Should ARMS be shit on just as hard as SFV?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Durden77

Member
Let me start this by saying I bought Arms at full price, and I love it. I know exactly what I'm getting into with these type of games (fighting games). While I love extra features and content, if the gameplay is great, that's what I'm here for and what I'll keep coming back for, and I know for sure I will get my money's worth and then some. Especially if the game is promised to be continually supported. I also bought SFV at full price at launch, do not regret that decision one bit, and still play it regularly today.

However, I completely understand why someone would not want to buy SFV or Arms at their states at launch for full price. If people are looking more for content and not as much for pure gameplay, or even more of a mixture of the two, there's a good chance they could be strongly disappointed.

SFV got it's lashes for releasing what many claimed (understandably so) was an unfinished product. It was hit so hard that it gained a reputation that still tarnishes the game to this day, even though it has received many updates since then.

Now in my view, Arms is very similar to SFV at launch in a lot of respects.

- Both have very polished gameplay at launch, which is meant to be the driving factor.
- Both have shit all for modes and content surrounding that gameplay at launch.
- Both have things actually in their games at launch that are not accessible until updates.
- Both have features that are expected in games like these not available in the game.
- Both have promised free updates that will make the game "more complete" over time.

Now I get that Arms is a brand new product with a completely unique type of gameplay that hasn't been seen before, compared to SFV which was a sequel to an already established series. I also get that the hate for Capcom is generally stronger than the hate for Nintendo. But it seems to me that to the average consumer, Arms could be seen as a very hard sell at full price, and could be reasonably be called an incomplete game in very similar ways to SFV.

There were some inherent straight up problems that SFV had compared to Arms, such as the online not working as it should, but overall, should Nintendo get a similar treatment for charging 60$ for this game? I have seen a lot of weird angst building up around it, and it seems as though the offense/defense on these subjects are very similar to SFV, only that it gets more of a pass because it's original and Nintendo.

I ask not to start shit, but because like I said, I myself am pretty satisfied with both, but can understand the frustrations with these games to the average consumer. So I'm interested in hearing from the common crowd.
 
In its current state I'd say ARMs is definitely not worth the full $60 asking price, same with SFV was
 
One is a new IP with a completely different fighting system (even moreso than Smash compared to other fighters). The other is like the dozen-th entry in a series where the previous game has orders of magnitude more content, from a developer that has created multiple fighting game series, and has nothing else to do considering the numerous games they outsource to other devs

I'm not saying you can't call ARMS out on the lack of content, but comparing its lack to Street Fighter 5's...the latter definitely deserves WAAAY more shit
 
SFV has had predecessors that had more content, which is one of the reasons for the backlash. ARMS is a new franchise, although I don't think it should be a full price game. Is ARMS full price?
 
Um? Anything coming to Arms extra is FREE. Not the same for "buy DLC costumes" SFV. Sure, you can "earn" in game but c'mon.

And SFV is far more esports and fgc catering than Arms. For better and for worse.
 
I don't think ARMS should get the same amount of flak as SFV, because that game has precedent.

But it SHOULD still take something, because it does not have $60 worth of content.
 
Like Splatoon, these "free updates" are basically things that should have been in the main game day one, I don't understand why Nintendo keep up with this bullshit
 
ARMS is definitely lacking in content, and I don't think it's worth $60, but what's there is pretty damn fun. I think it's a more enjoyable, more functional game than SF5 was at launch, personally. So, it should be shit on somewhat, but not as much as SF5.
 
A sequel should not have significantly less featured than its predecessor.

That's the main difference here.
 
I think many of the criticisms of Street Fighter V were a result of the game being compared to the previous iterations in the series.

At this point, ARMS is the series, so expectations are different.


Personally, I don't think I'll I'll be picking it up at full price.
 
ARMS' DLC is coming sooner & is free. A more apt comparison would be Splatoon, that was also bare at launch but got better with the free, consistent, near-launch DLC.

Also, they couldn't cut anything for a new IP's launch & the online works to a reasonable degree.
 
Sony said:
SFV has had predecessors that had more content, which is one of the reasons for the backlash. ARMS is a new franchise, although I don't think it should be a full price game. Is ARMS full price?
Click to expand...

It is full price. It shouldn't be though. Nintendo being greedy with their software pricing again though, just like with 1-2 Switch.
 
Well, there are some key differences.

SFV makes you "pay" for its post-release content through season passes or grinding (like, A LOT of grinding). ARMS seemingly won't.

Also, SFV is, well, SFV. Being the fifth iteration in a series vs. the first makes things a bit different. SFV has a long legacy to live up to.
 
You could compare SFV with the much cheaper USFIV - ARMS is a new experience so unless you are happy with Wii Sports boxing you have to pay to experience and play it.

Also after Splatoon people are much more willing to trust Nintendo when it comes to free post-launch content. You also know the price wont change anytime soon on ARMS while SFV was on sale only a couple of weeks after its launch because of the lackluster reception.
 
Arms should be shit on the same way Splatoon 1 was shit on. New online Nintendo IP that launched extremely lacking in content. SFV was the latest entry in one of the biggest franchises in gaming that was missing features its predecessors had
 
Difinitely agree with you. Just because its a new brand game series doesnt excuse it from getting harsh criticism when it comes to content.
Tbh, i just discovered that its a full price game. I always thought it was a $40 game.
 
Blackquill said:
Like Splatoon, these "free updates" are basically things that should have been in the main game day one, I don't understand why Nintendo keep up with this bullshit
Click to expand...
Yeah a shame games are no longer fully complete from day one anymore and have to rely on updates later on to which it should have been from day 1 in the disc already.. so they basically sold you a early access incomplete game at launch at full price, games as a service is bullshit
 
ARMS is likely going to have the same kind of support that Splatoon had even if it's a little skimpy at launch. This is a brand new IP that to some degree deserves a pass for being new. Street Fighter V on the other hand, despite its name, is like the 40th SF game. It needs to justify its existence and lack of content/innovation.
 
Personally I'd say yes. precedent or not, the games cost the same amount and should be held to the same standard. Arms is fun but it's pretty lacking in content. Hopefully the DLC can alleviate this issue.
 
I think the main differences come down to:

- ARMS is a new IP so there's fewer preconceived notions. People often tend to give first games in a series a pass with the expectation that later games or DLC will build on or improve them to begin with. There aren't any prior games in the series, and few like it at all to give you anything to expect, so the core game basically is what speaks for itself and is somewhat fresh.
- Even if you don't like the fighting, there's still volleyball and hoops (straightforward as they are)
- The game is less intimidating because of its cartoony aesthetic, relatively straightforward controls (i.e. no fancy combos or special inputs to memorize), the existence of team modes, gameplay modes that aren't based purely on fighting, and items. It still has the overall accessible Nintendo "pick up and party" vibe.
- They've promised all DLC will be free, no caveats or in-game currency etc.

That being said, I agree that as it is now, the game is a hard sell at full price and I think maybe the sales in the UK so far reflect that a bit. I probably wouldn't have bought the game if I couldn't get it for $50. I think it should sell over 2 million when all's said and done but yeah, that'll depend on its post-launch support and the Nintendo push.
 
You just made me realise that both games have the exact same score on Metacritic. Huh. And yet, the response to both games feels almost polar opposite in a way.
 
As you stated, you can't really compare a new saga to an iterative sequel. Moreover, ARMS will be expanded through tons of free DLC in the coming months.

So the answer is no.
 
Zubz said:
ARMS' DLC is coming sooner & is free. A more apt comparison would be Splatoon, that was also bare at launch but got better with the free, consistent, near-launch DLC.

Also, they couldn't cut anything for a new IP's launch & the online works to a reasonable degree.
Click to expand...
All SFV DLC characters were free
 
Sony said:
SFV has had predecessors that had more content, which is one of the reasons for the backlash. ARMS is a new franchise, although I don't think it should be a full price game. Is ARMS full price?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a full price game. It's being a full price 60$ game with no story mode or is what's really been holding me off the game right now. Enjoyed what I played of the test punch, but I'm not really big into MP stuff. Splatoon sold me day 1 cause of the single player story mode and I loved it, wish they had done the same with this game. Might get it eventually if I find someone locally to play with as I find the gameplay really fun, just not sure if the solo content available right now is worth the full price to me
 
Maybe. It's a new IP with new characters, stages, and gameplay designed for the first game while SFV could build on the foundation of its prequels so there's a bit of an excuse there. Maybe it should've been $50 or so but at least they don't seem to be charging for any DLC while promising support.
 
I feel both games got criticized fairly for a lack of options. You just don't hear a lot of hate for ARMS because there's not much passion invested into the IP. SF is one of the most recognized names in all of gaming and with that name comes expectations. When it doesn't meet them, you better believe the hardcore are going to let your hear it.

ARMS doesn't have that hardcore base. Time will tell if it ever will.
 
Sony said:
SFV has had predecessors that had more content, which is one of the reasons for the backlash. ARMS is a new franchise, although I don't think it should be a full price game. Is ARMS full price?
Click to expand...

Fighting games have a precedent. People aren't comparing SF5 to past SF released. They're comparing it to content fighters coming out now.
 
Street Fighter had previous entries that set up a standard that it had to live up to. It came out half-baked. Comes with DLC you either pay for or get ingame currency in-game to obtain.

ARMS is a brand new fighting game IP. As expected the roster and content isn't that large, $60 is a tough sell for some people understanably. DLC is free for everyone full stop.

