.
ARMS looks awesome and makes me excited about the switch but I agree with OP as well. There are some similarities.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I played ARMS back in 1996 but it was on PS1 and it was a game called Robo Pit
- Thread starter FloatOn
- Start date
ARMS looks awesome and makes me excited about the switch but I agree with OP as well. There are some similarities.
UnemployedVillain
Member
EL OH EL. I doubt the developers have even heard of this game, let alone watched any gameplay of it or played it. They've literally said their inspirations are Virtual On and Gundam Vs. Not to mention the only thing this shares in common is vs combat in a 3D arena.
But of course, it's easier for some people to start talking nonsense about overly defensive Nintendo fans, because that's easier than admitting that 2 games being in 3D doesn't mean the earlier one inspired the later one
This is a good post and one of the first to differentiate instead of hate. I think the video he linked to had a more similar first map. A lot of circling and not as much as hiding.
I find it super interesting that ARMS didn't follow a robot theme given it has changeable weapons. Classic Nintendo to differentiate with theme and then lean into it and make lovely lore.
The post had it's facts wrong. You control everything yourself, nothing is automated.
I refuse to believe you actually think Arms was influenced by this game.
It's not "automated" but as far as I know the camera is always locked to the other player which heavily restricts your movement in comparison to most other third-person vs. games, which is probably what he was getting at.
The camera being locked behind your character in absolutely no way has any relation to the game being "automated."
That's not what I said--the distinction isn't that the camera is positioned behind your character, it's that both characters are essentially facing/z-targeting each other at all times with no way to de-lock, meaning you can't move out of your opponents' field of view, you can't approach them from different angles, etc which is a very obvious point of differentiation from something like Robo Pit where the focus is clearly on free and controlled movement.
I'm not defending the use of the word "automated", I'm just trying to infer meaning from his statement. I don't think it's that confusing or that he was being dismissive.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
you do realise a character can teleport right and that it goes up to 4 player free for all meaning you can battle up to 3 other players.
Your characters are still locked into moving in an arc around the opponent and in 2v2 you're literally tethered to your partner--it's immediately simpler and less demanding than something like Virtual On and completely different to something like Robo Pit, which was the dude's point.
I don't understand why this is so contentious; "simple" is not a pejorative term.
Literally not true. You can rush down or play from a distance, all with the joycons. You are never locked into anything. The 2v2 mode tether is just to add another layer of strategy, but you're still not locked into anything. You're making things up to fit a point.
Dude, I've played Robo Pit in 1995. It was called Virtual On.
Com Truise
Member
There is no free movement in Arms. Or maybe there is and all the gameplay footage is misleading but I certainly haven't seen anybody running around in the arena, turning away from the enemy or punch someone in the back.
CJY
Banned
That's nothing. I played Uncharted back when it was called Pitfall!
Edit: Beaten
Pffft, and who needs table tennis when you've got Pong? Lol
I didn't mean to suggest the characters can't close in on each other, that much is plainly obvious.
Explain to me what you think my point is; you seem very defensive about something that is in no way meant as an attack on Arms.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Now I'm curious.
How do you choose who to punch in 2v2 or vs byte and barq?
Gameplay seems to suggest constant z targeting in 1 v1
When playing 2v2 the camera seems to auto-target whoever's closest to the center of your view; I'm not sure if you can manually curve your punches to hit the other opponent or if you can only hit the character you're targeting, I'll have to go back and watch the footage.
I don't think you can directly target Barq; he shifts from left to right in front of Byte and runs underneath when he jumps, so I think the idea is to just lead your shots or curve them so that Barq runs into them rather than directly aiming for him.
So because they're always looking at the other player there's no free movement? Don't know if it's possible to "run" but you can walk freely around the arena (facing the enemy) and aim your punches how you see fit. Since you're always facing them, its easier to hit them since they're always in your FOV, but this doesn't make the movement automated or locked. It's why you'll see fights between beginners are slower with less movement, since they're unfamiliar with the game and how the systems work together
"Defensive" when all your claims are in bad faith about how the game works. You literally move by tilting the joycons. The only thing truly limited is the arena you're in. I don't get the need for clarification over where they can move to, you can explore the space despite always looking towards your opponent so the only space you can't occupy is the one they're in. You could say it simplifies the controls so newcomers aren't fumbling with a lock on, especially after the shitshow that BotW calls a camera, but this doesn't limit the players options. 2v2 will be interesting to see how it's handled, especially since the video suggests there is a lock on button, notice how the camera switches and fixes when the player is engaging the other teams.
I don't even see the benefits of facing your back towards the enemy.
That's nothing. I played Uncharted back when it was called Pitfall!
Edit: Beaten
had better gameplay too
::rimshot::
I played a ton of Robo-Pit back in the day and I loved it. Brings back memories. I went through the rankings 3 or 4 times and I think I still have all my saved data. Probably didn't age well so I'll just leave it alone.
I remember trying to play Robo Pit 2 and for some reason didn't like it as much.
I remember trying to play Robo Pit 2 and for some reason didn't like it as much.
stargateheaven
Member
it's like it's a PS1 game or something
As far as I know (ie I was told by someone who tried it out at a recent press event, I haven't touched 2v2 myself), 2v2 has an auto-locking camera that switches targets as opponents move across the center of the screen. (EDIT: Nintendo just tweeted about this today, you can change targets by pressing the top face button on the left joycon or up on the d-pad if you're using a controller.)
Nothing I said was in bad faith--I'm not trying to denigrate the game by explaining what is and isn't possible, I'm literally outlining how it works and how that makes it different from other games. You're always facing your opponent, the camera's always locked to your opponent, your movement is orbital with reference to the opponent's position; these are all important distinctions that make the game fundamentally different to ostensibly similar games like Gundam and Virtual On, let alone games like Robo Pit, and that's perfectly fine! The game doesn't need to play identically to any of those games to be fun and the movement systems are designed to work in tandem with the retractable arms and the motion-guided aiming so they make sense in the context of this game.
If you don't understand why these distinctions matter and don't want to talk about them beyond screaming "nu-uh don't be mean!" then, like, why are you even here?
I played CoD when it was called Front Line.
reminds of the "splatoon ripped off this unreleased xbox 360 game!" threads back before that game came out.
sixteen-bit
Member
haydee has that fetish on lock
Reminds me of the 200 times this has already been posted in this thread.
I think you are trying to make some distinctions that don't matter. First of all, in an arena game, literally any direction will be considered "orbital" around the other character the second youre not literally on the other character. If you watch the videos, the players can move anywhere that want at anytime. They may be "locked" to being in the other player's field of view but again, this doesn't decrease the players options. You're comparing games that allow both upclose melee and ranged versus a game that is literally about fighting from a distance, so getting directly in your opponents face is going to be less than optimal. On top of this, since the ARMS don't auto aim(remember the player is actively curving the arms during the punch), unless thats their specific function, the player is still doing all the work.
Please quote me saying this? I'm calling you out on things that are verifiable. Why is it when someone gets called out for making things up, they say the person who called them out is "defensive?" Maybe we just don't let bullshit fly? Like your claim that it's autolock on in 2v2.
We now know for a fact that the player manually changes targets, which you edited in your post today. You say you're not trying to denigrate the game, but you can't even wait to play it yourself to start making sweeping statements about how the game plays and how much "simpler" it is based on your statements.
It compensate with the number of times you posted passive-agressively like this in the thread.
You might want to google what "passive aggressive" means before using it.
Similar threads
- Poll