Renna Hazel
Member
To be fair, some of that free content was already on the disc at launch...
Should ARMS be shit on just as hard as SFV?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, some of that free content was already on the disc at launch...
I thought about this exact thing the other day when ARMS came out. I want to preface this by saying that I got both SFV and ARMS at launch and enjoy both.
Saying ARMS is a new IP is no excuse for a lack of content. In ARMs you can pretty much play online, local, or do Grand Prix. In SFV at launch you could do the horrendous "story", survival, local, or online.
Just because IP is new doesn't mean it should get a free pass. Yes ARMS will be updated for free over time, but V has been also. ARMS will be more "free" though, because in theory characters and stages will never cost real money.
I feel like people who were upset about V should also be upset about ARMS as it stands right now.
Edit: Also I feel like people weren't really criticizing SFV in the context of the previous iterations. No story at launch was a huge deal back then, and there was never a "story" mode in SF before this one.
Saying ARMS is a new IP is no excuse for a lack of content. In ARMs you can pretty much play online, local, or do Grand Prix. In SFV at launch you could do the horrendous "story", survival, local, or online.
Just because IP is new doesn't mean it should get a free pass. Yes ARMS will be updated for free over time, but V has been also. ARMS will be more "free" though, because in theory characters and stages will never cost real money.
I feel like people who were upset about V should also be upset about ARMS as it stands right now.
Edit: Also I feel like people weren't really criticizing SFV in the context of the previous iterations. No story at launch was a huge deal back then, and there was never a "story" mode in SF before this one.
It's never going to be "ready". Competitive games are a constant work in progress.
Your idea of what makes those games "done" is completely subjective.
New IP's have different standards than long-existing IP's
While ARMS isn't worth $60, it's promising more content in the future (FOR FREE, SF wants your money while promising you free stuff you'll never be able to earn), albeit unknown beyond more arms and characters.
You don't know what kind of modes are applicable to a game until you've actually played it, either, so asking for certain things before you see a game may not line up with what the game can actually do.
I also think the online in ARMS is really good.
While ARMS isn't worth $60, it's promising more content in the future (FOR FREE, SF wants your money while promising you free stuff you'll never be able to earn), albeit unknown beyond more arms and characters.
You don't know what kind of modes are applicable to a game until you've actually played it, either, so asking for certain things before you see a game may not line up with what the game can actually do.
I also think the online in ARMS is really good.
Exactly, Nintendo online games have incredible speed for loading and matchmaking which makes the experience much more enjoyable.
For people saying compare it to Splatoon, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's quite apt considering Splatoon had a full fledged single player story mode on day 1. Even if the game was lacking in features, that alone will alleviate to a certain degree the things it was lacking in a way that SFV and ARMS don't.
Vital Tundra
Member
Big difference in that SFV is an established IP with many games with far more content than what it currently has. Arms is new, and I don't expect it to be some content rich fighter, because honestly I don't remember the last time a new fighting game IP had a ton of content. The 60 dollars is a bit absurd to be honest but far more acceptable than SFV.
Same, got already more gametime and fun out of it than some other AAA experiences. Don't agree with the splatoon sp comparisons, it's way harder to implement a meaningful story mode in this genre than 3rd person shooters.
Solidus187
Member
Who said it isn't?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Besides an arcade mode, ARMS did launch with more multiplayer modes and game types than SFV, and its online "party mode" adds more value to the package.
Also as others have said, free updates. SFV promised updates, yes, but they would be locked behind a F2P grinding style paywall. And SFV awards precious little currency per fight in order to buy additional characters.
There's also the point of Nintendo having earned the benefit of a doubt due to how well Splatoon was supported after launch. It's more reasonable to believe they'll support ARMS with a number of additional characters, stages, and game modes.
Also as others have said, free updates. SFV promised updates, yes, but they would be locked behind a F2P grinding style paywall. And SFV awards precious little currency per fight in order to buy additional characters.
There's also the point of Nintendo having earned the benefit of a doubt due to how well Splatoon was supported after launch. It's more reasonable to believe they'll support ARMS with a number of additional characters, stages, and game modes.
SinCityAssassin
Member
The post-release content is free and it's a new IP.
Content for SFV is semi-free and also it's an established franchise that released less content than previous entries.
Content for SFV is semi-free and also it's an established franchise that released less content than previous entries.
FaintDeftone
Junior Member
Arms definitely deserves to be criticized. It's super light on content and there isn't much for a single player gamer to do. I highly recommend most folks should wait and see what the upcoming DLC will entail before dropping $60 on it. That online Party mode is super addictive, though.
Truth hurts.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Doesn't offer enough for you... Don't buy it.
You can't objectively assess value.
You can't objectively assess value.
Every single piece of meaningful DLC (characters, stages) can be gotten for free though
It also got a free story mode
ARMS is out now to help build out the lineup of a new system. There was basically no need for SFV to launch when it did. I can't imagine Sony demanded it, since they always have other games out in the early months of a given year (and fighting games aren't exactly a crowded category these days). To complete the trifecta, you've got Namco wanting $60 + $30 season pass on versions of Tekken 7 running 720p and some made up resolution (864p?). Not the genre's finest era.
Taliban Stan
Member
Yes. Capcom did a totally ass backwards approach that like pretty much no fighting game maker had ever done. Why you would look at that, ignore like 25 years of the genre and be like, "the approach everyone hates is obviously the one to mirror and build around."
joecanada
Member
My personal take is it's fine because I'll wait and pick up games with " tons of content coming " later on sale when the content is there
Ricerocket
Member
Bad looking skins and dance emotes? I don't think that event did anything for the game that people are complaining about with SFV/Arms want.
