Support NeoGAF

[PrimeBeef]

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.

Says who? I found NMS worth the $60 I spent on it at launch. Got my fill and have not checked it out since even with the updates. I found MGSV a waste of my $60, even though it is overflowing wirh stuff to do. I've played both SFV and ARMS and I find them both worth the $60 asking price.

To me value is in how much dun I have playing games. I would have gladly forked over $60 for Axiom Verge, yet thought the $20 I spent on Rain World was $20 too much in hindsight. For ARMS specifically, it has a single player and two player mode. That is all I need I a good fighting game. But that's me.

 

[Piscus]

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

easy solution: don't buy it until it has more of that crap released.

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

What people don't realize is that Arms was probably formulated/ pitched 18 months ago, or less, and made entirely in that time? They made the choice to give us what is basically the engine and 10 fighters and give more content later rather than holding off 6 months or a year and launching with more content. Nintendo games are evergreen. Just buy it when it has more stuff.


On the other hand, Capcom had SF5 probably in planning/dev for many years (didn't we see it in late 2014?) and it was still bungled. It also has 4 games its building on.

 

[Kawngi]

What's there is quite fun, but there's definitely not enough to warrant $60. I won't compare it to others though, just like looking at it on its own.

 

[A.J.]

Because part of the $60 is basically paying for the games season pass since you get free content updates.

 

[MrS]

Yep, and shit on Tekken 7 while you're at it. The lack of content in these games is a joke and they don't represent value for money. Tekken 7 shouldn't have fewer modes than TTT2 when it's been percolating for so long.

Either shit on all of them (ARMS, TEKKEN, SF V) or shit on none of them, cause low content fighting games are the new norm.

 

[SmokedMeat]

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.

Not true. Overwatch was a $60 game on every platform, with only PC users having the option of buying the $40 base game.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

Man, we need to take this further. Where the fuck are all the alternate modes in Power Stone, huh SEGA? Why didn't Incognito give us more minigames in War of the Monsters? Shooting tanks is fun and all but come on Atari, you should've launched with more vehicles/maps in Combat.

WE NEED ANSWERS, consumer riiiiiiiiiights~

 

[ScientificPizza]

SFV players had to put up with a lot of this



and a lot of this from the company's PR guys

Yeah SFV was BROKEN

They're not at all comparable

 

[QuixoticNeutral]

ARMS has a single player arcade mode type thing.

SFV doesn't.

ARMS wins.

This is what I came in here to say. This makes a world of difference as it's always been the baseline expectation for single-player in any home console fighting game. To launch without it is like shipping Mario Kart without a GP.

The way it is right now, Arms needs more out-of-game and quality-of-life features than more playable modes, which are plentiful if you click with the fundamentals of the game. Stats are missing, training could be more robust and configurable, lobby/friend/tournament features could be expanded, and tethered 2v2 sucks. But the actual playable content is in a good place. Hoops is fun, and both Arms Test and 1-on-100 are more interesting than they look on paper. I haven't taken the game online at all and I have more than enough to do.

 

[Wagram]

ARMS should most definitely not be a full priced game for sure.

 

[evil monkey]

One is a brand new game with promised free DLC on the way and the other is 1.5 year old game with fully priced season passes that doesn't feel much different from its Beta. You tell me.

 

[JusDoIt]

ARMS has arcade mode. I can enjoy it by myself. SF5 doesn't.

Why is enjoying it by yourself a measure of a competitive game's worth? You can't play Pong by yourself.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Man, we need to take this further. Where the fuck are all the alternate modes in Power Stone, huh SEGA? Why didn't Incognito give us more minigames in War of the Monsters? Shooting tanks is fun and all but come on Atari, you should've launched with more vehicles/maps in Combat.

WE NEED ANSWERS, consumer riiiiiiiiiights~

C'mon man, Power Stone was Capcom!

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

Complaints about ARMS being lacking in content at launch are justifiable, but the way SFV's launch/release was handled was arguably on a higher level of incompetence. Especially since unlike ARMS, SFV had to live up to a relatively high pedigree of quality its predecessors had set.

 

[Gravy Boat]

After reading this thread I decided to check out some gameplay and it does look really fun, but the guy I was watching (Just searched ARMS Gameplay and watched one of the first results) was such a bitch. Complaining about everything.

One is a brand new game with promised free DLC on the way and the other is 1.5 year old game with fully priced season passes that doesn't feel much different from its Beta. You tell me.

But is it 'free DLC' or is it the rest of the stuff that should have been in the game at launch?

 

[tenderbrew]

So far I think ARMs has been worth full price. The online alone seals it for me. But we'll see where we're at in a few months I guess?

 

[Chauzu]

ARMS should most definitely not be a full priced game for sure.

Personally I have put 185 hours in BotW and I will be putting a similair amount of time into ARMS easily, so it's worth for me that they are priced similairly. I'd loved if it was cheaper ofc, but same goes for all games.

 

[Sheroking]

Yeah SFV was BROKEN

They're not at all comparable

If the criticism of SFV was in, in any way, concentrated on it's network being the shits in it's first few days, you would have a point.

Why is enjoying it by yourself a measure of a competitive game's worth? You can't play Pong by yourself.

There are like 3 SP modes in SFV.

Arcade mode is literally just versus with the CPU 10 straight times. I will never in my lifetime understand why people miss it so much. The car mini-game?

 

[LotusHD]

ARMS should most definitely not be a full priced game for sure.

I dunno, there's a difference between "I'll just wait for this game to get cheaper or else I won't bother" and "It does not "deserve" to be $60 because reasons"

 

[ScientificPizza]

Why is enjoying it by yourself a measure of a competitive game's worth? You can't play Pong by yourself.

Something to fall back on if the servers or your internet is down

It's also a way to grasp the concepts of the game without having to immediately jump online with experienced players

Also it's fun

 

[NotLiquid]

Yep, and shit on Tekken 7 while you're at it. The lack of content in these games is a joke and they don't represent value for money. Tekken 7 shouldn't have fewer modes than TTT2 when it's been percolating for so long.

Either shit on all of them (ARMS, TEKKEN, SF V) or shit on none of them, cause low content fighting games are the new norm.

Games don't exist in a vacuum. That's why "should ARMS be criticized as much as SFV" is a disingenuous comparison. They both lack content, but the severity of that content, why they lack content and how much that impacts the games is wholly different. I will criticize ARMS for not being able to fully compartmentalize it's offerings but that doesn't mean it's anywhere near the amount of disdain I'll level at SFV for how it screwed the pooch.

 

[Gleethor]

One game isn't trying to sell you a season pass day 1 and that makes a big difference.

 

[tenderbrew]

But is it 'free DLC' or is it the rest of the stuff that should have been in the game at launch?

Isn't the distinction arbitrary? Who's to say what "should have" been there. Such a weird way to word things. I get wanting more content, but this is really off-putting.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

New IP with free updates vs. 25 year old IP with paid DLC and declining visual quality...hmm

Hmm

 

[MisterR]

Free updates are bullshit now?

Certainly are when they should have been in the game that shipped. Can you pay for arms in installments? If so, then that's fair.

 

[evil monkey]

But is it 'free DLC' or is it the rest of the stuff that should have been in the game at launch?

We can argue that the base game should have had more but we had a whole Direct outlining all the modes and fighters that will be there day 1, so I'm not really seeing the problem. Capcom on the other hand, repeatedly told people that the 'beta' was just that and all the issues would soon be fixed, but here we are 2 seasons later and it has yet to happen for the most part. This is a night and day comparison.

 

[ksamedi]

Worth the full 60 for me. Great new style of fighting game. I am eagerly awaiting the updates, but Im having a blast while doing so. Game value for me is the amount of fun im having with games, not the amount of content. Bad content is not worth anything at all, even if there is loads of it. Nobody pays to get bored. Good quality content is most important to me.

 

[JusDoIt]

If the criticism of SFV was in, in any way, concentrated on it's network being the shits in it's first few days, you would have a point.



There are like 3 SP modes in SFV.

Arcade mode is literally just versus with the CPU 10 straight times. I will never in my lifetime understand why people miss it so much. The car mini-game?

I'm with you. Breaking cars, bricks, and barrels with dragon punches is fun, but it ain't THAT fun.

 

[nynt9]

New IP with free updates vs. 25 year old IP with paid DLC and declining visual quality...hmm

Hmm

Ok then, compare it to For Honor. New IP with free updates plus a single player campaign.

 

[Vampirolol]

Nintendo game

so yes, but it wont happen

Wow. I guess that the world is biased and loves Nintendo, as demonstrated by the huge success of games like Star Fox Zero, Federation Force, Codename STEAM, Chibi Robo whatever and every Mario Party since 2006! Games that both GAF and critics loved because they are part of a conspiration made by Nintendo fans, or maybe they all live in a bubble, or are they just stupid? All I know is that no one ever complains about Nintendo games, especially on GAF.

I mean dude, if Nintendo games had a special treatment this thread wouldn't even exist. Lots of people are complaining about the game on Gaf. What are we even talking about?

 

[Deputy Moonman]

I don't mind less content at launch if there is promised free content to come. First off, it means the game comes out sooner, which is a big plus. Second, the delayed content feels like it refreshes the game after already being out for a while. A lot of people were angry about Halo 5 missing content at launch and that is fair, but the content did come in the end which is all that really matters to me. Now promised content that never comes is BS.

 

[exfatal]

Street fighter 5 at launch
characters = 16
Stages= 11

Spoiler

could be mistaken

Modes= Vs, Practice, Survival, Online, prelude story
DLC= Free* Can buy with fight money earned in game or bought includes Stages, costumes, characters,

Arms
Characters= 10 Characters/ Each character has a set of Arms to unlock to mix and match.
Stages= 11
Modes= Vs(1on1, 2on2, 4 for all), practice, Arcade, Skill Shot, Volley Ball, Hoops, (Arms Gatcha), Online( 3 v boss)
DLC= All free no in game currency to include More Arms, Characters, Stages, Modes(spectator)

Anyways if you compare Arms still seems to delivery a bit more content then SF5 does at launch, also its been said sf5 has a legacy to live up too, while Arms is a new IP.

Also considering the DLC. Not everyone has the time to grind out fight money just to get that 1 character they want, and god forbid they'd want to get a few costumes or stages to go with said character. Too say SF5 DLC is free is to say your time isn't worth anything.

Arms might be a hard sell at 60$ especially here in Canada where that will be bumped up to 70$. But its no SF5 levels of bs imo, like wasn't it missing the damn cash shop at the beginning?

 

[Gravy Boat]

Isn't the distinction arbitrary? Who's to say what "should have" been there. Such a weird way to word things. I get wanting more content, but this is really off-putting.

Well if the main criticism is a lack of content on release, which in the case of ARMS it is from what I seen (Agree with it or not, that's the main complaint people have about this game) then the promise of more content coming later isn't really worth much. Which is why it's a pointless argument, especially since most people rarely stick with competitive multiplayer games for more than a few weeks.

That said I don't care about content when it comes to competitive multiplayer games, I care about depth. Rocket League is extremely light on content, yet is one of my favourite games of all time and easily my game of the generation so far. The skill ceiling is incredibly high. If I were to enter a weird dimension where Rocket League was about to launch for £100 and I knew that I would get as much time and enjoyment out of it as I have currently, I'd pay that in a heartbeat. I don't think ARMS has the depth of something like Rocket League, so that would be my main complaint. That's a complaint that could be offset to an extent with more content (MW2 being another lifetime favourite of mine due to the sheer variety of stuff to unlock and the endless amount of playstyles it allowed) but ultimately when it comes to multiplayer competitive games, replay ability comes from skill ceiling and not 'content'. For me at least.

You think both games had the same amount of time/resources put into them?

How many worked on ARMS vs. For Honor?

Excuses like this are bad though. It's not my responsibility as a consumer to take development time into account when making a purchase. The game is worth it or not, development time is irrelevant when someone is trying to sell me a product. These are the posts that spawn 'Nintendo gets a pass' nonsense.

 

[JusDoIt]

Street fighter 5 at launch
characters = 15

16.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Ok then, compare it to For Honor. New IP with free updates plus a single player campaign.

You think both games had the same amount of time/resources put into them?

How many worked on ARMS vs. For Honor?

 

[PataHikari]

I don't get what content is missing?

It has a basic arcade mode where you play against the AI, then the multiplayer modes which are obviously the bulk of the game's focus.

 

[fernoca]

While my main thing against SFV is around the fight money, the complaint of many about the lack of content is compared to its predecesors.

Not that people expected as many characters as in UltraSFIV, but at least as many as Super. Then the lack of other stuff

ARMS might get a pass by many because it is a first entry.

You bet that if Nintendo released a Smash game with less characters than Brawl, people would've complained.

Doesn't mean the price is ideal, just that the circumnstances are different. If anything, ARMS is closer to Overwatch. And that one costed more on consoles and also recquires Xbox Live/Plus.

 

[Celine]

Wow. I guess that the world is biased and loves Nintendo, as demonstrated by the huge success of games like Star Fox Zero, Federation Force, Codename STEAM, Chibi Robo whatever and every Mario Party since 2006! Games that both GAF and critics loved because they are part of a conspiration made by Nintendo fans, or maybe they all live in a bubble, or are they just stupid? All I know is that no one ever complains about Nintendo games, especially on GAF.

Mario Party games since 2006 had good sales actually.

 

[nynt9]

You think both games had the same amount of time/resources put into them?

How many worked on ARMS vs. For Honor?

And how is that the consumer's problem? They're both sold for $60.

 

[exfatal]

16.

oh i'll fix that thanks.. last thing i want is for someone to only focus on that 1 part and disregard the entire point of the post.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Here's my personal take. In general, I don't think it's up to me to decide for other people what they should or shouldn't buy. I bought ARMS at full price at launch and bought Street Fighter V for something like 25% off at GMG on PC. So it's not like I feel particularly ripped off about either.

Having said that, I personally feel like something like ARMS has a bit more of an excuse to skimp on content at launch just because it's something more unique and novel. Mind you, this isn't me saying that it's a better game mechanically at all. Just that it's doing something pretty different than other games on the market. It definitely needs post release content updates, but I can sort of be a little lenient in letting them try to learn while they're doing this in terms of trying to figure out what works and what doesn't work. Basically, I'm slightly more forgiving because I feel like it's new in terms of it being sort of pseudo Early Access.

With Street Fighter V I was never particularly outraged that they were ripping me off, but I did just find the state it was released in kind of baffling. I get that there was an engine learning curve at play, but I just couldn't believe that the fifth mainline entry in this once flagship series (and something like the thousandth release if I can exaggerate just a little if you count other release variants and spinoffs) was missing just absolutely basic features. Everything about the presentation that wasn't directly related to the in-game fighting mechanics was just absolute amateur hour. No arcade mode. Certain aspects of the lobbies weren't ready. I think there were issues with the store. The cinematic story mode wasn't ready for months. This just isn't what you expect from a sequel.

But again, this isn't meant to come across as an attempt to shit on Street Fighter V or cry foul that people need to LEAVE ARMS ALONE!!!!!! ARMS is sitting at a pretty middling 77% Metacritic. Same score as Street Fighter V currently. That's probably about right.

 

[Jonneh3003]

Online not working properly with SFV was no small detail, it was pretty much the only way to play the game if you didn't have a friend around.

 

[evil monkey]

There are like 3 SP modes in SFV.

Arcade mode is literally just versus with the CPU 10 straight times. I will never in my lifetime understand why people miss it so much. The car mini-game?

A fighter not having arcade mode is like a shooter not having a campaign. It may not be the most important thing but it gives you the perfect opportunity to try out the entire cast to figure out your main, matchups, etc. The absence of an original boss character like Gill and Seth was also hard to ignore.

And among those modes was one where you had to play 100 matches per character just to unlock colors, something that you got in vanilla and Super SFIV for literally just playing the game. And the story mode was/is so short you can hardly call it that.

 

[Camjo-Z]

ARMS is not even close to SFV.

For one, ARMS actually has good working online at launch. I couldn't manage to get into an SFV lobby to play with a friend for ages, and even playing with randoms required 5+ minute wait times between matches for at least a week.

Secondly, ARMS' single player is barebones but at least has a standard Arcade mode that gives you currency after every fight + allows you to save and quit for quick sessions. SFV only had the boring Prologues and the shitty Survival mode that was a complete waste of time if you didn't manage to beat every stage in one go, made worse by the fact that you could get screwed over by the random item choice at the end of each round.

And lastly, ARMS' updates are all entirely free, whereas SFV had some free content like the Story Mode and then a ton of stuff that you either had to pony up the cash for or buy with Fight Money, and there's literally no way you'd unlock everything in the game without putting some real money down unless you're a fighting game savant who plays SFV 24/7.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Ok then, compare it to For Honor. New IP with free updates plus a single player campaign.

Haven't played so can't make an informed comparison.

This is all predicated on extremely arbitrary and subjective definitions of value anyway. I'm sure some people feel SFV was worth 60 at launch too.

I feel like the bulk of these complaints come from being cheap lol

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

And how is that the consumer's problem? They're both sold for $60.

It's not the consumers problem. It's up to the consumer to decide what they "think" is worth $60. I would say ARMS is a better value than For Honor, to me. Especially when I factor in how much time and fun I will have playing with my wife and daughter. Both who would look at For Honor and want to go back to Arms.

 

[Sapientas]

Ok then, compare it to For Honor. New IP with free updates plus a single player campaign.

Not what the topic is about really, but For Honor still had paid micro transactions despite the free updates.
Along with that you can't compare the polish with Arms or SFV and I found, personally, the gameplay to be very unbalanced.

 

[Vampirolol]

Mario Party games since 2006 had good sales actually.

Yes but they got a huge amount of shit everywhere. The thing is, less people care about Nintendo games, especially new IP's so of course you won't see a giant backlash for their games. Still, when they make a real shit you can still see that little amount of people (compared to Sony and Microsoft fans) raging in game forums.

 

[QuixoticNeutral]

Arcade mode is literally just versus with the CPU 10 straight times. I will never in my lifetime understand why people miss it so much. The car mini-game?

It provides a standardized context for "beating" the game with every character on a given difficulty, proving that you have the consistency with the given move set to do it. There is an arc to the experience that resembles a personal story or an endurance run through a roguelike. If you look at standard-setting IPs like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, there is a whole bunch of nonsense-plot lore, but it all boils down to every character entering a tournament with a particular motivation going in and a satisfying victory denouement coming out. The standard "play the CPU n times" format packages the experience and provides a contextual hook for the game: you yourself are pushing through a tournament (with as few continues as you can manage).

There is a reason why this kind of content, as minor a variation on versus mode as it is, has always been widely perceived as sufficient to be the meat and potatoes of a single-player campaign. It's how a fighting game delivers its concept and its world. It's literally the only thing that distinguishes a character like Bison/Dictator as a boss.