Should ARMS be shit on just as hard as SFV?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
Blizzard is not Capcom.
Blizzard could've launched Overwatch with 4 characters (1 per class) and 1 Map and people still would've praised it.
Gravy Boat
Member
I'd assume that he/she lives in Europe.
Splatoon 1+2 was/is $60.
I love ths casual shitposting of people acting like the game scored 90+ on MC and it's being regarder as the second coming of christ
Splatoon was 40 in Europe.
Splatoon 1+2 was/is $60.
polyh3dron
Banned
ARMS has a single player arcade mode type thing.
SFV doesn't.
ARMS wins.
SFV doesn't.
ARMS wins.
Well there ya go, it also apparently has non-horrendous netcode unlike SFV.
Add actual free characters instead of "whoops you didn't play enough online or grind out enough of our boring, shallow single player modes" and a patching process that presumably won't knock the online mode out for multiple hours, and you have what resembles an actual functioning game.
tenderbrew
Member
Why are people saying Splatoon was cheaper? I had to just check my Amazon history to make sure, but sure enough I paid $60 MSRP for it.
bobbychalkers
Member
Ones a new IP with free updates for its entire lifetime. The other is a storied IP that didn't launch with even the most basic of modes with paid updates. Not surprised that Arms has less fan backlash
Gravy Boat
Member
Are all new SF characters unlocked and ready to use by everyone as soon as they're released? Or do I need to pay for them using either in game currency or real money?
The loot boxes in OW are entirely ignorable.
ARMS could've done better with their SP content/Grand Prix, but it feels weird to compare it to Splatoon, a shooter. Like hell yea a shooter better have a decent campaign/story mode, as that is the norm, as there is more one can do there. Whereas for fighting games, not so much, and even when they do give you a decent one, it likely won't last as long as what the first Splatoon gave people.
Elfforkusu
Member
Did people shit on SFV for lack of content, or microtransactions?
(i mean, the answer is both. But ARMS only shares one of these things in common...)
My single biggest request for ARMS isn't more SP content, FWIW. I want 3v3.
(i mean, the answer is both. But ARMS only shares one of these things in common...)
My single biggest request for ARMS isn't more SP content, FWIW. I want 3v3.
Serenitynow
Member
This ARMS backlash is really surprising to me. I'm completely satisfied with it and think it's totally worth $60. Just like Splatoon was. I'm probably having even more fun with ARMS.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Of course it should, but it's Nintendo so it won't.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
oh ok i'll start being an asshole about ARMS then
Hard to say as I don't have a Switch and don't know how ARMS works online, but SFV is a sequel and featured way less stuff than USF4 regarding modes (it'd be silly to expect more characters than USF4), so for that reason alone I believe SFV deserves the harsh criticism it had.
The updates themselves (modes, balance changes, etc.) are 100% free. You only have to earn/pay for the characters, stages, & costumes.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
We just have to wait 2 years for a 10 % discount against 100 gold coin on MyNintendo.
/s
I will buy it next month, look awesome even if it look limited contentwise like you said op.
/s
I will buy it next month, look awesome even if it look limited contentwise like you said op.
Look, if you as a consumer favor single player focused games and feel those are worth your money then that's cool. If other people prefer multiplayer focused games that they invest high amounts of time into and feel said investment is worth their money then that is cool too.
Neither aproach is objectively better, multiplayer games are not worth less all around, nor do they cost less to make than a single player experience.
Neither aproach is objectively better, multiplayer games are not worth less all around, nor do they cost less to make than a single player experience.
Again, are we just gonna ignore the reviews/MC score/impressions, or...
DecoReturns
Member
I feel some are more upset that ARMS is getting constructive criticism rather then getting Shit on, which is a difference. Like you want yelling for how "bare bone" ARMS is
Sure, but you realize the in-game currency takes like nothing to get, right?
How much are OW players spending on crap loot?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Seems like I've been noticing a lot of talk that Arms is priced too high for the content that's been delivered day one. While a lot of Nintendo fans will give this a free pass, I feel that Arms deserves the same criticism as any other game that's delivered in a state that's incomplete. There's a difference between free updates that enhance an already complete product, and free updates that slowly bring a game up to the standards were used to getting in similar games.
I'm interested in Arms, but what I'm not interested in is dropping $60 on a game that's a work in progress. There's way too many other titles, rich with content vying for my money.
I'm interested in Arms, but what I'm not interested in is dropping $60 on a game that's a work in progress. There's way too many other titles, rich with content vying for my money.
OrbitalBeard
Member
There's really not much of a backlash. If you want to see a backlash, go to Amazon and read early SFV customer reviews. There's a reason it took nine months for that game to sell an additional 100k copies post-launch.
Peotical Injection
Member
I'm loving it. It reminds me Overwatch. Some games don't need a story mode, this is one of those games. Is it overpriced? Sure. It should have more modes, and fighters. The game is allot of fun.
Gravy Boat
Member
Most aren't spending a penny and are just enjoying the free updates.
But at least you conceded that they're not the same release models in the slightest.
Aside from the lack of a really "meaty" single player mode like Splatoon has, the only reason I theorize it isn't taking off for a lot of people is because there is an inherently higher skill floor compared to Splatoon which had a great way of making every player feel proactive even if they weren't great at the game. Me personally I think the game is worth every penny I put into it but if the game doesn't click for people then I can see why they want more modes or elements to it that may feel like they cater more to a "pleasant experience" as opposed to a competitive aspect of it.
Arms is new. SFV is supposed to take the SF series to the next level following a game that revived the series and put fighters on the map again. But it went more like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoBm29LVQBg
As I explain in my post that you clearly didnt read:
Ignoring all gameplay considerations, Overwatch exists in a genre where the market is ok with shooters that skimp on single player content. That hasn't been the case for the fighting game genre for a long while now.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
It's not incomplete.
The free DLC is going to add stuff like arenas and characters and new ARMS in all likelihood.
Nothing dramatic like some singleplayer story mode.
Saint Gregory
Member
I was typing up a response but then deleted it because you coverred all the bases.
ARMS, like Splatoon, deserves as much criticism as can be heaped on it at launch. I really don't care for this kind of release model even though it worked brilliantly with Splatoon.
SFV is on a whole 'nother level in terms of being barebones and feature free though. It's probably the best in the series from a fighting engine standpoint but the least played SF in my gaming career due to how little there is to do aside from online matches/local matches.
More modes would be neat, like a Soccer or Football mode or something to make Party Matches even more fun. Character-wise I'm a bit more lax due to the free DLC, as well as the fact that saying it's not strictly just the 10 characters to play around with due to all the ARMS setups one has access to.
The double standard exists, but that don't mean I can't call it out.
SanguineShark
Member
People like to bring up Overwatch when stating how unfairly Arms is being treated in comparison, but I think the diverse nature of the 21 characters available at launch with Overwatch, along with a decent amount of maps (only two more than arms, but it's still more), made consumers forget about the lack of real modes.
People tend to care about characters and maps than game modes, so it got a pass from most consumers. Not to mention the massive amount of honestly, deserved hype.
I really don't think so. Like I said, it had a good amount of characters for a new IP and just the right amount of maps to tide people over until new updates.
People tend to care about characters and maps than game modes, so it got a pass from most consumers. Not to mention the massive amount of honestly, deserved hype.
I really don't think so. Like I said, it had a good amount of characters for a new IP and just the right amount of maps to tide people over until new updates.
These "Nintendo pass" posts always crack me up. Pay attention and grow some self awareness while at it.
Haven't played Arms yet, but from what I've seen here it's definitely getting similar opinions, just like Splatoon did.
It's weird though cause GAF was mostly positive in the thread where Nintendo announced that they were going for the quick free updates model.
Haven't played Arms yet, but from what I've seen here it's definitely getting similar opinions, just like Splatoon did.
It's weird though cause GAF was mostly positive in the thread where Nintendo announced that they were going for the quick free updates model.
Serenitynow
Member
Or I could just read the "ARMS debuts at No. 2 in the U.K." thread. It seems some people on GAF really have it out for this game. Anyways, it doesn't matter. I'm pretty confident it's going to be a sales success.