UnemployedVillain
Member
You might as well have just written "Waahhh Nintendo". Both would have as much merit to the discussion, but the latter would have at least been more upfront about how you really feel. Also
Who said it isn't?
Attack You
Member
Much like with Splatoon, Nintendo wants to see how the market takes to the concept before they go whole hog on content for it.
Nailed it.
Exactly what is true about it? Care to name a Nintendo game that supposedly got a "pass" for shit that other games got shat on for?
Blackquill
Member
That's a lazy excuse to release a game in whatever state you want. Splatoon came out without even a co-op feature and the fact that a map was released like 3 days after the game came out showed there was a huge problem with that
I know it is you Kasual, but even you should be able to notice that Arms is getting critized for the current lack of content
It feels like Nintendo needed to fill a gap, ARMS was the furthest along so the pushed it out.
That being said the gameplay is really satisfying. My son and I have a blast playing it. Throw in 4 more fighters and some Amiibo costumes and you'll have a game that will give Mario Kart a run for its money at your next rooftop party.
That being said the gameplay is really satisfying. My son and I have a blast playing it. Throw in 4 more fighters and some Amiibo costumes and you'll have a game that will give Mario Kart a run for its money at your next rooftop party.
TimeEffect
Member
Ultimately depends on the support it gets
And Id say being a new IP is a fine enough excuse. SFV should have built off SFIV
And Id say being a new IP is a fine enough excuse. SFV should have built off SFIV
Why do you get upset at people shitposting in FFXV threads but then go and do it here
Dark Ninja
Member
I agree but I also think Overwatch should be shit on as much as SFV was. All 3 are great games though.
AquaWateria
Member
People don't realize how long it takes developers to balance a fighting game. Plus it doesn't help ARMS is a game that is completely different than any fighting game so they don't have anything to fall on.
SF 5 had its past games to fall on, the same with other games like Injustice or Tekken. Which is why SF5 got shitted on.
ARMS is a new IP.
SF 5 had its past games to fall on, the same with other games like Injustice or Tekken. Which is why SF5 got shitted on.
ARMS is a new IP.
Yeah it should regardless of what free update they give you. Infact they should get shit on even harder than SFV because they did not take notes on how even the biggest fighting game franchise can flop. The preview they showed gave me the impression of tons of mini games and the announcer actually have a real voice...
The updates are free. The characters and stages aren't.
At least, we have the option to grind Fight money to buy the ones we want. We can even test the S1 characters in the story mode at least and Capcom allowed to test everyone when they made their test for the new CFN.
If you buy the whole package now (base game + S1 + S2) there's so much easy FM in there that it should net you enough to get all characters from S3 and S4 (if there are 6 on each).
But no, people complained about this too much and now MvsC:I we will get DLC characters that we only have the option to pay for.
Why do the past games make any difference? Unless they're directly porting stuff from the previous games why bring them up? It's still all new content that needs to be created. If it was like a KOF97->98 or something like that I could get the argument, but SFV was pretty much a clean slate.
ARMS is supposed to be a fighting game and it has a $60 asking price. It's on that ground that its being compared content wise to other products from larger publishers, or even products from smaller publishers that have managed to pack in a respectable amount of single player content.
SFV is only brought up because its the most well known fighting game that launched without a good amount of single player content in a world where a $60 fighting game has to have single player content. On those grounds it's more than fair to say they are the same.
Edit- Actually you can say ARMS is worse in a way because there are no plans for offline single player content afaik.
DecoReturns
Member
ARMS had already received criticism. It's a new franchise so it's much less vocal.
I mean, pay attention.
SF is noticeable because it was a huge mess for a franchise that had a legacy to live up.
I mean, pay attention.
SF is noticeable because it was a huge mess for a franchise that had a legacy to live up.
kunonabi
Member
ARMS will also most likely end up being far more timely and consistent with its DLC updates than SFV has been.
OrbitalBeard
Member
The hate may be hilarious, but many of the criticisms are totally fair.
I mean, Arms could have come with the planned DLC from the start, but I can understand the appeal of holding content back. It helps keep the game relevant. It gives people an incentive to come back to the game, and as a result, they hemorrhage less players and maintain a bigger playerbase online.
I do think that the criticism is valid though. Would be nice to get a complete package upfront.
I do think that the criticism is valid though. Would be nice to get a complete package upfront.
yeah nintendo games always get a pass by fans and media
And didn't we just come off a Mario game that got absolutely defecated on until its E3 showing?
I don't understand this "Nintendo pass" narrative. Maybe it's my Nintendo avatar
KZXcellent
Member
This comparison is silly.
Arcade SFIV vs. SFV Launch? Sure they're both the first "finished" release but we're talking strictly about console releases. You don't pay $60 for an arcade cabinet. People are rightly comparing SF IV's launch on console to SFV's launch on consoles. A lack of an Arcade build and them rushing the game out for esports is on them.
Also SFV + Season Pass vs. Launch SF IV?
"If you buy SFV and the Season Pass it has more content (eventually) than SF IV at launch!!!"
It's bad value (or time) proposition.
People took SFV to task because it launched on consoles half-baked and looked worse when compared to vanilla SF IV's launch. Arcades don't matter and neither do their DLC characters/stages you can buy/earn. First impressions are important.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll