That is just an excuse for releasing the game in the state they did, Blizzard should have made this stuff before release and have it ready, or delay Overwatch till it was.
Same goes for Sombra, Orisa, Ana and the newer maps.
Should ARMS be shit on just as hard as SFV?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
Same goes for Sombra, Orisa, Ana and the newer maps.
Anyone waiting for the DLC to make ARMS worth it as far as single player content goes is quite likely to be disappointed lol
The DLC is new characters, ARMS, and stages, nothing really indicates we'll get stuff like that. We are getting a spectator mode though, so sure, there's some slim hope I guess.
---
Also those saying it won't get criticized because it's from Nintendo, have y'all seen the reviews?
The simple fact of the matter is SF games never had any real SP content at all - to the point where SFV now has more SP modes and content than any SF game before it - but the goal had posts shifted since vanilla SF4, and casual consumers expected more than an MP only experience for $60.
Capcom released the game in the form they did because it was at the latest point possible to make that years Pro Tour. Their failure wasn't not providing the content, but charging full price for it and creating the expectation that this would be more jam packed with content. In terms of MP modes, the game had every relevant mode by it's first update that March. Consumers knew when and how it was coming.
phantasmic_glaive
Member
Hell yea... but for slightly different reasons. The core game itself has to be fleshed out more. It's too easy to be cheap in this game, Myself included in being cheap and it kills the fun. They're on the right path tho, it's fun.
This post basically nails it.
I mean, yeah, SFV has more content now (more than ARMS, I believe, but I'd have to do a direct comparison). But I believe the OP was referring to SFV's launch.
It will be sad when Arms outsells SF5.
Gravy Boat
Member
Splatoon was much cheaper on release, in the Uk at least. Like almost half the price.
UnemployedVillain
Member
On what grounds? You didn't explain anything other than "They're both fighters so yes", which flat out ignores all the other factors involved. Most of the flack given to SF5 was it's lack of content compared to SF4. Part of it was compared to other fighting games at the time, but most of it was compared to its predecessors
I think this started with Splatoon and its free updates. But yeah, it's totally our Nintendo avatars. We are drones etc
Bobo Dakes
Member
Outside of the story mode (which is a fair complaint), what sort of "content" (a word that sort of means nothing here) do you all think ARMS is lacking?
I paid $51 (thank you Amazon) for ARMS, I can't say I got a lacking package. Knowing more "content" (characters and maps) are coming down the line just gives me more to look forward to, but I wouldn't feel ripped off if there wasn't more coming.
Now if this was ARMS 5 coming out for the newest Nintendo console in 2030, the story would be different.
I paid $51 (thank you Amazon) for ARMS, I can't say I got a lacking package. Knowing more "content" (characters and maps) are coming down the line just gives me more to look forward to, but I wouldn't feel ripped off if there wasn't more coming.
Now if this was ARMS 5 coming out for the newest Nintendo console in 2030, the story would be different.
Nintendo wants one major game a month. Delaying would mess with their momentum and they'd have nothing for this month.
SFV *launched* with more story than any other SF game before it. The free - and yes, shitty - cinematic story update was coming in a few months and people knew this many weeks before the game released.
If you compare the content of vanilla SF4 to vanilla SF5, it's pretty similar. SFV has a survival and more detailed character story modes, SFIV has a lame arcade mode and a tournament feature nobody ever played. Other than that, it's Versus, Ranked, Player Match, Training Mode and Lobby mode.
It didn't fail to live up to it's own legacy for content, it failed to live up the shifting expectations of a full priced release.
I think it's pretty much just the story mode tbh, because other than that, ARMS isn't particularly lacking for a new IP imo
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Well, only if you grind long enough. ARMS won't require that.
ARMS has a working lobby and online mode at launch, while SFV didn't. I bought both at launch btw.
The only thing you must pay money for are the premium costumes & the CPT content. All modes (General Story, Trials, Demonstrations, Vs. CPU etc.) & balances changes are free, & you can earn everything else (which was made easier thanks to watching CPT streams & Missions).
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
No. Just my opinion.
I'm having more fun with ARMS and what's in it's launched state than I have with a lot of other games that launched at the same price. The best part about it? Playing multiplayer with my 8 year old daughter. Not doing that with Street Fighter V.
We are having a blast and aren't worried about what's "not" in the game and are having fun with what's "in" the game. She's already excited at the idea of Max Brass being playable in the near future. More so, she wants to hopefully be able to play as Hedlok, on Twintelle's body, lol.
I'm having more fun with ARMS and what's in it's launched state than I have with a lot of other games that launched at the same price. The best part about it? Playing multiplayer with my 8 year old daughter. Not doing that with Street Fighter V.
We are having a blast and aren't worried about what's "not" in the game and are having fun with what's "in" the game. She's already excited at the idea of Max Brass being playable in the near future. More so, she wants to hopefully be able to play as Hedlok, on Twintelle's body, lol.
spazchicken
Member
If a person is a fair and unbiased person, they will hold ARMS to the exact same standard as Street Fighter V and every other fighting game.
DecoReturns
Member
I can't recall but wasn't the online for SFV poor at launch?
KZXcellent
Member
I got 4 matches over the course of a weekend. It was a garbage fire.
It didn't work at all for like 2 days.
ARMs is a no-budget garage game for Nintendo. There is nothing risky about it.
Creative is maybe a better word for it.
I don't think Nintendo's shareholders would like that idea
Bobo Dakes
Member
But seriously, stop saying "content", actually explain what you want. That word is pretty useless here.
It's a business decision.
....you really can't see that?
if Splatoon is delayed until it's "done", it launches maybe Holiday 2015 or slips into 2016.
The Wii U was basically a ticking bomb in terms of losing active userbase. If Splatoon releases in 2016, no way it sells ~5 million copies. Who knows how well it does...
And that would push Splatoon 2 back as well if it followed suit. Instead of coming out in 1 month, it could be Splatoon 2 next year or worse.
And if Splatoon 1 doesn't sell, who knows how quickly a sequel is greenlit, if at all
Literally, the entire landscape of Nintendo's current first party changes. And the fortunes of Switch in Japan would be especially effed in comparison.
ARMs will do alright in Japan most likely, but nothing groundbreaking. Without a Splatoon 2, you're almost waiting for Mario.
The market has shown repeatedly that releasing games earlier and providing updates is not "punished" as it were.
can you see it now?
The servers got bodied & there weren't any lobbies at launch. The former was fixed a few days later (correct me if I'm wrong) & the latter was added when Alex dropped on March 2016 (one month later).
It's definitely lacking in content, however I do feel less screwed than with SFV as the content will be free and there's actually a couple of fun extra modes like V-Ball which is quite a surprise hit with me. :lol
All in all though, I had plenty of fun with SFV still and I expect to play ARMS just as much if not more, thanks to portability.
All in all though, I had plenty of fun with SFV still and I expect to play ARMS just as much if not more, thanks to portability.
Gravy Boat
Member
That's not how pricing works.
Sure. One differentiation is that online for ARMS is free (for now) whereas other games are through their respective online infrastructures, so I'm not completely bothered. As I don't sub to PS+ if I could ONLY play Grand Prix and training and local MP, I'd probably be pretty peeved.
I was definitely hesitant going in and am aware that the game is barebones but honestly it gives me more time to get affiliated with the characters.
I was definitely hesitant going in and am aware that the game is barebones but honestly it gives me more time to get affiliated with the characters.
I'm kinda on the same boat. Though in SFV's case, I was too busy playing locals to be concerned with the lack of Day 1 content, so I kinda dodged a bullet there. I'm curious to see how ARMS does competitively.
Again, which past Street Fighter game has "huge amounts of content"?
USF4 didn't have huge amounts of content and it was the accumulation of 5 years of DLC updates for SSF4.
Overwatch could be bought for $39.99 at launch on PC. It is the status quo of every single notable third party console game needing to be $59.99 that made it look lean compared to shooters that do campaign, co-op modes, and multiplayer. It also had very little direct competition upon release. Doom is amazing, but the multiplayer in that game never actually built a player base.
And the netcode is absolutely incredible considering that 99% of people are playing wireless
SF5 on PC has crossplay and online is free for that as well, so you can't really take that away from SF5.
belteshazzar
Member
It is not exactly the same scenario, because:
a) ARMS is a new IP.
b) Online has zero issues and works fantastic right off the gate, party lobby is actually kind of cool to look at (SF5 was barebones even on this front, its lobby sucked, connectivity issues up the wazoo).
c) It actually has some real alternate game modes. Even though they are really simple, they actually break the monotony of only doing battles (basketball, volleyball, the break the target thingy for multiplayer and to unlock Arms, 1 on 100, 2 v 2, 3 v 3)
d) ALL future content will be truly free (as much as people say everything is free on SFV it really isn't. You either need to spend ludicrous amount of time playing matches online to earn in-game currency to unlock stuff or you give Capcom all your hard earned shekels to get it, either by way of premium currency or multiple season passes).
e) It actually has an arcade mode
Now, is ARMS without fault? No, it is indeed lacking in the single player content area, and this is an epidemic of modern fighting games, whose main focus is the online/multiplayer component because e-sports/twitch. The glorious olden days of yore of Soul Calibur 2 Single Player awesomeness are behind us, but we pray they will return.
a) ARMS is a new IP.
b) Online has zero issues and works fantastic right off the gate, party lobby is actually kind of cool to look at (SF5 was barebones even on this front, its lobby sucked, connectivity issues up the wazoo).
c) It actually has some real alternate game modes. Even though they are really simple, they actually break the monotony of only doing battles (basketball, volleyball, the break the target thingy for multiplayer and to unlock Arms, 1 on 100, 2 v 2, 3 v 3)
d) ALL future content will be truly free (as much as people say everything is free on SFV it really isn't. You either need to spend ludicrous amount of time playing matches online to earn in-game currency to unlock stuff or you give Capcom all your hard earned shekels to get it, either by way of premium currency or multiple season passes).
e) It actually has an arcade mode
Now, is ARMS without fault? No, it is indeed lacking in the single player content area, and this is an epidemic of modern fighting games, whose main focus is the online/multiplayer component because e-sports/twitch. The glorious olden days of yore of Soul Calibur 2 Single Player awesomeness are behind us, but we pray they will return.
Online works great from what I've heard. Might be Bandai Namco's help since they're also in the credits for the game.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Nintendo watns ARMS to be an esport. We'll see how that goes.
Do people now have fun with it, or does its lack of content prevents people from having fun?
I don't think anything should be "shit on" by principle. Games can be more than the sum of its parts, not a collection of checklists. It's up to ARMS to prove the current offering is enough for most people.
I don't think anything should be "shit on" by principle. Games can be more than the sum of its parts, not a collection of checklists. It's up to ARMS to prove the current offering is enough for most people.
Pretty much just Alpha 3.
I'm judging from a console-only perspective as ARMS isn't available on PC.
eXistor
Member
The game is extremely bare-bones and definitely not worth 60 asit is now. The core game is good though and we'll see in a year if they can live up to the expectations. Personally I'm very much against this new trend of drip-feeding future content even if it is for free. By the time the game has enough content, my interest will very likely be waning or gone completely, just like with Splatoon.
KZXcellent
Member
And somehow it'll still have clone characters in it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll