Nintendo Switch: Smashy Smashy

[Chaels Arms]

Why is that? I mean, it has single player, it has online multiplayer, it has local multiplayer, it has replayability it has depth enough to get you to many hours of gameplay, tons of free content incoming and it's a new IP that hasnt really been done before. How is that not worthy of the price?

There has been some issues as mentioned with pricing though especially with the already mentioned USF2, Bomberman and 1-2 Switch. Those were very much overpriced. And it's really hard to argue otherwise, especially with SF and Bomberman.

With that said, the most ridiculous thing these days are entitled gamers.

Defensive much? Relax. It's cool that you like Arms but you're acting like I said something bad about your children.

IMO, being that there are at the moment literally tons of fully-fleshed out AAA amazing games (Horizon: Zero Dawn, Nioh, Witcher 3 expansions, Persona 5) that I haven't played yet and can purchase at the same price or less I simply have no desire to drop that money on Arms when I know I'll just play it online for two hours and than forget about it or at best, break out when there are friends around. Or I could just save up for Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2 and Xenoblade, all of which are more likely to hold my attention beyond one day.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Maybe it's just personal. I had more fun playing 2 than 1. Except the boost ball guardian. **** that guy.

Metroid Prime 2 is the crown jewel of the Prime series. One was excellent and three was very good, but the atmosphere of two is just unparalleled to me. Amazing worlds, tons of bosses, better power ups, the annihilator beam, dark samus, ing, just an amazing world with amazing creatures. Not to mention the soundtrack.

 

[vippe]

Defensive much? Relax. It's cool that you like Arms but you're acting like I said something bad about your children.

IMO, being that there are at the moment literally tons of fully-fleshed out AAA amazing games (Horizon: Zero Dawn, Nioh, Witcher 3 expansions, Persona 5) that I haven't played yet and can purchase at the same price or less I simply have no desire to drop that money on Arms when I know I'll just play it online for two hours and than forget about it or at best, break out when there are friends around. Or I could just save up for Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2 and Xenoblade, all of which are more likely to hold my attention beyond one day.

Not really, I would say something completely different if you said anything about my kids but the entitlement is strong with gamers dont you think? And that's a general statement towards the gaming community and not directed specifically at you.

Just because you havnt had the time to play other great AAA games doesnt mean that this shouldnt cost full price. Heck I got the same backlog as you with both Horizon and Witcher sitting on my shelf right now. But it sounds like you wouldnt even buy it if it wasnt for free the way you put it. Game is obviously not for you, which is fine, but there is nothing wrong with the price point on this one.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I don't know... It does seem a bit bare bones, I think I can sympathise with people who might feel they didn't get their money's worth.

 

[Slangston]

I find this conversation hilarious. I remember paying 60 to 70 dollars at times for SNES/Genesis games and not once did I feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth. Those games were fun, a quality that I value most when making the decision to purchase a game. Also, I wouldn't dare consider the majority of the titles of that era "feature rich," as a matter of a fact, most fighting games in particular simply relied on it's mechanics and fun factor as a selling point. There wasn't much of a narrative, nor could you expect additional game modes, all that was offered was an arcade like fighting experience. ARMS seems appropriately priced given it's supposed fun gameplay in addition to it's alternative game modes and planned future updates. I simply don't understand the modern gamer's attitude and how value is determined from their consumerist's standpoint.

 

[guinness]

I saw about 15-20 Switches in my local Best Buy today.

Then I remembered that I already had both of the games that would buy on my Wii U already (MK8 and BoTW) and passed.

So speaking of games, I realize that the first year of a new system is generally sparse, but when are more, more unique games supposed to start hitting the selves? 3rd party titles would be a bonus too. I feel a bit spoiled in that the Wii U also has both of the Switches best games, but I also feel like if the lack of games continues, it'll just become a better Wii U.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I find this conversation hilarious. I remember paying 60 to 70 dollars at times for SNES/Genesis games and not once did I feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth. Those games were fun, a quality that I value most when making the decision to purchase a game. Also, I wouldn't dare consider the majority of the titles of that era "feature rich," as a matter of a fact, most fighting games in particular simply relied on it's mechanics and fun factor as a selling point. There wasn't much of a narrative, nor could you expect additional game modes, all that was offered was an arcade like fighting experience. ARMS seems appropriately priced given it's supposed fun gameplay in addition to it's alternative game modes and planned future updates. I simply don't understand the modern gamer's attitude and how value is determined from their consumerist's standpoint.

