Should ARMS be shit on just as hard as SFV?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
No, every game needs to hold to the same standards of what "content" is, otherwise they better be super cheap.
Multiplayer games are naturally worth less than single player games since people will play them less than a single player focused game. /s
If Smash 5 remakes all of its assets from scratch, I'd hope that there won't be as much complaining. However, if Smash 5 reuses Smash 4 assets & only has 20 characters at launch, that's another story.
Gravy Boat
Member
By most it will, but you'll still had the sad die hards who defend it as a 'business decision'. I want to weep every time I see that used as an excuse anywhere.
Niceguydan8
Member
If people are willing to spend money on the game, is it really "greedy?" I think greedy is the wrong word for this sort of discussion.
Different traits like Twintelle's freezing or Ribbon Girl's triple jumps, some have super armor, some have better mobility, etc.
Like I said, assuming Smash 5 starts from scratch, you can't expect a large roster from a game starting from zero unless they had 5+ years to work on the game (& I mean main development, not planning).
I think SFV's biggest problem is that it tried to make combo input SO accessible to newcomers that it alienated its professional player base. It doesn't take as much skill to learn and so it's hard to know who is actually more skilled. This was a very, very core change to a formula that's been around for 30 years.
ARMS is a brand-new fighting game. While it's basically a party game (or at least more of a casual affair than Street Fighter), it's been designed that way from the start. Those are just the parameters set within the game itself and they haven't been changed or messed with.
Basically, people have things they expect from a long-running franchise. ARMS is brand-new and so people's expectations are different.
ARMS is a brand-new fighting game. While it's basically a party game (or at least more of a casual affair than Street Fighter), it's been designed that way from the start. Those are just the parameters set within the game itself and they haven't been changed or messed with.
Basically, people have things they expect from a long-running franchise. ARMS is brand-new and so people's expectations are different.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
or we could stop being whiner baby bitches about everything and not shit on either one
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
they all have different abilities like super armor, multiple jumps etc.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
The value of pricing is subjective. How does one gauge "fun" into pricing? My idea of what I think is "worth" $60 might not be what others do. Maybe I value fun gameplay as 95% of what is worthy of my money, vs. 5% of the amount of content in the game.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
SFV is a new entry to an established franchise that had single player content.
I'm comparing video games to video games.
Expel feces to your heart's content.
For the $60 asking price there are plenty of criticisms that could be fairly leveled against it and for the solely-singleplayer-minded it simply isn't worth it.
But you're also buying into something completely unique in both a market and genre saturated with sequels, revamps, remixes, et cetera and so on with barely anything beyond iterations on a formula.
Hell the game in this thread's title being directly compared is the 5th mainline entry alone. There have been something like 50 releases in total in that franchise.
For the $60 asking price there are plenty of criticisms that could be fairly leveled against it and for the solely-singleplayer-minded it simply isn't worth it.
But you're also buying into something completely unique in both a market and genre saturated with sequels, revamps, remixes, et cetera and so on with barely anything beyond iterations on a formula.
Hell the game in this thread's title being directly compared is the 5th mainline entry alone. There have been something like 50 releases in total in that franchise.
Gravy Boat
Member
Of course. Has nothing to do with the post I was responding to though.
He was talking the first release and the first release of SF IV was on arcades.
I didn't payed $60 playing on arcades because I couldn't. There's none over here.
Take Tekken 7 that was 2 years on the arcades before coming to the consoles. Even then, the amount of content for the release was lacking. Yet, I still have to hear the level of complain SF V got.
Arcades don't matter to you, it matters to me that I could play at the same time as everyone else in the world, not years later than North America or Japan.
I say + Season Pass because they include the characters, but any gameplay mode and balancing so far has been free. It's easy to forget that it seems.
Regarding characters:
SF IV Arcade launch with 19 characters, while SF V launched with 16.
SF IV console had 25 characters, while SF V + S1 has 21.
SSF IV console had 35, while SF V + S2 will have 27.
