SuperBot ruined what could of been amazing

#21McFordmansonPosted 9/25/2013 3:05:55 PM
Chzrm3 posted...
The super system is the best thing about this game, haha.

XDarkMethod posted...
i don't think Superbot ruined this game, i think SSM did

sure, Superbot made some wrong turns, but if they still had it, they'd still be working to improve it & give us more characters we wan't (Dart & Abe for example), but SSM took the game & let it die before they even got the chance to let it blossom into something great with the help of real post release support/tuning


Naw, SSM didn't do anything wrong.

How would you feel if you had a successful game development pipeline going on, and then someone said "Oh! Hey. We made this game, but we did a pretty poor job with it and it didn't sell as well as we were hoping, so... you deal with that now!"

They never wanted to inherit PSASBR. It's not like they were bidding for it, like how SEGA bought Atlus. This was something shoved on them by Sony.

So blame Sony and blame Superbot all you want, but don't blame SSM. You might as well blame Naughty Dog for saying from the beginning "we want no part of this". They're equally as culpable as SSM.


Every single Twisted Metal and Starhawk fan would like a word with you.
---
Official Big Daddy of the PSASBR Board.
#22taoxadasaPosted 9/25/2013 4:29:49 PM
McFordmanson posted...
Chzrm3 posted...
The super system is the best thing about this game, haha.

XDarkMethod posted...
i don't think Superbot ruined this game, i think SSM did

sure, Superbot made some wrong turns, but if they still had it, they'd still be working to improve it & give us more characters we wan't (Dart & Abe for example), but SSM took the game & let it die before they even got the chance to let it blossom into something great with the help of real post release support/tuning


Naw, SSM didn't do anything wrong.

How would you feel if you had a successful game development pipeline going on, and then someone said "Oh! Hey. We made this game, but we did a pretty poor job with it and it didn't sell as well as we were hoping, so... you deal with that now!"

They never wanted to inherit PSASBR. It's not like they were bidding for it, like how SEGA bought Atlus. This was something shoved on them by Sony.

So blame Sony and blame Superbot all you want, but don't blame SSM. You might as well blame Naughty Dog for saying from the beginning "we want no part of this". They're equally as culpable as SSM.


Every single Twisted Metal and Starhawk fan would like a word with you.


And Fat Princess.
---
Robbit (Jumping Flash!) for Playstation All-Stars!
#23snovvlybubPosted 9/25/2013 6:14:09 PM
I'm fairly sure the game's issues stem from lack of presentation, variety in gameplay, conflicting art styles, lack of characters outside PS3 era, a fourth of the game's content being from third party games (namely Bioshock because they let Ken Levine push them around), kissing Resistance's ass, balance issues, connectivity issues (host advantage and lack of host migration), and the simple fact that Sony gave this project with a team that had no idea what they wanted to do.

And no, it has nothing to do with Fat Princess or having two Coles. I'm so f***ing sick of that complaint when Superbot had much bigger fish to fry.
---
Now playing: LBPV, Killzone Mercenary, Rayman Legends.
Awaiting: Tearaway, Hotline Miami 2, V Flower, V Borderlands 2 (maybe), Watch_Dogs, inFAMOUS Second Son.
#24Ludacris01Posted 9/25/2013 7:27:46 PM
I thought Naughty Dog said they would be willing to do the game after they finished working on Last of Us

but since Sony was in a hurry (I guess to get this out before PS4 was released, since they were essentially testing the market), they just created SuperBot, threw them a bit of pocket change, and said "do what you can"
---
"that ambipom is on crack" - Lemonz89
Official King K. Rool of the Smash 4 board. KING K. ROOL FOR SMASH 4
#25NeoFalconHavokPosted 9/26/2013 11:20:04 AM
boy_luck posted...
The gameplay in PSASBR is vastly to superior to anything the Smash franchise has.


Delusions of grandeur I'm sure.
---
"If this guy has a problem with GameFaqs users that like Nintendo games, he can kiss my ass."
LMFAO
#26HabefietPosted 9/26/2013 1:06:33 PM
My personal reasons that I feel this game didn't live up to expectations, and why I personally don't think it's much good at all:

1. Severe lack of content. In the same amount of development time it took to make both the original Super Smash Brothers AND Super Smash Brothers Melee (which re-tooled the engine significantly) combined, they ended up with a game with less characters, less stages, less music, less single player options, less multiplayer options, on and on and on, than Melee.. It didn't just have way less content than Brawl (which it should have tried to avoid doing, since even though it's the first entry in its series that is its most obvious competitor); it had way less content than a Gamecube game from a decade prior that was made in less time. The only content domain in which it has those games beat is the existence of online play. The lack of especially noteworthy characters did hurt this game's sales figures. Irrespective of whether or not the costs would have outweighed the gains, the lack of multiple Sony icons in a supposed "All-Stars" collection was disappointing and discouraged sales.

2. The super system sucks. It just... ughhh. It lends itself to extreme imbalance, of course, but that's not the main issue; the main issue is that it isn't fun. There's something inherently wrong with gameplay in which what you are doing 99% percent of the time does not further the win condition. In traditional fighters, you have a health bar. Every hit that you make gets you closer to the win condition. In Smash, percent gains aren't the win condition, stocks are; but every hit you make makes it easier for the next hit to be a stock-taker. Hits indirectly further the win condition. In this game, getting hits and combos only tangentially further the win condition. You can get multiple repeated combos that earn you absolutely nothing if your super whiffs. You can't lose progress in a traditional fighter or in Smash. In fact I can't think of any competitive game where you can actively lose progress towards the win condition without also getting closer to your own lose condition. Games like Starcraft or mobas or whatnot, you can lose progress towards the win condition in those, but only because your opponent is actively destroying your advantage and pushing you back. Win condition and lose condition in those games are a constant imbalance; the closer you are to one, the further you are from the other. This is a game where you can go from having a chance at fulfilling the win condition to not having a chance without really having lost anything besides that chance. It's awful.

