So why exactly did this game fail so hard?

#21blaze19_0XPosted 2/16/2013 7:21:03 PM
blazin640 posted...
blaze19_0X posted...
blazin640 posted...
blaze19_0X posted...
1. Top 6 requested characters are all missing.
2. No good advertising.
3. Horrible release date (same month as COD and AC).
4. Lacking in "party" modes, single player diverse content is lacking.
5. Super system as opposed to desired percent (Smash) system.
6. Countless glitches and bugs.


everything except # 5


You could absolutely hate the percent system and yet you cannot deny the game would have sold more with it.

The number 1 gameplay related complaint I've heard from people who didn't buy it was the super system.


Im not saying the super system was the best. What I saying is that the percentage system wouldnt have fixed it. With 20 characters, that definitely wouldnt have made a difference. Roster was the key thing plus lack of content.


Yes but the number 1 thing in terms of core GAMEPLAY that turned people off was the lack of percent/health system and a super system in place. That's what I'm saying.

Note, this has nothing to do with what's better, percent or supers. That's absolutely irrelevant. The super system could a million times better and it would make no difference.

The fact of the matter is your average casual party brawler fan would have preferred a percent system because that's just what they are used to. That's their comfort zone.

You might notice games with unique ideas don't tend to sell as well as those that stick to established formulas. Look at COD. Look at Mario.
#22blazin640Posted 2/16/2013 7:25:38 PM(edited)
blaze19_0X posted...
blazin640 posted...
blaze19_0X posted...
blazin640 posted...
blaze19_0X posted...
1. Top 6 requested characters are all missing.
2. No good advertising.
3. Horrible release date (same month as COD and AC).
4. Lacking in "party" modes, single player diverse content is lacking.
5. Super system as opposed to desired percent (Smash) system.
6. Countless glitches and bugs.


everything except # 5


You could absolutely hate the percent system and yet you cannot deny the game would have sold more with it.

The number 1 gameplay related complaint I've heard from people who didn't buy it was the super system.


Im not saying the super system was the best. What I saying is that the percentage system wouldnt have fixed it. With 20 characters, that definitely wouldnt have made a difference. Roster was the key thing plus lack of content.


Yes but the number 1 thing in terms of core GAMEPLAY that turned people off was the lack of percent/health system and a super system in place. That's what I'm saying.

Note, this has nothing to do with what's better, percent or supers. That's absolutely irrelevant. The super system could a million times better and it would make no difference.

The fact of the matter is your average casual party brawler fan would have preferred a percent system because that's just what they are used to. That's their comfort zone.

You might notice games with unique ideas don't tend to sell as well as those that stick to established formulas. Look at COD. Look at Mario.


I agree. Though it kind of saddens me that people don't want to try something new.

They dont have to like it, but just try it.
---
There goes my free time
#23Zero_ShamePosted 2/16/2013 7:33:27 PM
It doesn't have some characters that ARE Playstation.
It's horribly unbalanced.
Word of mouth has been horrible.
It's not being taken to by the FGC, it was easily had the worst reception at the recent evet in CA.
#24blaze19_0XPosted 2/16/2013 7:34:17 PM
I also would like to add it has to do with the fact that PSASBR isn't as pick up and play as friendly as Smash.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe Smash's competitive depth far exceeds PSASBR's. BUT the difference is 99% of Smash players are really bad (Smash has far more casual players) and it's far easier to kill people in Smash when they have no idea what they are doing.

As a result someone could jump in an FFA, know nothing except to mash the c-stick and probably still get a few lucky kills and feel satisfied. Or grab a lucky item and get a few kills that way.

PSASBR doesn't have this factor. Even at the lowest levels, you probably will have to know what you are doing to get any results. You can't just mash a button and get kills.

As a result I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of people tried out the beta, realized they couldn't win without thinking (as they could with their casual friends in Smash) and dismissed the system entirely.
#25blaze19_0XPosted 2/16/2013 7:36:35 PM
Zero_Shame posted...
It doesn't have some characters that ARE Playstation.
It's horribly unbalanced.
Word of mouth has been horrible.
It's not being taken to by the FGC, it was easily had the worst reception at the recent evet in CA.


I agree with point 1 and 3.

But balance has nothing to do with how well a game sells. Brawl and SF2, two of the most successful fighters ever say hi. Both horribly balanced.

Which event in CA are you talking about? I'm curious.
#26blazin640Posted 2/16/2013 7:42:34 PM
blaze19_0X posted...
I also would like to add it has to do with the fact that PSASBR isn't as pick up and play as friendly as Smash.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe Smash's competitive depth far exceeds PSASBR's. BUT the difference is 99% of Smash players are really bad (Smash has far more casual players) and it's far easier to kill people in Smash when they have no idea what they are doing.

As a result someone could jump in an FFA, know nothing except to mash the c-stick and probably still get a few lucky kills and feel satisfied. Or grab a lucky item and get a few kills that way.

PSASBR doesn't have this factor. Even at the lowest levels, you probably will have to know what you are doing to get any results. You can't just mash a button and get kills.

As a result I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of people tried out the beta, realized they couldn't win without thinking (as they could with their casual friends in Smash) and dismissed the system entirely.


I agree again. I'm impressed.
---
There goes my free time
#27xXxSuQingXinxXxPosted 2/16/2013 7:50:45 PM
blaze19_0X posted...
Zero_Shame posted...
It doesn't have some characters that ARE Playstation.
It's horribly unbalanced.
Word of mouth has been horrible.
It's not being taken to by the FGC, it was easily had the worst reception at the recent evet in CA.


I agree with point 1 and 3.

But balance has nothing to do with how well a game sells. Brawl and SF2, two of the most successful fighters ever say hi. Both horribly balanced.

Which event in CA are you talking about? I'm curious.

I believe he was referring to the SoCal Regionals. Of all the fighting games there, PSAS garnered a lot of mockery and jeering.
---
PSN: Su-Qing-Xin
I like to play video games.
#28blaze19_0XPosted 2/16/2013 8:17:18 PM
xXxSuQingXinxXx posted...
blaze19_0X posted...
Zero_Shame posted...
It doesn't have some characters that ARE Playstation.
It's horribly unbalanced.
Word of mouth has been horrible.
It's not being taken to by the FGC, it was easily had the worst reception at the recent evet in CA.


I agree with point 1 and 3.

But balance has nothing to do with how well a game sells. Brawl and SF2, two of the most successful fighters ever say hi. Both horribly balanced.

Which event in CA are you talking about? I'm curious.

I believe he was referring to the SoCal Regionals. Of all the fighting games there, PSAS garnered a lot of mockery and jeering.


You mean SCR 2013? I was told by Dopples the reception was fairly positive. It was just quiet as the main attractions were AE and Marvel.
#293D3Posted 2/16/2013 9:03:40 PM
Roster
---
Because Naughty Dog
Joel+Ellie=Jelly...You Jelly?
#30LuminescentRulePosted 2/16/2013 9:10:57 PM(edited)
Bad reviews
Terrible artstyle
Lack of some key characters
Lack of single player / story mode
Poor presentation
Also, bad word-of-mouth
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerGuides 1.10