If it counts, by SSFIV we had 8 new characters for the series. So far in S2 of SF V we will have 9 new playable characters for the series.
tenderbrew
Member
Surprised anyone is saying Overwatch was light on content at release.
I haven't played ARMS, but here are some of SFV's problems if someone is wondering why people doesn't like it:
-Connection bars or country flags doesn't show up on lobbies
-Connection bars "work" on ranked/casual match, but 4/5 connection could be Finland-USA east coast and it's a lag show. Even the best connection 5/5 could be unplayable
-Training mode settings doesn't save
-Horrible Survival mode on single player
-Very bad lobby search options, working country flags doesn't help when you see the same 16 asian lobbies on every search
-Instead of fixing things Capcom released new $$$ DLC costumes
SFV is only game I started and tried playing 30 minutes, but couldn't find a good match so I have to quit and didn't even play. Overall I still played that 600h, so it's not comlete crap. Tekken 7 has it flaws but it won over me only with working connection bars and area search options, when I get the match connection is 95% solid.
-Connection bars or country flags doesn't show up on lobbies
-Connection bars "work" on ranked/casual match, but 4/5 connection could be Finland-USA east coast and it's a lag show. Even the best connection 5/5 could be unplayable
-Training mode settings doesn't save
-Horrible Survival mode on single player
-Very bad lobby search options, working country flags doesn't help when you see the same 16 asian lobbies on every search
-Instead of fixing things Capcom released new $$$ DLC costumes
SFV is only game I started and tried playing 30 minutes, but couldn't find a good match so I have to quit and didn't even play. Overall I still played that 600h, so it's not comlete crap. Tekken 7 has it flaws but it won over me only with working connection bars and area search options, when I get the match connection is 95% solid.
VendettaRed07
Member
Basically.
Imagine if the next Smash went back and only had an Sb64 level of content. It technically would have more stuff to do than "ARMS" but the outrage would be legendary due to what people expect from a new Smash
The Hermit
Member
Early access
No it doesn't deserve the same amount of shit.
1. It's an original game
2. It doesn't shit on newcomers
3. It actually has quite a few modes to keep it interesting
4. The update schedule is presumably laid out, arrives quickly and is free
It does deserve some shit though. The lack of singleplayer campaign is inexcusable, especially in light of Splatoon, which was also cheaper.
1. It's an original game
2. It doesn't shit on newcomers
3. It actually has quite a few modes to keep it interesting
4. The update schedule is presumably laid out, arrives quickly and is free
It does deserve some shit though. The lack of singleplayer campaign is inexcusable, especially in light of Splatoon, which was also cheaper.
AcademicSaucer
Member
I feel like ARMS is going for the Overwatch release model instead of the traditional fighting game model.
I think it makes sense to launch ARMS now with drip-fed content than to release it during the holidays so it can die when put up against Mario. I hope it doesn't become a trend but for some games I think it's very smart to keep players coming back with incremental (free) updates throughout the post-launch window.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Yes.
Grand Prix, yes.
DR2K
Banned
You mean the SFV model?
Each character has different properties regarding dodge, block, jump, there are also character with self healing, other are tanks wich absorb attacks without any stagger, other can charge in the air (twintelle)
There's actually quite the difference going from a character to the other
KZXcellent
Member
When it comes to modes/maps the game was pretty light (it's gotten better).
On the character front it launched with 21 distinct characters. Game never got boring for me so I didn't regret the $60 price tag on consoles. If it had close to half the roster then I'd have issues.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
They kind of are in the case the poster is describing.
There's a reason Nintendo feels obligated to give it away for free.
Splatoon was cheaper in EU/UK IIRC. It was full price in NA, the big shooter market.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Unless the developer misrepresented the amount of content in the game, there's nothing to be outraged about. Either buy the game or don't.
Twig and Berries
Member
Arms got the right amount of flack in reviews from what I saw. It hasn't gotten a "pass" at all.
B-but this is...
No, but for real this is what we're here for. To break down the successes and failures of different games. That's what literally every video game conversation on this site.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Yup, and it's got it's light charm to it.
There's no way in hell Smash 5 redoes its assets.
1) I don't believe the Switch is a generation greater in processing power than the Wii U, so I don't think the modest difference in hardware would benefit the game over reusing assets.
2) They definitely want a quick turnaround with a perceived "skipped generation" of consumers who didn't own the Wii U but want a Smash fix.
3) I'd hope they'd want the game earlier in the system's life cycle since Smash is an evergreen franchise and it would keep the install base satisfied.
I'm utterly convinced of Smash 4 Switch. It makes too much sense.
For SFV, you have to either earn or pay for the characters. Nintendo is just giving ARMS characters away without any effort on the player's part, though the Day 1 ARMS have to be earned (not sure about the DLC ARMS).
Which is the exact SFV model tbh.
Oh, except the actual DLC is characters and not egregious loot.
TheSkullPrince
Member
This is just my opinion; I'm having fun playing ARMS and I love its character designs and it's art style. I got bored of playing SFV in 30 minutes and aesthetically think it's an ugly game.
People can have the exact opposite sentiment, and that's ok.
People can have the exact opposite sentiment, and that's ok.
I feel the single player content of Arms does a better job of keeping me engaged. It's light, but at least there's a carrot on the stick (getting new arms) to make me keep playing. I can also just play a quick arcade game, which is not something I could do with SFV at launch.
In the end, SFV is probably the better game, though.
In the end, SFV is probably the better game, though.
Yeah, Smash 4 Deluxe makes way more sense than Smash 5.
KZXcellent
Member
The question is if this stuff is on disc. I remember with Splatoon that a lot of content early on was already done but they would release it over time to keep interest in the game and not "overwhelm" their players. I have problems with that. Also the game dictating what maps you were allowed to play when the game launched with so little made it even worse for me.
If this is new characters, maps, and modes that they are working on right now then I don't have a problem with it.
It's a dishonest comparison.
ARMS, currently, has 7 modes that are playable in a single player fashion, all of which offer unique twists/gimmicks that adapt the core mechanics and one which is local-exclusive, and at least features some kind of semblance of a progression system in the form of unlocking customization options. For what it's worth, it has a proper single player mode at launch, even if the focus is purely multi player. Releasing it at $60 might be a bit of a hard sell for some when several fighting games as of recent like Injustice try to put a bigger emphasis on a "cinematic" element which up 'til fairly recently wasn't exactly common place in the genre. Having said that the idea of releasing a mostly multiplayer tailored experience at a high price isn't exactly unheard of, nor is it something that I think ought to be necessarily condemned in principle. It depends on the way you balance the amount of content that can make up for it, and in this regard yeah - ARMS could use some more characters, some more levels and some more customization options to make it feel bigger. But as a debut title of a new concept, a new IP, I think it has a respectable level of content that would probably be perfect if only it was maybe $10 cheaper.
Street Fighter V on the other hand isn't even in the same realm of comparison. The fact that people are under the impression that it can even be compared to ARMS has me thinking people are sorely misremembering how unfathomably barebones Street Fighter V was at launch. Aside from Ranked/Player lobbies the only single player modes it had to offer was a character specific arcade mode that had cheap production values and could be beaten in 5 minutes, as well as an obligatory trial mode to attempt combos (late edit: survival mode was also a thing but still barebones). The game didn't even have a fucking vs CPU option at release. This was an established franchise that cut it's roster count significantly and compromised on it's supplementary material, and maybe it's lack of single player content wouldn't have been so bad if it at least offered some additional multiplayer modes to cover slack - which it didn't. And yes, it also has "post-launch DLC" like ARMS has promised, but for SFV it's not enough to simply give you free content - it gates the character releases behind in-game money that takes forever to grind in a way to encourage microtransactions. Despite the fact that this was a $60 game it was still way more optimal to pay for getting additional content on top of that, where-as if ARMS is anything like Splatoon, that content is likely just going to be given to you straight up without any nickel-and-diming. If you bought Street Fighter V for $60 at launch, quite frankly, you were ripped off, and I was one of those suckers who bought into it.
