get farmed gets off scot free. I have certainly seen it happen in the beta.

You can avoid it by detecting the feeder or the feedee and focus on them yourself to gain AP, and by making sure you aren't in the situation where people usually like to use supers, always ready to escape if need be. But its not always possible to do that, especially when you have parapas sticking you down with their very long punch combo (seriously you parapas need to learn that its ok not to finish that combo if someone walks up to you with a level 1 ready while you are busy punching).

Anti-stock will help in some ways. It wont help people feeding other players, but you could almost look at it as a race for who can kill the most feeders quickest. And obviously 1v1 and 2v2 solves the problem completely.

[Oyashrio-Sama]

I was giving an extreme example. And neither of your responses answered why it matters if you get hit It again focuses on why it's important that you are doing the hitting. I get that it builds up your enemies AP , but like I said that can happen with or without your involvement anyhow. I'll just drop it until we get more time with 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 play or whatever.

You just answered your own question. If your opponent are getting AP and you are not... That is a bad thing.

When you are getting hit, you may not lose AP normally, but your not gaining any either. And that is something you absolutely have to do in order to win.

[Ploid 3.0]

seriously you parapas need to learn that its ok not to finish that combo if someone walks up to you with a level 1 ready while you are busy punching

I've been so guilty of this that it's a shame. I can see this being awesome for 2 vs 2 though. Lock them down with Parappa while the team mate shoots or whatever. Like a alley-oop in basketball.

[Shahed]

Is the story mode confirmed to be like a fighter? As in almost like an Arcade with a few scenes and a special event with your rival?

Personally I would have preferred one big expansive mode that involved using all characters and finished up with the end boss. Something in the vein of Subspace Emissary with differences. Like how Blazblue CS Extend does it or the newest Mortal Kombat would be nice as well

[SmithnCo]

But its not always possible to do that, especially when you have parapas sticking you down with their very long punch combo (seriously you parapas need to learn that its ok not to finish that combo if someone walks up to you with a level 1 ready while you are busy punching).

Haha, so true. Parappas who have people stuck in the punch combo are ripe for a caking. (or any other super)

[Oyashrio-Sama]

Is the story mode confirmed to be like a fighter? As in Almost like an Arcade with a few scenes and a special event with your rival? Personally I would have preferred one big expansive mode that involved using all characters and finished up with the end boss. Something in the vein of Subspace Emissary with differences. Something like how Blazble CS Extend does it would be nice as well

I can't wait to hear more about the Story mode. Hopefully it will be pretty meaty!

[Dusky]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic. To be honest, I'm surprised people think this looks good (with regards to actual gameplay elements - the characters, stages, and concept are great!) But here's why I think this game looks like crap:

I can definitely agree with some of these points. I'm sure someone will defend this but I too feel like the movesets are somewhat useless. You can do all these different moves yet they all pretty much do the same thing which is build AP. Unless you are rewarded for combo-ing, it just seems quite bizarre.

As far as "indicators" go, I think we were told that they are working on that.

[SmithnCo]

I can definitely agree with some of these points. I'm sure someone will defend this but I too feel like the movesets are somewhat useless. You can do all these different moves yet they all pretty much do the same thing which is build AP. Unless you are rewarded for combo-ing, like gaining extra meter for successfully doing a combo.

You are rewarded for combo-ing, I build much faster AP by using combos than mashing for sure. Plus, having someone in a combo means they can't hit you, and thus can't build more AP. The moves also serve to have different effects like crumple states, mobility, and different areas and directions of effect.

I agree with the points though, I think this game is really going to shine in 1v1 and team mode. 1v1 will be no BS, you either get hits or you don't get AP. Will be interesting.

[Man-is-Obsolete]

I can definitely agree with some of these points. I'm sure someone will defend this but I too feel like the movesets are somewhat useless. You can do all these different moves yet they all pretty much do the same thing which is build AP. Unless you are rewarded for combo-ing, like gaining extra meter for successfully doing a combo. As far as "indicators" work. I think we were told that they are working on that.

Combos do build meter fast, because you are more effectively chaining attacks together and thus building meter faster. Also combos tie up opponents and keeps them from building meter. Sure I can build meter by just doing a basic move but its simply not as effective and my opponent will put a stop to it quickly when he catches me in a combo and sends me flying.

Agree to disagree I guess. It's just strange that people see this in 2 very distinct ways.

[Ploid 3.0]

I can definitely agree with some of these points. I'm sure someone will defend this but I too feel like the movesets are somewhat useless. You can do all these different moves yet they all pretty much do the same thing which is build AP. Unless you are rewarded for combo-ing, it just seems quite bizarre. As far as "indicators" go, I think we were told that they are working on that.

Moves are situational. Some are quick, some are slow with good range, some hits right where you need to hit at, it's your job to learn when they are appropriate to use at a given time. Example, I use Parappa's forward + O to get back to land when someone knocks me over the cliff in Sandover Village. He does a forward moving orbital attack.

[Figboy79]

But, and I hope I explain this well, that doesn't really matter. You can literally sit on the bench and never get hit once, your opp gets his super and KOs you in one hit. I think the point or what they were trying to ask is that getting hit doesn't weaken you or make you more susceptible to being KOed. It's just a means to build up your super meter. Case in point, believe there's a point in the video where he respawns and is instantly KOed again.

I understand what you're saying, but in practice, who in a fighting game just sits there and lets their opponent get the upper hand?

When playing, I try to do everything in my skill set to keep you from building meter. I will stun, throw, barrage, and grapple you to keep you from hitting me, and anyone else that will help you build meter. By doing this, I'm building my OWN meter, at which point I will then switch up, and try to take you out when my super is ready.

Getting hit does indeed matter. You know how, in a MOBA, when you die, you are feeding that player that killed you, allowing them to get stronger and access to better skills?

Well, in this game, getting hit is feeding your opponent, allowing them to get stronger to the point where they can K.O. you. Your goal in a PBR match is twofold:

1) Build your meter so you can kill your opponents.
2) Stop your opponents from doing the same.

THAT'S the painfully simple dichotomy at work in this game. I think people over-complicate it in their heads, when it's very straight forward.

If you are just sitting there allowing the other players to gain meter, well, you deserve to be K.O'd by their supers. They've clearly earned it. The very first Goomba in Super Mario Bros. can kill you if you don't avoid him and attack first. If you just sit there and let him kill you, well, that's on you.

Believe me, when I die in PBR, it's not for a lack of trying to stay alive. Lol.

The Quick Look was ok, but the idea of people that aren't really big into a genre doing reviews or quick looks about games in that genre they aren't fans of rubs me the wrong way. It's like the guy at IGN that didn't like combo based action games like God of War and DMC reviewing Heavenly Sword and trashing it (I think it was IGN).

Jeff and the other guy didn't seem big into Smash, so I can see why PBR wouldn't hold them in rapt attention. It would be like me doing a Quick Look of Madden (I hate football, by the way). It could be informative, but not very helpful. Enthusiasm, just like negativity, is infectious. Just look at the comments on the QL page.

[Dusky]

You are rewarded for combo-ing, I build much faster AP by using combos than mashing for sure. Plus, having someone in a combo means they can't hit you, and thus can't build more AP. The moves also serve to have different effects like crumple states, mobility, and different areas and directions of effect. I agree with the points though, I think this game is really going to shine in 1v1 and team mode. 1v1 will be no BS, you either get hits or you don't get AP. Will be interesting.

That's definitely good to know.

Yeah 1v1 and 2v2 is what I'm most interested in. Especially 2v2.

[Dacvak]

On a separate note, is this available for PS+ members at all yet?

[Hyuga]

On a separate note, is this available for PS+ members at all yet?

No ;(

[thepotatoman]

Alright! Finally a person negative on the game giving reasons for why.

I take a lot of issue with some of the things GiantBomb poked at in their QL. First off, there's much less of a personal gain/detriment in the actual core fighting. You just need to get hits - it doesn't really matter how you get them. This will end up with people constantly targeting the guy who sucks the most. Let's say you and I are both playing and we're great at the game. We're playing with two people who are completely awful at it. Instead of logically pairing up against each other (since we're similar skill level), it makes more sense for us to beat up on the people who suck, since it still builds meter. There's just not enough of a reward/detriment to who or how you fight, as long as you build meter. In fact, you could just sit in the corner and try to collect meter-building items the whole match. Maybe that would work. The idea that your attacks don't do anything AGAINST the specific player you're targeting is a terrible, terrible idea. There should be proper cause and effect when fighting.

I consider myself pretty good at this beta. I think I win over well over half the time with most characters and that's really good considering you have 3 other people you're playing against. And the way I do it is by attacking the person that I perceive as my biggest threat. Seriously if they are getting comboed by me every time they get off the ground they are simply not getting AP.

And I don't just run in spamming my favorite attack on them. I block and wait for an opening. If two people run at each other mashing buttons, one of them is going to get the first hit and the other is going to be on the ground so you get AP 50% of the time. But if you just take a little more time, block, and look for an opening, you are going to get the hit and the AP 100% of the time.

Maybe getting hit isn't as bad in this game as it is in most fighting games. But getting hit is still NEVER good. Not just for their AP, but for your AP and your positioning as well. You realize this and you are going to be winning tons more games and be having tons more fun to boot.

There are small things that irk me, too, like the lack of a proper score being displayed. Or that the only indication that someone is blocking is their personal animation, and not something more visually-apparent, like the classic "bubble" in Smash. The visual indicators in the game (tiny things that companies like Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and Valve work to perfect, and we take for granted) really freaking suck in this game. But, whatever, I'll get over small aspects like that.

This has been complained about here as well even by some of the regulars. Superbot has said they are working on it and it will be different in the final version.

The next that spells doom is the fact that the levels are completely enclosed. Open levels are what made Smash possible, and anyone who makes the argument that "this isn't Smash Bros" is only kidding themselves - this IS Smash Bros, that's what it's modeled after - get over it. See, if the levels were open, then at least there could be a Smash clone mode in the game. I guess this is more of a personal opinion, but since this game is very clearly Smash Bros, it should at least have a way to play it like Smash Bros. Forcing their seemingly arbitrary ruleset just for the sake of being different seems like a terrible way to go about it.

Well you've seen the hate this game gets for being too much like Smash Bros, so you can probably see why they wanted to make the game play differently in some way. I'm rather happy myself that dieing is a very binary thing. I personally hate not knowing if they are at a percentage where they will die if i hit them with this attack at this part of the stage. Here you know that if they use thier super right now I am going to die if i don't dodge it. Some people find that part exciting, but its still a style thing.

But that's not even the biggest reason why this game looks bad, or at least shouldn't be taken seriously. It's the way you actually score points - the Supers in the game. What a stupid, broken way of scoring. It causes a few glaring problems from the getgo, so let me dive right in. First off, it makes each character's vast moveset essentially pointless. Since the only way to actually score any points is the Super, you'll end up basing who you choose to play as on the character with the best Super. And, trust me, there will be definite "good Supers" and "bad Supers" in this game, and that aspect alone will cripple characters' potential.

You can't build supers without normal attacks, so why would supers make normal attacks worthless? And super balance maybe a problem, but believe me, no matter what this game will be far better balanced than its only alternative.

Additionally, it adds a TON of weight to the Supers - far more than is comfortable. If you blow a level three super, you lose the match. You just lose. And fighting games, especially party fighting games, are decidedly unpredictable - you'll undeservingly fail at Supers all the time, essentially being punished arbitrarily. No fighting game should place so much emphasis on ONE move - it needs to be a balance.

That's where the exciting point of the match is. For smash bros it's that final move to finish the guy off at 150% and here its the super. Supers are really easy to pull off if you know what you're doing and will be even easier once we learn how to combo into them. If you wiff or the other guy dodges, its a huge accomplishment, and its rewarded greatly. If supers could only be hit 50% of the time then sure I see your point, but supers are so easy to hit that if you miss you can only really blame yourself, or the extreme skill of the opponent in the case of the level 3 transformations.

Not to mention (and we've seen it in the QL video) that, despite invincible frames, people can essentially get spawn killed. In fact, who you kill in this game doesn't even matter, as long as you get the kills! That means that your target will always be whoever is most convenient. And the idea of one-hit-kills in general is just such an awful way to score... It'd be like a game of soccer where the goal is closed off until one team had possession of the ball for X amount of time, at which point the goal opens up, and there's no goalie to defend.

I kind of agree with spawn kills. You see it takes like 4-5 times as much AP to get a level 3 then it does to get a level 1, and so for balance it kind of needs to get spawn kills to make it worth it. I'd rather they lower the requirement for level 3's drastically and make spawn kills harder. But it is what it is.

I just can't stress enough how flawed the concept of scoring in this game is. It's different entirely for the sake of being different. Someone said "well, you better not make this like Smash or Street Fighter - make something new!", and then the devs just duct taped some shitty concept together and said "this has to work, because it's our only option." It's just so silly. Can you imagine playing Street Fighter where the only way to win would be to land a super? Other moves wouldn't decrease their HP, but landing a Super would be a one-hit-kill? (I know my analogies aren't perfect, but you get what I mean.)

Yes they knew they had to do something different from smash from the outset, but doesn't mean that they didn't think hard about what they could do differently, and that doesn't mean that what they made different is a bad thing.

It seems throughout the whole argument you are forgetting that regular attacks and regular fighting is still a huge part of this game. In most cases you cannot win unless you have good fighting basics to build up your super. Its like complaining that launchers are the ONLY attacks in Smash Bros that ever matter because its the ONLY way to ever kill your opponent. Yeah its true, but its missing the whole part where you build up to that point.

[Figboy79]

potatoman, you responded to his post better than I ever could! Everything you said sums up my thoughts on the game perfectly.

Sometimes it's a little annoying reading some of the negative drive by posts by people that have already made up their minds about the game, but it's nice to see somebody at least explain WHY they feel the way they do.

It's a shame that this game will probably never get out from under Smash's shadow. I think both series are great fun, and I'm all for more games in this genre. I like that they share some similarities, but also have their own core gameplay mechanics that set them apart.

I actually agree with SuperBot that people need to approach this game with an open mind, and stop treating it like Smash. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. THIS GAME IS NOT SMASH BROS. Inspired by Smash? Yeah, of course it is, but people that go into it thinking that it will be a 1:1 copy of it will be very disappointed (although some will be very pleased that it's NOT like Smash, like me. Lol).

[Dacvak]

Alright! Finally a person negative on the game giving reasons for why. I consider myself pretty good at this beta. I think I win over well over half the time with most characters and that's really good considering you have 3 other people you're playing against. And the way I do it is by attacking the person that I perceive as my biggest threat. Seriously if they are getting comboed by me every time they get off the ground they are simply not getting AP. And I don't just run in spamming my favorite attack on them. I block and wait for an opening. If two people run at each other mashing buttons, one of them is going to get the first hit and the other is going to be on the ground so you get AP 50% of the time. But if you just take a little more time, block, and look for an opening, you are going to get the hit and the AP 100% of the time. Maybe getting hit isn't as bad in this game as it is in most fighting games. But getting hit is still NEVER good. Not just for their AP, but for your AP and your positioning as well. You realize this and you are going to be winning tons more games and be having tons more fun to boot. This has been complained about here as well even by some of the regulars. Superbot has said they are working on it and it will be different in the final version. Well you've seen the hate this game gets for being too much like Smash Bros, so you can probably see why they wanted to make the game play differently in some way. I'm rather happy myself that dieing is a very binary thing. I personally hate not knowing if they are at a percentage where they will die if i hit them with this attack at this part of the stage. Here you know that if they use thier super right now I am going to die if i don't dodge it. Some people find that part exciting, but its still a style thing. You can't build supers without normal attacks, so why would supers make normal attacks worthless? And super balance maybe a problem, but believe me, no matter what this game will be far better balanced than its only alternative. That's where the exciting point of the match is. For smash bros it's that final move to finish the guy off at 150% and here its the super. Supers are really easy to pull off if you know what you're doing and will be even easier once we learn how to combo into them. If you wiff or the other guy dodges, its a huge accomplishment, and its rewarded greatly. If supers could only be hit 50% of the time then sure I see your point, but supers are so easy to hit that if you miss you can only really blame yourself, or the extreme skill of the opponent in the case of the level 3 transformations. I kind of agree with spawn kills. You see it takes like 4-5 times as much AP to get a level 3 then it does to get a level 1, and so for balance it kind of needs to get spawn kills to make it worth it. I'd rather they lower the requirement for level 3's drastically and make spawn kills harder. But it is what it is. Yes they knew they had to do something different from smash from the outset, but doesn't mean that they didn't think hard about what they could do differently, and that doesn't mean that what they made different is a bad thing. It seems throughout the whole argument you are forgetting that regular attacks and regular fighting is still a huge part of this game. In most cases you cannot win unless you have good fighting basics to build up your super. Its like complaining that launchers are the ONLY attacks in Smash Bros that ever matter because its the ONLY way to ever kill your opponent. Yeah its true, but its missing the whole part where you build up to that point.

I didn't mean to imply that attacks were literally useless. More that the attacks you choose to use aren't as significant as in a game like Smash or Street Fighter.

Even if that's not true, it seems like you've agreed with most of what I've mentioned, but you happen to like those aspects, as opposed to how I dislike them. That might be how this game unfolds - there might just be a split in opinion on whether or not their unique choices are enjoyable or unenjoyable, and that might only be able to be determined by the individual once they've played it.

I'm a very, very open-minded individual, and I can't wait to try this to see what I actually think about it. I just don't think that it looks good at this point.

I hope I'm wrong, though!

[waypoetic]

Giant Bomb, wow. What's up with the negativity? Did Sony cancel them out on the review-copy list or what? Either they don't know shit about the game or they just don't bother to read up on stuff. Ignorant.

[SuperSonic1305]

Let's say you and I are both playing and we're great at the game. We're playing with two people who are completely awful at it. Instead of logically pairing up against each other (since we're similar skill level), it makes more sense for us to beat up on the people who suck, since it still builds meter. There's just not enough of a reward/detriment to who or how you fight, as long as you build meter. In fact, you could just sit in the corner and try to collect meter-building items the whole match. Maybe that would work.

Isn't that what happens in Smash Bros. too? People will always target whoever has the largest percentage. Some just hide in the corner and wait until someone is high enough that they can jump in and get free kills.

The idea that your attacks don't do anything AGAINST the specific player you're targeting is a terrible, terrible idea. There should be proper cause and effect when fighting.

It prevents them from getting AP? Some moves also drain AP from the person you are attacking.

There are small things that irk me, too, like the lack of a proper score being displayed. Or that the only indication that someone is blocking is their personal animation, and not something more visually-apparent, like the classic "bubble" in Smash. The visual indicators in the game (tiny things that companies like Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and Valve work to perfect, and we take for granted) really freaking suck in this game. But, whatever, I'll get over small aspects like that.

Score isn't displayed because it's a timed mode. If you know the score then it makes it easier to team up against others which makes it more of an uneven playing field.

The next that spells doom is the fact that the levels are completely enclosed. Open levels are what made Smash possible, and anyone who makes the argument that "this isn't Smash Bros" is only kidding themselves - this IS Smash Bros, that's what it's modeled after - get over it. See, if the levels were open, then at least there could be a Smash clone mode in the game. I guess this is more of a personal opinion, but since this game is very clearly Smash Bros, it should at least have a way to play it like Smash Bros. Forcing their seemingly arbitrary ruleset just for the sake of being different seems like a terrible way to go about it.

The stages in Smash Bros are just as important in those games as the fighters if not more so. In Smash your strategy changes a lot depending on what the stage is. It's why Final Destination is by far the most played because it is a completely even and flat surface with no advantages for either player. Your position, percentage, character, items on the field, etc. will make you change where you want to be in any given stage. For example Poke Floats is a viable stage in Smash because the point of the game is to knock opponents off the stage. By having a stage that is moving it forces players to make moves and go into dangerous situations. Those stages wouldn't work in this game because the battlefield isn't as important. Characters are much more important in this game than they are in Smash because it's pretty much all you got. It makes no sense to have these big dynamic stages because they don't affect you. The point of this game is to FIGHT not to jump around, avoid pits, and edge guard or whatever.

First off, it makes each character's vast moveset essentially pointless. Since the only way to actually score any points is the Super, you'll end up basing who you choose to play as on the character with the best Super. And, trust me, there will be definite "good Supers" and "bad Supers" in this game, and that aspect alone will cripple characters' potential.

Moves generate different levels of AP. Combos generate different levels of AP. There are moves that can help you juggle, do crowd control, stun, counter, etc. Saying the movesets are pointless is straight up retarded.

Additionally, it adds a TON of weight to the Supers - far more than is comfortable. If you blow a level three super, you lose the match. You just lose. And fighting games, especially party fighting games, are decidedly unpredictable - you'll undeservingly fail at Supers all the time, essentially being punished arbitrarily. No fighting game should place so much emphasis on ONE move - it needs to be a balance.

It's called risk/reward. Saving up for a level 3 is a choice. You can get just as many if not more kills if you execute lvl 1 or 2 attacks in proper situations than if you wait to use level 3. Even then, Level 3 moves are designed to be easier to get kills with because they take much longer to obtain.

I just can't stress enough how flawed the concept of scoring in this game is. It's different entirely for the sake of being different. Someone said "well, you better not make this like Smash or Street Fighter - make something new!", and then the devs just duct taped some shitty concept together and said "this has to work, because it's our only option." It's just so silly. Can you imagine playing Street Fighter where the only way to win would be to land a super? Other moves wouldn't decrease their HP, but landing a Super would be a one-hit-kill? (I know my analogies aren't perfect, but you get what I mean.)

Can you imagine playing a fighting game with no health bar that the only way to win is knock someone off the stage. Can you imagine playing Tekken or SC where the only way to win is knock a guy off the stage. Geez what a dumb idea that sounds like. It will never work.