Really? Because when I was a kid during the N64 PS1 era almost nobody actually bought games outside of 1 or 2. Everybody rented because of how expensive buying was.

They were fun (most of the time) but sill expensive as hell. In fact only post steam sales where consoles have started to follow valves lead have games become affordable in my eyes. I wouldn't be getting a game like bloodborne for $11 ever 10 years ago.

The criticism of game prices for Nintendo is more valid because they arent following that trend that started 10 or so years ago. Arms is $60 forever.

 

[Chaels Arms]

Not really, I would say something completely different if you said anything about my kids but the entitlement is strong with gamers dont you think? And that's a general statement towards the gaming community and not directed specifically at you.

Just because you havnt had the time to play other great AAA games doesnt mean that this shouldnt cost full price. Heck I got the same backlog as you with both Horizon and Witcher sitting on my shelf right now. But it sounds like you wouldnt even buy it if it wasnt for free the way you put it. Game is obviously not for you, which is fine, but there is nothing wrong with the price point on this one.

You seem to be confusing somebody saying a game is terrible vs. somebody saying the game is not worth full price at the moment. In this case I only said the latter but, again, because you seem to be connected to this game on a deep emotional level you're pretending that I said the former.

Instead, I said the game was not worth $60 (in my opinion). That statement implies a cost-benefit analysis on a subjective level. That cost-benefit analysis for me at the moment means comparing the $60 I would spend on Arms versus spending that $60 on another competing game. That means comparing the depth of the experience I would get on Arms versus the depth and, frankly, the length of the experience I would get on those other games. Witcher 3. Horizon. Persona 5. Mario Odyssey. Xenoblade. It's amazing to me that I actually have to spell this out in a section of the boards dedicated to gaming where people frequently make similar comments.

I'd buy the game if it was $30. I'd get a couple of good hours of fun out of it and it'd be around to play whenever I have friends over. Then I'd go put in another 200 hours on BoTW. Frankly, I don't think I'm in the minority on these boards as it doesn't seem like there's anyone else here who is playing this game, other than Unholy who commented earlier, but if there is I'd love to hear their opinions as well.

 

[Chaels Arms]

I find this conversation hilarious. I remember paying 60 to 70 dollars at times for SNES/Genesis games and not once did I feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth. Those games were fun, a quality that I value most when making the decision to purchase a game. Also, I wouldn't dare consider the majority of the titles of that era "feature rich," as a matter of a fact, most fighting games in particular simply relied on it's mechanics and fun factor as a selling point. There wasn't much of a narrative, nor could you expect additional game modes, all that was offered was an arcade like fighting experience. ARMS seems appropriately priced given it's supposed fun gameplay in addition to it's alternative game modes and planned future updates. I simply don't understand the modern gamer's attitude and how value is determined from their consumerist's standpoint.

Maybe because I'm comparing ARMS to other games of the current generation and not with games from 25 years ago?

Have you played ARMS?

 

[vippe]

You seem to be confusing somebody saying a game is terrible vs. somebody saying the game is not worth full price at the moment. In this case I only said the latter but, again, because you seem to be connected to this game on a deep emotional level you're pretending that I said the former.

Instead, I said the game was not worth $60 (in my opinion). That statement implies a cost-benefit analysis on a subjective level. That cost-benefit analysis for me at the moment means comparing the $60 I would spend on Arms versus spending that $60 on another competing game. That means comparing the depth of the experience I would get on Arms versus the depth and, frankly, the length of the experience I would get on those other games. Witcher 3. Horizon. Persona 5. Mario Odyssey. Xenoblade. It's amazing to me that I actually have to spell this out in a section of the boards dedicated to gaming where people frequently make similar comments.

I'd buy the game if it was $30. I'd get a couple of good hours of fun out of it and it'd be around to play whenever I have friends over. Then I'd go put in another 200 hours on BoTW. Frankly, I don't think I'm in the minority on these boards as it doesn't seem like there's anyone else here who is playing this game, other than Unholy who commented earlier, but if there is I'd love to hear their opinions as well.

Now this is you being defensive. I didnt say you think it was terrible, I said it wasnt for you, you didnt say it wasnt worth the price for the moment you said it was ridiculos. When you say you would play it for two hours then forget about it's existance does not sound like something you would ever want to play. And definately not pay 30$ for. I have no emotional connectio to Arms whatsoever I just defended the price of it since I have actually played it.

"it's amazing to me that I actually have to spell this out in a section of the boards dedicated to gaming where people frequently make similar comments."

That horse dude, get off it


As for the actual game, since you wanted opinions on it:

I've played through the campaign twice on different settings - One alone and one in co-op (which is hella harder) and both were good fun and quite hard to be honest.
I also felt it in my arms the day after Have yet to try playing it with a regular controller yet since it's really fun with the motion controls.

Played some online, casual games and it works great. Responsive, fast to get games and so on. Not played ranked yet. Game shines the most when played in a group for sure, It's a fun game that brings tons of laughs with your friend(s) and family.

Cant wait to get a few of my friends together and play a tournament in this.

I'd probably give it somewhere between 80-83/100 as of now. But as with other games in similar release situations with content added on as we go like Splatoon and Overwatch I bet it would get a better meta if scored later on in it's life.

And as for Lias Anderson, you got yourself a player. Gonna be a fan favorite.

 

[Slangston]

Maybe because I'm comparing ARMS to other games of the current generation and not with games from 25 years ago?

Have you played ARMS?

No, I have not played ARMS and neither have you I reckon. As a matter of a fact, a couple of the titles that you mentioned in your recent response to vippe, you've probably never played. They haven't even been released yet, but it seems like you've already determined that they're worthy of your hard earned dollars. So, if you're thinking about pontificating to me about "playing a game first before determining it's value," well perhaps you should also apply that to yourself. Just a heads up.

With that being said...

I realize the vast majority of gamers make judgments on a game's worth before trying them out. The current AAA development trend is to create these so-called deep immersive cinematic experiences, covering vast massive landscapes, all while promising to deliver hours upon hours of gameplay. This current trend has become the benchmark by which most games are judged on, ultimately shaping the general public's perception of what a 70 dollar game should look like. To me, this is a bit unfair and misleading, as I don't believe the size of a game and all that it offers inherently makes it more valuable than it's "competition." What these games may offer in their vastness, they may lack in core game mechanics. Sadly, games that are mechanically strong and use deep core gameplay experiences as value proposition, struggle to capture the interest of most gamers because they don't offer the same superfluous features often found in "AAA" titles. Strangely enough, I increasingly find more people who have logged more hours into titles such as Rocket League than they have games like Metal Gear Solid V. I believe it says something about the depth and fun factor that it has going for it, as I know I'd easily pay 60 dollars retail for a game like Rocket League.

 

[syz]

Starting to feel like NA won't be seeing that Splatoon 2 bundle.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I find this conversation hilarious. I remember paying 60 to 70 dollars at times for SNES/Genesis games and not once did I feel like I wasn't getting my money's worth. Those games were fun, a quality that I value most when making the decision to purchase a game. Also, I wouldn't dare consider the majority of the titles of that era "feature rich," as a matter of a fact, most fighting games in particular simply relied on it's mechanics and fun factor as a selling point. There wasn't much of a narrative, nor could you expect additional game modes, all that was offered was an arcade like fighting experience. ARMS seems appropriately priced given it's supposed fun gameplay in addition to it's alternative game modes and planned future updates. I simply don't understand the modern gamer's attitude and how value is determined from their consumerist's standpoint.

In regards to ARMS it's mostly due to the market: these days, most online games of the sort tend to have more content at release. I think comparing games along those lines is more than fair.

I hear you however. I mean, didn't Nintendo say that a lot of free DLC is on its way? If so I can sympathise with people who think they didn't get their money's worth but at the same, just be patient, the value is on its way.

 

[Chaels Arms]

No, I have not played ARMS and neither have you I reckon. As a matter of a fact, a couple of the titles that you mentioned in your recent response to vippe, you've probably never played. They haven't even been released yet, but it seems like you've already determined that they're worthy of your hard earned dollars. So, if you're thinking about pontificating to me about "playing a game first before determining it's value," well perhaps you should also apply that to yourself. Just a heads up.

With that being said...