ARMS also launched with an arcade mode. Something SFV has yet to add over a year post-launch. Seriously though I legit can't believe this.

While I agree they have similarities, I feel like ARMS wins out on this. I haven't heard about catastrophic server issues with the game like SFV either. (lolSwitch install base aside)
 
Well look at what happened to Ken.
If only Capcom listened and fixed it, but a year later it's still a mess. No surprise that SFV still has a bad rep.
 
Blackquill said:
Like Splatoon, these "free updates" are basically things that should have been in the main game day one, I don't understand why Nintendo keep up with this bullshit
Click to expand...
What if they aren't ready???
You could say then delay the game until they are but many would rather have the core game sooner than later.
Also, it was kind of cool to look forward to other additions in Splatoon.
Understandable if you didn't like it though but that model was already in place and has become industry standard for a while now.
 
Nope. ARMS should be criticized, which it has been and SFV should be lambasted, which it has been.

Both games lack content at launch, but one has a legacy to live up to.
 
Street Fighter 5 problems was that it released without contents that past games in the series had and was primarily focused towards the hardcore crowds rather than the causal.

Arms however is a new IP.

Blackquill said:
Like Splatoon, these "free updates" are basically things that should have been in the main game day one, I don't understand why Nintendo keep up with this bullshit
Click to expand...

Two reasons;

1, They aren't finished and would delay the game if they didn't release them later.

2, It encourage players to stick around when the new content hits.
 
Blackquill said:
Like Splatoon, these "free updates" are basically things that should have been in the main game day one, I don't understand why Nintendo keep up with this bullshit
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. Extra maps / characters / weapons / modes... All for free. You can't argue with that. It was implemented extremely well in Splatoon. It kept the game (pardon me) fresh for over a year and I loved it. I never felt cheated or like Nintendo was holding anything back for the sake of extra content.

I don't feel that way with ARMS either.
 
The Overwatch anniversary content is just shit that should have been in the game at launch, can't believe Blizzard keeps up with this bullshit.
 
TheGreatMightyPoo said:
What if they aren't ready???
You could say then delay the game until they are but many would rather have the core game sooner than later.
Also, it was kind of cool to look forward to other additions in Splatoon.
Understandable if you didn't like it though but that model was already in place and has become industry standard for a while now.
Click to expand...

If this isn't ready, delay the game.

Mr-Joker said:
Street Fighter 5 problems was that it released without contents that past games in the series had and was primarily focused towards the hardcore crowds rather than the causal.

Arms however is a new IP.



Two reasons;

1, They aren't finished and would delay the game if they didn't release them later.

2, It encourage players to stick around when the new content hits.
Click to expand...

1, Again, delay it.

2, I bought Splatoon day one, and after one week, I dropped not because of the game itself but because it just lacked too much content and can't bother to come back each time to see it's still incomplete
 
ARMS feels like a complete package to me. I was happy to pay full price for it. It's got plenty of multiplayer modes, party mode, ranked mode, grand prix mode, and tons of arms to unlock. Anything else that gets added later (for free mind you) is entirely bonus.

SFV launched with a broken ass online mode, training, a joke of a story mode (just a few levels per character that were ass easy) and a terrible trials mode. And everything beyond that cost $$ (except for the story mode). There still isn't an arcade mode.
 
ahoyhoy said:
A sequel should not have significantly less featured than its predecessor.

That's the main difference here.
Click to expand...

If you are comparing SF V to the very first version of SF IV, the arcade one, you're wrong.

And if you compare SF V + S1 against SF IV on consoles, I guess you're still wrong.
 
UnemployedVillain said:
One is a new IP with a completely different fighting system (even moreso than Smash compared to other fighters). The other is like the dozen-th entry in a series where the previous game has orders of magnitude more content, from a developer that has created multiple fighting game series, and has nothing else to do considering the numerous games they outsource to other devs

I'm not saying you can't call ARMS out on the lack of content, but comparing its lack to Street Fighter 5's...the latter definitely deserves WAAAY more shit
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
It depends on how much I'm expected to pay for it.

This is the way of things now, for better or worse, but if my $ gets me tons of free content in the coming months then that's not so bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New to Poe. Is it hard as Shit?
7
1K
intbal replied
  • Poll
Hot take: Every game should be released in weekly 5-hour episodes, just like TV shows.
Opinion  2 3
132
715
Felessan replied
As many games available on PC as possible is great, but... There IS something to be said about exclusivity, isn't it?
2 3
146
1K
Durin replied
How’s the portal these days as just a cloud device?
8
478
Hudo replied
Rumour: Next Xbox to cost twice as much as PS6
2 3 4 5 6
279
2K
Shogmaster replied
Top Bottom