Yea that's basically what you do for that mission. However, the one where you have to eavesdrop on the two guys in the enemy camp in the woods is haaard.

the people who say this game is easier than Brotherhood and Revelations are liars and should be ignored btw.

In this game, I actually TRY to stay incognito. Before it didn't seem to matter, but now there is so many redcoats it's not even worth trying to fight them now. Unless you want a thrill, of course.

I am loving All-Stars Battle Royale.

The WhiteKnight rises?

Like a phoenix.

Thank mighty Khonshu.

Haven't been on here in a long time but ive come back! alot of yall wont remember me and there are probably new faces. But I'm a ps3 owner and I'm currently playing the new Transformers game and am working through the assasins creed series (On number 2 right now!)

Hello again!

So now for my question: How good is Playstation All-stars Battle Royale?!?

I loved it. 4/5

The beta was very fun, so I'll grab this later on.

Do you need friends around to play it? or will it still be fun by yourself. I can get friends together sometimes but not that often. How is the online play?

Didn't like the beta personally. Sticking with Smash Bros.

PASBR is pretty okay and neat. Not as much characters like Smash, but at least, online game works and is not crap.

There isn't much of a single player game, but it works online so well you'll be able to get multi going any time.

It's also not a clone of Smash Brothers. I dunno why people insist on making that comparison. It's like trying to compare Dead or Alive to Soul Calibur.

Probably because its concept is pretty similar to SB?
Battling with up to three other players using characters from Sony franchises?
I'm not saying it's a clone - it just takes inspiration from it, but it's pretty easy to see why people make the comparison.

Of all the reviews I've read, about 70% of them thought of it as a clone of the Super Smash series. I haven't played it, but I can see where those reviewers are coming from judging by its trailers.

The biggest difference from SSB and PS All Stars is the scoring mechanics and the fact that PSAS is more focused on gaining AP for super attacks and thus kills, while SSB was about building up damage and then knocking opponents off the stage (which doesn't happen in PSAS).

I'd guess some players prefer SSB because even though you can die from being knocked off the stage, there's a greater chance for recovery by getting back on stage. With PSAS, you only die from Super Attacks, which are like the smash ball attacks from Brawl. There's less emphasis on defense in PSAS because there's no way to fall off the stage. But you can still block attacks and you can even avoid some Super attacks.

considering how the game was blatantly made to cash-in on Smash Bros. success, yes it...um...is.

As I said before, complaining about a clone is often overdone and dumb but pretending it isn't a clone is just insane. Even if they change some things, the entire point of the game was to copy a successful idea, it's freaking obvious. Being defensive and denying the obvious only reinforces some people disliking the company. So basically, all you did was confirm it via the same moronic fanboy tactics that defend Mario's increasing lack of creativity. Bravo.

And I certainly don't mind beyond the fact they could have copied a series that isn't still relevent like Power Stone or something. I mean, look where Zelda and Pikmin ripoffs have gotten us. Awesome games. Banjo Kazooie could arguably be called a Mario 64 ripoff and I'm certainly not complaining about that.

I will say that while I haven't played it yet, changing how you die in the game was either a really good or really bad move. Either it won't fit nearly as well as knocking people off a stage does in a game that plays like Smash Bros, or it will help the game get its own identity since it will unquestionably change how the game is played.

considering how the game was blatantly made to cash-in on Smash Bros. success, yes it...um...is.

As I said before, complaining about a clone is often overdone and dumb but pretending it isn't a clone is just insane. Even if they change some things, the entire point of the game was to copy a successful idea, it's freaking obvious. Being defensive and denying the obvious only reinforces some people disliking the company. So basically, all you did was confirm it via the same moronic fanboy tactics that defend Mario's increasing lack of creativity. Bravo.

And I certainly don't mind beyond the fact they could have copied a series that isn't still relevent like Power Stone or something. I mean, look where Zelda and Pikmin ripoffs have gotten us. Awesome games. Banjo Kazooie could arguably be called a Mario 64 ripoff and I'm certainly not complaining about that.

I will say that while I haven't played it yet, changing how you die in the game was either a really good or really bad move. Either it won't fit nearly as well as knocking people off a stage does in a game that plays like Smash Bros, or it will help the game get its own identity since it will unquestionably change how the game is played.

That theory of yours is utter nuts. You might as well claim that every game that isn't an entirely new genre is a rip-off because previous games in the genre were successful enough that other people wanted to make games in that genre too.

Madden Football is a rip-off of FIFA. They're both sports games after all. Limbo is a rip-off of Super Mario Brothers, because they're both platformers. Doesn't matter that they play entirely differently, they're both 2D games, so clearly Limbo is just a copy.

It depends where you draw the line, I guess. I prefer to use the actual definition of a knock-off - a game that copies an existing game in every way imaginable. NOT a game that simply capitalises on the same idea that was popular in a different game.

Gameloft produce knock-offs because Gameloft games play exactly the same as the game that they take "inspiration" from. All Stars Battle Royale plays nothing like Smash Brothers. Not a knock-off.

I'd guess some players prefer SSB because even though you can die from being knocked off the stage, there's a greater chance for recovery by getting back on stage. With PSAS, you only die from Super Attacks, which are like the smash ball attacks from Brawl. There's less emphasis on defense in PSAS because there's no way to fall off the stage. But you can still block attacks and you can even avoid some Super attacks.

If you ever come up against players that have levelled their characters past 100 (I played someone with a level over 600 last night), then you quickly realise that defense is far more important in PSAS than it ever was in Smash Brothers. Because the game's pace is slower and attacks tend to take slightly longer to execute competitive PSAS players spend a lot of time getting good positions and making sure they're able to do damage while not giving their opponents points to fill the bar.

It's already far more strategic than the Smash Brothers games for me, and I've spent thousands of hours playing the past three Smash Brothers games.

Also I got a PSN message straight from SEGA, saying that I earned a free Sonic Adventure 2 theme for buying the game awhile back.

I thought it was spam at first but I clicked the link in the message, went to the store, it accepted the code and I now have the theme