I don't think ARMS is a perfect release but there's at least some elements to it that make me think it's merely "could have been better" rather than the disaster shitshow that was SFV. It actually reminds me more of a case of Mario Kart 8 but under Splatoon's content formula. MK8 is a game that is often cited as "worth it in single player" but I never found myself agreeing with this rhetoric - the only reason I buy the idea that it's single player friendly is because the game is inherently a much easier game to get accustomed to and learn. Once you blaze through the Grand Prix cups you don't exactly have much to do on your own except Time Trials. Similarly I think ARMS kind of runs out of things to do in single player in a way but that the core of the game is enjoyable to keep it afloat - it's just that the core is a lot harder to grasp rather than something as easy to understand as Splatoon or MK8, which is going to prevent a lot of people from returning as often as they did here.
ARMS, currently, has 7 modes that are playable in a single player fashion, all of which offer unique twists/gimmicks that adapt the core mechanics and one which is local-exclusive, and at least features some kind of semblance of a progression system in the form of unlocking customization options. For what it's worth, it has a proper single player mode at launch, even if the focus is purely multi player. Releasing it at $60 might be a bit of a hard sell for some when several fighting games as of recent like Injustice try to put a bigger emphasis on a "cinematic" element which up 'til fairly recently wasn't exactly common place in the genre. Having said that the idea of releasing a mostly multiplayer tailored experience at a high price isn't exactly unheard of, nor is it something that I think ought to be necessarily condemned in principle. It depends on the way you balance the amount of content that can make up for it, and in this regard yeah - ARMS could use some more characters, some more levels and some more customization options to make it feel bigger. But as a debut title of a new concept, a new IP, I think it has a respectable level of content that would probably be perfect if only it was maybe $10 cheaper.
Street Fighter V on the other hand isn't even in the same realm of comparison. The fact that people are under the impression that it can even be compared to ARMS has me thinking people are sorely misremembering how unfathomably barebones Street Fighter V was at launch. Aside from Ranked/Player lobbies the only single player modes it had to offer was a character specific arcade mode that had cheap production values and could be beaten in 5 minutes, as well as an obligatory trial mode to attempt combos (late edit: survival mode was also a thing but still barebones). The game didn't even have a fucking vs CPU option at release. This was an established franchise that cut it's roster count significantly and compromised on it's supplementary material, and maybe it's lack of single player content wouldn't have been so bad if it at least offered some additional multiplayer modes to cover slack - which it didn't. And yes, it also has "post-launch DLC" like ARMS has promised, but for SFV it's not enough to simply give you free content - it gates the character releases behind in-game money that takes forever to grind in a way to encourage microtransactions. Despite the fact that this was a $60 game it was still way more optimal to pay for getting additional content on top of that, where-as if ARMS is anything like Splatoon, that content is likely just going to be given to you straight up without any nickel-and-diming. If you bought Street Fighter V for $60 at launch, quite frankly, you were ripped off, and I was one of those suckers who bought into it.
I don't think ARMS is a perfect release but there's at least some elements to it that make me think it's merely "could have been better" rather than the disaster shitshow that was SFV. It actually reminds me more of a case of Mario Kart 8 but under Splatoon's content formula. MK8 is a game that is often cited as "worth it in single player" but I never found myself agreeing with this rhetoric - the only reason I buy the idea that it's single player friendly is because the game is inherently a much easier game to get accustomed to and learn. Once you blaze through the Grand Prix cups you don't exactly have much to do on your own except Time Trials. Similarly I think ARMS kind of runs out of things to do in single player in a way but that the core of the game is enjoyable to keep it afloat - it's just that the core is a lot harder to grasp rather than something as easy to understand as Splatoon or MK8, which is going to prevent a lot of people from returning as often as they did here.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Good luck with trying to enjoy online by then. I bet the late entry will be staggering.
tenderbrew
Member
From a person who went through the Splatoon 1 and Street Fighter V content drips, I dunno, it doesn't really bother me. I like ARMs better than SFV because I'm ultimately very terrible at button-input-intensive fighting games and ARMs arena style is really endearing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll