Support NeoGAF

[Xater]

As expected. A really good core game with not enough meat on it's bones. I'll still get it and will probably have a lot of fun online, but I will still wish there was more there right from the get go.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I didn't get a chance to play through the testpunch since I kept getting disconnected. Reviews and price point are enough to convince me to pass for now. Hopefully there'll be some My Nintendo Switch discount in the future cause I still do eventually want to check it out.

 

[SanguineShark]

The reviews and critics for content are completely valid, and I agree with an above poster that a plan to release future DLC is not good enough.

A solid DLC plan should supplement content, not make-up for a barren launch.

 

[aBarreras]

ofc it changes all, you pretend like the overwhelming majority of people who played agrees game is complex enough which is simply a fantasy fact

just like saying is not complex enough is also a fantasy fact


i mean, opinions right?

 

[moeman]

saaaaaaalllllll-allllll-allllll-alllllt

saaaaaaalllllll-allllll-allllll-alllllt

sallllllllll-allllllllll-allllllt

salll-alll-allllt

Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Naaaaaaa

.....

Spoiler

I'll see myself out.

 

[Oersted]

In my opinion, that should be irrelevant for current reviews. I don't even think they should mention it.

I'm fine with future support being reflected or ignored by the review score.

Advocating they should not mention future support makes you sound petty.

 

[Rncewind]

I have done no such thing. I've simply stated that many of us have played the game and as such are able to form our own opinion of it.

then what has to do with anything that the counter argument to this game must be complex enough because of nintendo pr said so and people who dont acccept this are idiot? Well the last part is not important to argue against i guess lol

just like saying is not complex enough is also a fantasy fact


i mean, opinions right?

appreantly not becaus people claiming something otherwise are idiots, which was starting point of this discussion, but whatever i guess i should start glance over of this in certain threads to get a pass

 

[Zen_Arcade]

The proof is in the absurdly long media creates legs and social media trends. Splatoon was able to get a headline to remind people of the game every single week for the entire summer. That is what built the core userbase of the game.

Again, there are other games that don't drip feed out content and still have legs and get talked about within social media months after release. Other games have those player bases without ever needing a weekly headline about how they added more content to their lacking launch package.

Every plus you've listed also exists for companies who don't use the same method of release as Nintendo did for Splatoon.

 

[Alcotholic]

Since this game is reviewing well despite it being fairly bare makes me excited for ARMS2 and what they can do to fill it up more.

 

[Atheerios]

I think I will get it after it gets substantial content update and a lower price.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

Expected the games biggest criticism to be its lack of content.

 

[SgtCobra]

78 is a good score, but the idea of a game not being "good enough" if it doesn't score above 85 will not disappear I'm afraid.

 

[Astral Dog]

I didn't expect it to be better than Wonderful 101

 

[RoadHazard]

Seems like it's fun but thin on content, which is what I expected. After the testpunch I'm not sure if I think the base gameplay is enough for me to get this at full price.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Expected the games biggest criticism to be its lack of content.

Yup, and most reviews praise how fun it is to play.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

then what has to do with anything that the counter argument to this game must be complex enough because of nintendo pr said so and people who dont acccept this are idiot? Well the last part is not important to argue against i guess lol

I would never call anyone an idiot on this forum and I was not responding to that particular point. The user I replied to was, but I was addressing a comment he made, not the original post.

That being said, if I gave off the impression that I think someone who doesn't find depth in ARMS to be an idiot, I apologize, as that was never my intention.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I tried this during the test punch and I'm not really sure the game is for me based on what I played.

Saying that, I'm not really a fan of arena games or fighting games, so I'm not sure what I expected.

 

[TwistedFreeze]

Seems like it's fun but thin on content, which is what I expected. After the testpunch I'm not sure if I think the base gameplay is enough for me to get this at full price.

Yeah, if you're not super into what the game plays like right now and the content won't be there till, most likely, few months out, might be best to wait for a MyNintendo discount in the future or a sale at some point

 

[Hades Hotgun]

I would never call anyone an idiot on this forum and I was not responding to that particular point. The user I replied to was, but I was addressing a comment he made, not the original post.

edit: nevermind, situation was handled well.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

It's not a heaping pile of dog shit and it's not the fighting game to end all fighting games. Everyone panic.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

78 is ok. Just not $60 ok for me.

 

[TheMoon]

Nice job not quoting the rest, and good for you being the majority of gaf i guess *shrug*

feel free to read up on this in the testpunch thread.

 

[SanguineShark]

78 is ok. Just not $60 ok for me.

This would have reviewed a lot better and most likely sold significantly better at 40

 

[thepenguin55]

Since this game is reviewing well despite it being fairly bare makes me excited for ARMS2 and what they can do to fill it up more.

Ah! This is what I'm doing with Splatoon. I played the test fire events for Splatoon 1 but held off on getting it. When I heard how they were rolling out content I decided to skip it for the inevitable sequel (it would have had to sold atrociously bad for there to not be at least one sequel). My hope is that Splatoon 2 content-wise will pick up where the first game left off and expand from there.

 

[TheMoon]

is 1v1v1 still in?
If so, boycotting

git gud or play ranked

 

[Rncewind]

I would never call anyone an idiot on this forum and I was not responding to that particular point. The user I replied to was, but I was addressing a comment he made, not the original post.

That being said, if I gave off the impression that I think someone who doesn't find depth in ARMS to be an idiot, I apologize, as that was never my intention.

no milk spilled, i just dont like when people are called out for having different opinions, also sry for being to aggresive i guess

feel free to read up on this in the testpunch thread.

what?

 

[Mass Appeal]

Decent scores. I will pick it up later down the line when it sees a price drop. $60 is too much imo

 

[OricWindstar]

This would have reviewed a lot better and most likely sold significantly better at 40

Why are people saying this as if it's not true of every full-priced game?

That being said, in a post MKX and Injustice world, fighting games are going to have to start stepping up their single player offering. It's not a deal breaker for me, but I don't see me wanting to play Gran Prix more than once.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

no milk spilled, i just dont like when people are called out for having different opinions, also sry for being to aggresive i guess

It's all good.

And I definitely didn't mean to call you out for having a different opinion. I can totally respect it if someone doesn't see value in this game.

 

[Xater]

The reviews and critics for content are completely valid, and I agree with an above poster that a plan to release future DLC is not good enough.

A solid DLC plan should supplement content, not make-up for a barren launch.

Totally agree and I am only getting it because it's summer and there isn't much else. If Splatoon 2 was out this month I would probably have skipped Arms.

 

[lt519]

I was lukewarm on the Testpunch so divisive reviews are keeping me on the no go side of things.

 

[TheMoon]

what?

feel free to read up on this [player impressions] in the testpunch thread.

 

[Zedark]

Are Digital Foundry going to do a complete tech analysis for this? Would be interesting imo.

 

[SanguineShark]

Why are people saying this as if it's not true of every full-priced game?

????

Yeah, of course any game would review and sell better at a lower pricepoint, but not every game deserves to be 60.

Witcher 3 for example is absolutely a game that warrants a 60 dollar price tag (more, tbh).

However, from what I can tell, Arms does not. The content is simply not there, as fun as it might be. The price should reflect that.

 

[LotusHD]

????

Yeah, of course any game would review and sell better at a lower pricepoint, but not every game deserves to be 60.

Witcher 3 for example is absolutely a game that warrants a 60 dollar price tag (more, tbh).

However, from what I can tell, Arms does not. The price should reflect that.

Lol at "deserves"

Why are people saying this as if it's not true of every full-priced game?

That being said, in a post MKX and Injustice world, fighting games are going to have to start stepping up their single player offering. It's not a deal breaker for me, but I don't see me wanting to play Gran Prix more than once.

Agreed.

 

[13ruce]

????

Yeah, of course any game would review and sell better at a lower pricepoint, but not every game deserves to be 60.

Witcher 3 for example is absolutely a game that warrants a 60 dollar price tag (more, tbh).

However, from what I can tell, Arms does not. The price should reflect that.

Lol why is it not worth 60? It's a new fighting game and they promised free dlc support like Splatoon.

Splatoon had an amazing amount of free stuff if arms gets that too easily worth 60.

Heck people paid 60 for overwatch where is the singleplayer content there?

 

[De_Legend]

A good little game.

 

[Regiruler]

Again, there are other games that don't drip feed out content and still have legs and get talked about within social media months after release. Other games have those player bases without ever needing a weekly headline about how they added more content to their lacking launch package.

Every plus you've listed also exists for companies who don't use the same method of release as Nintendo did for Splatoon.

They get that presence from marketing or being attached to a known IP. And an important distinction is that many of your examples, to my knowledge, release content monthly at the quickest.

Since we're going nowhere, I'll swap to personal experience. Map additions get less exciting the more of them there are. Move Flounder Heights to the back of the schedule and it would have been the most boring announcement in existence. Splatoon 2 is suffering from this because the first game ended with so many maps, that different layouts are far less exciting.

 

[OricWindstar]

????

Yeah, of course any game would review and sell better at a lower pricepoint, but not every game deserves to be 60.

Witcher 3 for example is absolutely a game that warrants a 60 dollar price tag (more, tbh).

However, from what I can tell, Arms does not. The content is simply not there, as fun as it might be. The price should reflect that.

Apologies if that came off snarky; it was more a comment on seeing the sentiments of that post pretty often in here.

It was more the wording of it I was commenting on. I totally agree the game is lacking in SP content, but as a multiplayer game with free DLC planned (which I think Nintendo has proven itself capable of pulling off with Splatoon), I think the price is justifiable. Though I understand anyone not wanting to put down $60 on this at launch, it certainly doesn't feel like Nintendo trying to pull a fast one.

 

[psyfi]

A little lower than I expected, but I'm not sweating it. Can't wait to jump in!

 

[SanguineShark]

Lol why is it not worth 60? It's a new fighting game and they promised free dlc support like Splatoon.

Splatoon had an amazing amount of free stuff if arms gets that too easily worth 60.

Heck people paid 60 for overwatch where is the singleplayer content there?

....Because it doesn't have the content? Like I said? I'm not entirely talking about singleplayer content, but multiplayer. Clearly enough reviewers enjoyed Overwatch for what it was, as it scored significantly better.

And sure, it might be worth 60 in half a year when it's actually content complete, I'll give you that.

 

[Zedark]

????

Yeah, of course any game would review and sell better at a lower pricepoint, but not every game deserves to be 60.

Witcher 3 for example is absolutely a game that warrants a 60 dollar price tag (more, tbh).

However, from what I can tell, Arms does not. The content is simply not there, as fun as it might be. The price should reflect that.

Considering it got a metacritic score of 78 with its €60 price tag, I would think it does warrant the price (inb4 78 is a bad score).

I personally think the game warrants its €60 price tag because the gameplay is so very good. To me, playing this online against other people is (surprisingly, as I hardly ever play online) the singular draw, and as such only the online mode and the gameplay mechanics are what justifies €60. The amount of singleplayer content doesn't matter to me.

Of course, if you hate playing online and aren't as convinced about the mechanics as I am, then it can be difficult or impossible to justify paying €60. But the general claim that its price is not justified is always a tricky and frankly useless statement. It just ignores the different ways in which people see value in a product.

 

[Kaban]

Bummed it didn't review a little better, but Splatoon got some lukewarm reviews at the start, and that's one of my favourite games in ages. The DLC will hopefully make this game for me.

 

[Ridley327]

Are Digital Foundry going to do a complete tech analysis for this? Would be interesting imo.

I can't imagine much has changed from their initial video on the game from the last big press preview, as that was review code.

 

[forknknife]

Nintendo really should've gone all in with a fully fledged story mode: voice acting, variety of scenarios and enemies... the works.

That alone would've pushed the metacritic score being beyond 85.

I'm definitely going to wait you grab this one second hand.

 

[Flipside]

I liked what I played during the global test punch but I would've loved a campaign mode. Splatoon's main focus was multiplayer too but I really enjoyed its campaign and thought it was an added value to the overall experience.

I'm picking the game up next week but I am a bit disappointed about the lack of single player content. Oh, and I secretly wanted this to be a new Punch Out instead of a new IP

 

[LotusHD]

....Because it doesn't have the content? Like I said? I'm not entirely talking about singleplayer content, but multiplayer. Clearly enough reviewers enjoyed Overwatch for what it was, as it scored significantly better.

And sure, it might be worth 60 in half a year when it's actually content complete, I'll give you that.

Saying it doesn't deserve to be $60 frankly means nothing. Like absolutely nothing. It's ultimately all subjective, and honestly, you'd have a hard time people convincing people anyways since it's not even an indie game, which is the usual target for comments like this.

You would have been better off simply saying that this is the type of game where you feel that is prudent for one to wait for it to go on sale, when it gets that additional free DLC, or when you have extra cash on hand.

 

[SkeptiMism]

There's multiple reviews, even ones with high praise for the game, that noted a steep learning curve. I actually agree that this is one of the most difficult games Nintendo has made in recent history. Even past the basic triangle, there's the movement system, charged punches, different arm trajectory and control methods, block parry, how a lot of character unique abilities are not that easy to capitalize on, etc. that's not obvious with plenty of mechanics being hidden in the help menu.

I suppose I was comparing it to other fighting games, and was expecting the reviewer to do that too, but yes I guess the reviewer might've been comparing it to other Nintendo games and that's a relevant comparison to make too of course. Undoubtedly a lot of Nintendo fans are interested in the game.

 

[Regiruler]

There's multiple reviews, even ones with high praise for the game, that noted a steep learning curve. I actually agree that this is one of the most difficult games Nintendo has made in recent history. Even past the basic triangle, there's the movement system, charged punches, different arm trajectory and control methods, block parry, how a lot of character unique abilities are not that easy to capitalize on, etc. that's not obvious with plenty of mechanics being hidden in the help menu.

Honestly, not even close. Star Fox Zero is way harder.

 

[SanguineShark]

Saying it doesn't deserve to be $60 frankly means nothing. Like absolutely nothing. It's ultimately all subjective, and honestly, you'd have a hard time people convincing people anyways since it's not even an indie game, which is the usual target for comments like this.

You would have been better off simply saying that this is the type of game where you feel that is prudent for one to wait for it to go on sale, when it gets that additional free DLC, or when you have extra cash on hand.

Practically everything is subjective, and you're here, on a gaming discussion forum, discussing purely subjective review scores because you seem to care about that.

To me, telling other people that believe this game might have sold better and reviewed better at a lower price point, that their opinions are invalid, seems like a complete waste of time.

From a glance, this game does not seem like it warrants a full price-tag, to me. So what?

Apparently many other reviewers agree.