Dark Ninja
Member
In modes!? It was and still is. The arena modes barely work with the games mechanics they have. All story is taking place outside of the game in youtube videos and comics. It was ok on the Heroes front.
franklyshankly
Member
Splatoon was cheaper in EU.
Overwatch was also a 40 dollar game. If Arms was 40 dollars everywhere I doubt there would be as much concern about the content amount.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I mean, GAF backlash is a different thing altogether. There's a subset of users on this forum that react negatively to everything. Just ignore them.
That being said, there are genuine issues with ARMS that should be criticized, despite being a great game in many ways.
Free updates can often feel like a compromise that was made to get the game out as early as possible so it can start earning.
On the other hand, free updates keep the playerbase up (if the game is good) and keeps the meta fresh.
ScientificPizza
Banned
ARMS fulfilled its promises SFV didn't
You can definitely complain about the lack of content in ARMS, but it is not anywhere near comparable to the mess that was SFV
You can definitely complain about the lack of content in ARMS, but it is not anywhere near comparable to the mess that was SFV
goldenpp72
Member
No, one is a new ip that is a total reinvention of the concept, with promised free content in the future. Another is an established series since the 90s. SF would be more comparable to say, a Smash bros. title, and in that context SF is a huge failure in comparison.
SFV didn't exactly reinvent the wheel, it is in many ways a giant step backwards compared to the recent SF releases. If Arms 2 hit and was much bigger, then 3 gutted it and tweaked some mechanics i'm sure most would be livid.
SFV didn't exactly reinvent the wheel, it is in many ways a giant step backwards compared to the recent SF releases. If Arms 2 hit and was much bigger, then 3 gutted it and tweaked some mechanics i'm sure most would be livid.
SanguineShark
Member
Completely forgot about For Honor, good point! It had a singleplayer campaign (perhaps not a great one but hey it's there and it's OKAY). It also has more characters.
Arms would have generated a lot more hype with just a bit more content.
Disagree.
- Both have very polished gameplay at launch, which is meant to be the driving factor.
If you isolate the gameplay of SF5, as that was the only thing that was polished about SF5 at launch. SF5 was buggy and ugly everywhere else and was nearly or actually unplayable online.
The Steam version STILL doesn't have arcade stick support.
ARMS has polish everywhere, a creative and fun multiplayer lobby system and a serious ranked lobby system.
- Both have shit all for modes and content surrounding that gameplay at launch.
Disagree. Arms has a full singleplayer mode, with unique content and dialogue for all characters. 1, 2, 3, and 4 player modes for local and online. 4 minigames, multiple practice modes. 20+ different Arms to unlock for all characters etc.
- Both have features that are expected in games like these not available in the game.
Like what? Read above: Arms has a full singleplayer mode. 1, 2, 3, and 4 player modes for local and online. 4 minigames, multiple practice modes etc All of it polished.
- Both have promised free updates that will make the game "more complete" over time.
And ARMS updates are completely free, where the players get new characters, modes and stages regardless of how much in game currency you've earned.
- Both have very polished gameplay at launch, which is meant to be the driving factor.
If you isolate the gameplay of SF5, as that was the only thing that was polished about SF5 at launch. SF5 was buggy and ugly everywhere else and was nearly or actually unplayable online.
The Steam version STILL doesn't have arcade stick support.
ARMS has polish everywhere, a creative and fun multiplayer lobby system and a serious ranked lobby system.
- Both have shit all for modes and content surrounding that gameplay at launch.
Disagree. Arms has a full singleplayer mode, with unique content and dialogue for all characters. 1, 2, 3, and 4 player modes for local and online. 4 minigames, multiple practice modes. 20+ different Arms to unlock for all characters etc.
- Both have features that are expected in games like these not available in the game.
Like what? Read above: Arms has a full singleplayer mode. 1, 2, 3, and 4 player modes for local and online. 4 minigames, multiple practice modes etc All of it polished.
- Both have promised free updates that will make the game "more complete" over time.
And ARMS updates are completely free, where the players get new characters, modes and stages regardless of how much in game currency you've earned.
A Twisty Fluken
Member
ARMS has arcade mode. I can enjoy it by myself. SF5 doesn't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll