Here's the quote of what seemed to hurt the score the most:
"Unfortunately, while playing against the computer in solo mode proves fun, the experience can also become redundant and predictable. I was disappointed during my first play through to see the story told through static images coupled with voiceovers for both a character’s intro and ending, accompanied by a limited, animated take on the rivalry battle itself. This is the same for each character. All-Stars could have used more love in its single-player presentation, even if the campaigns, tutorials and trials act as excellent proving grounds before jumping into multiplayer (and even if there are a flood of unlockables, from icons to cheerleader-like minions and everything in between, to earn). If SuperBot makes a sequel, this is the greatest problem in the game worthy of being fixed."
It's hard to take this review seriously when they called this game more technical than Smash. No doubt they've never seen high level Smash or played anyone good. But they've admitted to being bad at fighting games in general so I can't be too picky.
I'm kind of suprised by this review. They were really hyping this game game up, I was sure they were going to give it an 8.5 at least or higher.
8/10 in this day and age unfortunately is average at best especially for IGN.
Lack of a fleshed out story is such a stupid complaint for a fighting game. They might as well take off 2 points for just about every fighting game this gen because of that.
http://allstararena.com Competitve Hub for Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale