.I see it OP. The rest of GAF may want to dismiss and harass you, but I see it.
ARMS looks awesome and makes me excited about the switch but I agree with OP as well. There are some similarities.
.I see it OP. The rest of GAF may want to dismiss and harass you, but I see it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really excited for ARMS and I think it's going to be a huge hit but it's interesting to trace back its inspiration.
To me, the first GIF shows a game that is about utilizing positioning, cover placement, and ranged attacks. None of which are a huge focus of Arms. If I understand Arms right, outside of dodging and jumping, your character's movement is automated, so positioning and utilizing cover are not core gameplay aspects of Arms at all. Arms is more about utilizing the curvature of your throws, knowing when to block and dodge, etc.
I definitely agree there are a few tertiary similarities, but as I said earlier. Robo Pit feels like a precursor to stuff like Mech Assault, and Hawken. Whereas Arms feels like a next-gen take on Punch-Out with aspects of other arena fighters like virtual on and the Gundam games.
I should state that I don't think OP is trying to shit on the game or anything, I just disagree with his thoughts. I'm just trying to have an interesting discussion about game design. I don't understand why half of the folks who agree with OP have to make a snide comment about oversensitive Nintendo fanboys, and why half of the folks who disagree have to act like OP is trying to take down Arms. I just find this stuff interesting.
The post had it's facts wrong. You control everything yourself, nothing is automated.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..
Sure, it didn't look as nice or have an intuitive motion control scheme but the similarities are striking.
video evidence
Don't get me wrong, I'm really excited for ARMS and I think it's going to be a huge hit but it's interesting to trace back its inspiration.
The post had it's facts wrong. You control everything yourself, nothing is automated.
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."
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Sure, it didn't look as nice or have an intuitive motion control scheme but the similarities are striking.
video evidence
Don't get me wrong, I'm really excited for ARMS and I think it's going to be a huge hit but it's interesting to trace back its inspiration.
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.
That's nothing. I played Uncharted back when it was called Pitfall!
Edit: Beaten
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.
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.
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
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 togetherThere 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.
"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 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.
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
That's nothing. I played Uncharted back when it was called Pitfall!
Edit: Beaten
This looks ugly.
"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.
Nintendo should design a character for ARMS that's a robotic version of Pit from Kid Icarus named Robo Pit just because of this thread.
I played CoD when it was called Front Line.I've played CoD way before it was called Wolfenstein.. ohhh shit omg
haydee has that fetish on lockwas expecting thicc robots
leaving disappointed
shame on you op
reminds of the "splatoon ripped off this unreleased xbox 360 game!" threads back before that game came out.
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.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?
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.
Reminds me of the 200 times this has already been posted in this thread.
It compensate with the number of times you posted passive-agressively like this in the thread.