I realize the vast majority of gamers make judgments on a game's worth before trying them out. The current AAA development trend is to create these so-called deep immersive cinematic experiences, covering vast massive landscapes, all while promising to deliver hours upon hours of gameplay. This current trend has become the benchmark by which most games are judged on, ultimately shaping the general public's perception of what a 70 dollar game should look like. To me, this is a bit unfair and misleading, as I don't believe the size of a game and all that it offers inherently makes it more valuable than it's "competition." What these games may offer in their vastness, they may lack in core game mechanics. Sadly, games that are mechanically strong and use deep core gameplay experiences as value proposition, struggle to capture the interest of most gamers because they don't offer the same superfluous features often found in "AAA" titles. Strangely enough, I increasingly find more people who have logged more hours into titles such as Rocket League than they have games like Metal Gear Solid V. I believe it says something about the depth and fun factor that it has going for it, as I know I'd easily pay 60 dollars retail for a game like Rocket League.

I said pretty clear early on that I played the test-punch extensively and only the test-punch so I'm not really pontificating much. All I said is that from my impressions it's not worth buying and therefore, I haven't bought it. I think that's a pretty logical thing to say.

I don't completely disagree with you regarding the AAA titles versus a game like Rocket League. There's no doubt that Rocket League, even at full price, would have provided most people with great value. That being said, Rocket League was not a full priced game and the fact that it wasn't a full priced game is a gigantic factor behind its current popularity.

Like aleshemsky83 said earlier, the pricing issue is more important when talking about Nintendo games since there's not a predictable drop in price like games on other systems. I can't sit here and say "you know what, that game looks pretty cool but I'm going to wait it out a couple of months and pick it up at $40" like you can do with almost every other game on other systems. Otherwise, that's probably the approach myself and many others would have taken with a game like ARMS. With Nintendo it's pretty much take it or leave it at full price for the life of the console.

 

[Taro Tsujimoto]

Starting to feel like NA won't be seeing that Splatoon 2 bundle.

At this rate we won't get the pink/green joycons, either.

 

[disgruntleddave]

I'd love cheaper games but clearly I'm willing to pay the price for the ones I like. Hell, I remember buying no mercy for n64 and with tax it came to over $100 (Canadian funds though). When I reflect on the countless hours I put into that game, it was easily worth it. And that was when my only income was a twice a week paper route, so it was around 2 months salary!

 

[The Burdened]

IIRC Splatoon had some of the same complaints of ARMS (IE it was kind of barebones) but quickly caught up to speed with free DLC/Updates.

However, the thing that made the DLC for Splatoon such a success was not only was it free, but Splatoon released DLC about once per week in the form of maps, clothing, or weapons. There was always something new every week.

I didn't pick up ARMS, so I don't know if it has been doing that so far (I know it's only been out a couple of weeks, so I digress)

 

[syz]

Nights of Azure 2 coming out on the Switch... this thing really is the Vita killer.

 

[Pilky01]

Nights of Azure 2 coming out on the Switch... this thing really is the Vita killer.

Googles 'Nights of Azure 2'

.......

 

[Habsfan18]

Found me a Switch today at my local Wal-Mart. Was shopping with the wife and lucked out getting their last one in stock. Only game I have so far is Zelda so looking forward to giving that a go.

I just REALLY hope Switch games aren't really going to be listed at $99.99 like they are on amazon for pre-orders right now. That would be insanely stupid.

 

[syz]

Local EB had Switches today as well (although they made it sound like it's still a rarity.) Didn't have the money but hey at least I can say I actually saw one in stock somewhere.

 

[Slangston]

Splatoon 2 Direct announced.

Also, there's rumors floating all throughout the internet of a Bayonetta 1+2 Switch port. Something to do with Platinum's twitter account teasing it's existence.

 

[Taro Tsujimoto]

Splatoon 2 Direct announced.

Also, there's rumors floating all throughout the internet of a Bayonetta 1+2 Switch port. Something to do with Platinum's twitter account teasing it's existence.

I'd be stunned if the pink/green joycons aren't announced for North America.

 

[Slangston]

I'd be stunned if the pink/green joycons aren't announced for North America.

We know that the Splatoon 2 pro controller is scheduled to release here in NA, so you'd think that they'd do something similar with the joy-cons. The fact that we haven't heard anything from Nintendo of America is concerning, but a Direct showcase is perhaps the most ideal way of making an announcement. We can only hope, but I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to restrict those joy-cons to specific regions.

 

[Pilky01]

We know that the Splatoon 2 pro controller is scheduled to release here in NA, so you'd think that they'd do something similar with the joy-cons. The fact that we haven't heard anything from Nintendo of America is concerning, but a Direct showcase is perhaps the most ideal way of making an announcement. We can only hope, but I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to restrict those joy-cons to specific regions.

I've got $200 burning a hole in my pocket for all green joycons.