I feel like I'm not wording that well. I'll consider elaborating more later. My point is, the bizarre approach to achieving a win condition in this game is relatively unique, but unfortunately just plain isn't fun. You may disagree, but it's one of my own personal reasons for not being overly fond of the thing, and it seems to be a common trend of thought among most people I know that have tried it; even people that own and are somewhat fond of it despite its perceived faults.

3. Related to the super system. A combination of character design, physics, super system, and stage design all lend themselves to this game being slow as nuts. It takes forever to get kills, particularly when the game's stages and character physics actively lend themselves to degenerate play and massive camping. And as somewhat aforementioned RE: the super system, hits (which should be fun and satisfying, albeit not as big a deal as kills) don't feel like they mean anything since they're just building towards something that may or may not matter anyhow.

4. Oh, and obviously the marketing wasn't that great. That never helps.

My $0.02
#27videogames75_5Posted 9/26/2013 6:36:29 PM
generalguy64 posted...
Pre-release: *Complains it's a clone of Smash*

Post-release: *Complains that it's not a clone of Smash*

---
There Zavals, I changed my sig.
#28Chzrm3Posted 9/27/2013 7:47:39 AM
XDarkMethod posted...
actually, i do blame ND for that

& it is their fault because again, we'd have more better stuff by now if they didn't let it die, & you try making a game like that with their budget & see what happens, & this is the 3rd time SSM killed a game meant to get better with more support, so i blame Sony for always handing games to them & i blame SSM for always killing them


Dude, that's not how video game development works. You can't be working on a project that you've mapped out 3 years in advance, and then Sony goes "HEY HAVE THIS, IT'S GLITCHY AS HECK, POORLY CODED, AND IT FAILED COMMERCIALLY. THE REMAINING COMMUNITY OF SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE WILL BERATE YOU ON TWITTER IF YOU DON'T GIVE THEM MORE CHARACTERS, THOUGH!!!"

Why on earth is it fair to blame SSM? That's simply not how the industry works, at all - the only reason you're blaming them is because you're prioritizing your own desires for more characters/stages over their entire business model and long-term development plan. I'm promising you, video games don't actually work the way you think they do, and deep down you know that. You just want a scapegoat to lash out at, and Superbot's not the easy choice anymore because so many of them got fired.

And come on, you know full well it's not ND's fault either. They wanted to work on a passion project. You're literally saying "they should've made what I wanted, instead of what they wanted." Why do your desires outweigh theirs? Until you're running Naughty Dog, or heck, even working for them, your personal desires aren't a factor in what makes them happy/satisfied/proud. They made TLOU because they really wanted to, and it's so selfish to be like "screw that noise, make what makes me happy instead!"

Sorry if I sound harsh, but it's really really REALLY unfair to be blaming SSM and ND when it's Superbot and Sony who screwed this up so much.

McFordmanson posted...
Every single Twisted Metal and Starhawk fan would like a word with you.


They should take it up with the companies that actually made those games. Twisted Metal had some inexcusably bad online, and that pretty much killed the game. It was such a good game, I loved it, but they made the best part of it almost impossible to enjoy for too long, and the game didn't have the legs it would've otherwise.

Starhawk just didn't have an audience. The people that enjoyed it had fun, and nobody else did. The complete lack of marketing didn't help, but even if it had been promoted more, it was such a niche title. People are going to start needing to learn that you can't invest that much money in a game that only a few hundred thousand people want to play.

Neither of those things are SSM's fault.

This game's failure is primarily Sony's fault, because it was really poorly managed. Right alongside them, it's Superbot's fault for executing the concept so weakly and handing players the bare minimum after 3 years and a ridiculous amount of Sony's money.

SSM had no part of that. They were given a dead horse, and told "take her as far as she'll go". What would you expect them to do? Of course they walked away.
---
If Smash 4 gets more DK reps, I'll achieve Nirvana and never want anything again.
Dixie, Funky, Lanky, Cranky........... Mmmmmmm yeeaaaaaa!!!!
#29ChairstoodPosted 9/27/2013 8:17:41 AM
Sony only gave Superbot a budget of 3 million to work with.
Superbot actually did a pretty good job with such a small amount.
The fault is all Sony's.
They didn't want to support this game the same way Nintendo supports Super Smash Bros for some weird reason.
Giving the game to SSM was not a smart move as they have a reputation for letting games gather lots of dust (see Twisted Metal & Starhawk).
---
Digimon World Re Digitize Decode and Dynasty Warriors 8. Check them out.
PSN name: Lawfreeze
#30NeoFalconHavokPosted 9/27/2013 9:06:10 AM
They wanted to work on a passion project. You're literally saying "they should've made what I wanted, instead of what they wanted." Why do your desires outweigh theirs?


Because they got into the business to cater to our desires? I mean, if they made games for themselves, they better not sell it to us.

That is the most naive logic of all time, and it poisons so many on the internet. Why shouldn't your desires outweigh theirs? You are the paying customer. You're paying for your own entertainment, not to suck off the developers themselves. That's not how business works. Passion projects should never have a price tag in the first place.
---
"If this guy has a problem with GameFaqs users that like Nintendo games, he can kiss my ass."
LMFAO