[TheMink]

I didn't mean to imply that attacks were literally useless. More that the attacks you choose to use aren't as significant as in a game like Smash or Street Fighter. Even if that's not true, it seems like you've agreed with most of what I've mentioned, but you happen to like those aspects, as opposed to how I dislike them. That might be how this game unfolds - there might just be a split in opinion on whether or not their unique choices are enjoyable or unenjoyable, and that might only be able to be determined by the individual once they've played it. I'm a very, very open-minded individual, and I can't wait to try this to see what I actually think about it. I just don't think that it looks good at this point. I hope I'm wrong, though!

You gain truckloads more AP if you combo.
Ergo the attacks you choose are relavent.

As a matter of fact i would say that the attacks you choose are more important than smash, up to the until the point you need/have the ability to knock them off.
Same principal applies in PSAS.

But I understand if you don't like it though.

[thepotatoman]

I didn't mean to imply that attacks were literally useless. More that the attacks you choose to use aren't as significant as in a game like Smash or Street Fighter.

And i still say they are necessary in order to gain supers. The only way that a solid normal attack and defense wouldn't win the game for you is if there was a huge skill gap in super usage and dodging, but supers are easy enough that that won't be a problem for most people.

Even if that's not true, it seems like you've agreed with most of what I've mentioned, but you happen to like those aspects, as opposed to how I dislike them. That might be how this game unfolds - there might just be a split in opinion on whether or not their unique choices are enjoyable or unenjoyable, and that might only be able to be determined by the individual once they've played it. I'm a very, very open-minded individual, and I can't wait to try this to see what I actually think about it. I just don't think that it looks good at this point. I hope I'm wrong, though!

Yeah I wasn't trying to win an argument or force you to like the game, I was just looking for a dissenting opinion to bounce my opinion off of to better explain why I do like the game.

[SmithnCo]

Giant Bomb, wow. What's up with the negativity? Did Sony cancel them out on the review-copy list or what? Either they don't know shit about the game or they just don't bother to read up on stuff. Ignorant.

I didn't get much negativity. It is a take on Smash, no denying that. I thought they were pretty positive about it.

[Shahed]

Giant Bomb, wow. What's up with the negativity? Did Sony cancel them out on the review-copy list or what? Either they don't know shit about the game or they just don't bother to read up on stuff. Ignorant.

I don't think they were negative really. More a case of being misinformed or ignorance, on top of a general dislike of the genre. It got better as the video went on and they got to grips

[solidus51]

oh people reviewing a beta you can only play online? waste of time. im sorry i cant go off of any website for reviews any more

[Canis lupus]

Ok I finally got super 3 for Parappa, is it insta kill for everyone? wow.

[Shahed]

oh people reviewing a beta you can only play online? waste of time. im sorry i cant go off of any website for reviews any more

To be fair it wasn't really a review but a Quick Look. It's gonna gloss over a lot and just give a quick impression.

That's not to say the review will be good, just that it's too early to judge that now.

[Oyashrio-Sama]

Ok I finally got super 3 for Parappa, is it insta kill for everyone? wow.

Yeah, Parappa's Lv 3 is a guaranteed 3 kills, and only 3 kills.

[solidus51]

To be fair it wasn't really a review but a Quick Look. It's gonna gloss over a lot and just give a quick impression. That's not to say the review will be good, just that it's too early to judge that now.

im sorry but a quick look on a beta isnt cool

[Gorillaz]

Ok I finally got super 3 for Parappa, is it insta kill for everyone? wow.

It's not worth it most the time because people will either already have built up points or you (as parappa) died already a few times.

im sorry but a quick look on a beta isnt cool

They did it on Littlebig kart racing and a few others. It's alot of satire and some truth. Not worth taking seriously.

[KillerTravis]

You people should get prepared for Smash comparisons when the reviews hit, it's only natural for them to compare the game with the source, there's need to get angry about it. I think Giant Bomb's quick look was fairly positive and it made me interested in the game a little more than before.

[thepotatoman]

To be fair it wasn't really a review but a Quick Look. It's gonna gloss over a lot and just give a quick impression. That's not to say the review will be good, just that it's too early to judge that now.

They probably wont even review it. At this point their jobs are to play an hour or two of some game, and then make a quick look or feature of it, and move on to the next one and people like it because they don't usually play games with a bunch of facts and preparation before they jump in, and it has the bonus of giving them tons of content.