In my opinion, this game in concept reminds me most of something like Divekick. While you may look at Divekick and say "it's so simple, it has no depth", it was accepted by the fighting game community for a reason. With more simple fighters like this, mind games and reading your opponent become extremely important. That is where a lot of the skill comes into play. Because of that, if you do play predictably, you will get read and punished. I think that is where the majority of the "competitive" level of Arms will come from. Of course there are also additional tactics like some simple combos, heavy reliance on movement (not unlike Smash) and zoning to give this game more meat in actually playing it.

Then on the other side, there is the more casual, party-mode side of the game. As far as fighters go, I would argue that this game is probably second to only Smash when it comes to its potential appeal outside of people who love fighting games (of course its actual appeal depends heavily on marketing). It is fairly simple to pick up and play, you don't need to memorize 20 command long combos with pretzel motions and frame perfect inputs and you don't feel like you are playing the game wrong if you aren't at expert level. Then there are the modes which are simple but look very fun. You have something like Tekken-ball which is pretty much universally loved, team games which are great for bigger parties (again, bringing in that "Smash" appeal), Hoops which is a simple twist on the formula which I think gets a lot from its highly satisfying animations as well as a few other modes.

Basically, I think that Arms has a lot to love on both the competitive and casual side of fighting games. That isn't to say it will be as big of a success as Splatoon - at the end of the day, fighting games will almost always have a smaller market than shooters - but I find it hard to believe that it will be considered a failure either commercially or critically.

I think comparing this game to Splatoon is not fair to Splatoon. It makes it sound like all Arms have to do is just follow Splatoons model and it will be successful. Like without that neither Arms OR Splatoon has much going for it. I dont think thats the case. I have a feeling many want it to be big just because its a new IP from Nintendo. Im sure it will sell decent, but I think it will be more like 1 2 Switch. Just something to do while waiting for a bigger title.

Evolve? The same Evolve with all the negativity prior to release and with everyone playing demanding more than one game mode prior to release? It tanked because in addition to having only one game mode and 3 monsters, one of the monsters was broken, it had paid DLC, had micotransactions out the wazoo in a full priced game, had a preorder bonus that locked another monster behind a paywall, and it had a season pass that barely covered any of the paid content. But yes it came out with free maps... yay?

You're comparing ARMS, a game launching with at least 10 fighters, 7 game modes, 30 weapons (which off the bat gives a 4650 combinations for fighting), as well as ALL immediate future content (including new fighters, stages, and arms) to that of Evolve...

Look. No. Even if you don't like/have no interest in the game, that is sad no matter how you try to spin it. So don't try.

Oh so it has to be 100% the same as Evolve to compare it. Got it. Dont compare Arms to Splatoon either then since Splatoon launched in 2015 and Arms is releasing in 2017. Cant be compared at all...

I'm going to stop you right there.  What did I JUST tell you about spinning? You're comparison was terrible for obvious reasons: you shamelessly attempted to spin Evolve's reception and reason for failure, knowing full well the fact that it was the PAID content in addition to the lack of base content that pushed negative reception,. You chose to ignore that so that you can compare it to ARMS. Which is a sad spin.

Additionally, don't try to straw me, you only hurt your own case trying. I never said it has to be 100% to compare. I insinuated that it was a terrible comparison because it is and you left out significant information because you knew it too. There is a massive difference in approach. You, on the other hand, in your previous post said they had the "same case". 

I won't even address the other half of what you said despite being as nonsensical, due to the fact I never brought up Splatoon.

My point was that Evolve got alot of positive previews from reviewers and they tried to save it with free DLC. It had little content. Just like Arms. 10 fighters? Even Street Fighter 5 had 16 characters at launch ffs. Is that a good enough comparison for you or doesnt it count because Street Fighter has an F in its name and Arms doesnt?

You think, but fact tells us different: ARMS is new Nintendo IP, its very fun and interesting game with focus on online play, its Nintendo take out on existing gener, it will have test demo, strong marketing, it will have future free updates for content, impressions of previews and people that actually played game are positive and all saying that game is very fun to play, we talking about new game of Mario Kart team. It's so obvious that even blind man could see why people are comparing this game with Splatoon and why this game could easily become quite popular and one of must have Switch games, even if doesn't hit Splatoon popularity.

You would be very aware of this facts if you are not very close minded about this game, I dont doubt you were very closed minded about Splatoon before launch also. Fact that you try to compare this game to Evolve and refusing to compare it to Splatoon, tells that you dont know what are you talking about.

Ok, lets compare it to Splatoon then. Splatoon was pretty much unfinished when it released, so they gave out free DLC throughout the year instead of delaying it. Is Arms unfinished as well then? Best wait until they finish it then?

You are so hyped about this game that you cant possibly see why someone dont think it will be anything but a smash hit and loved by everyone. I can see the similarities in the way Nintendo markets this game, but comparing it to Splatoon just makes it sound that it really wasnt much to Splatoon other than free DLC. Everyone says its great, so it must be great. No, not really. Every preview of Evolve made it sound like a game changer as well. Thats why I compare it to Arms. I didnt trust the hype from reviewers around Evolve and I dont with Arms either. It looks shallow as hell imo.

You can keep telling me that I dont know what Im talking about if it makes you feel better, but just because this is from Nintendo and made by the MK team doesnt mean its a guaranteed hit.

Here's your overall problem and why absolutely no one should take you seriously at this point. You continue to remove vital facts from the equation to cheaply satisfy your point:

"Remember all the positivity around Evolve before release and how everyone that played it loved it?" =/= "My point was that Evolve got alot of positive previews from reviewers" 

However, let us say that was your point. That only hurts you more because you ignore the playerbase that played the beta(s) and had the complaints and fears about the game I previously stated. So much so that 2K, on several occasions, damaged controlled

This for example is one of their damage controls almost a month BEFORE launch. That comment section sure is "positive", no? : https://www.gamespot.com/articles/evolve-dev-defends-dlc-concerns/1100-6424662/

That answers why Evolve needed free DLC to save it: Most of the content was locked behind microtransactions, P-A-I-D DLC and preorder bonuses. All of which I already addressed and you clearly carelessly ingored. Where is all this in ARMS?

Now the SFV comparison COULD have been a decent comparison, but you fall into the same shameless pit of removing information. SFV is literally the fifth entry of the franchise that is the paragon of fighting games. Comparing it to a new fighting game in terms of a roster is pretty bad, but fine let's say the roster size (which may be bigger if the final character is unlockable) is a problem and ignore the fact that each fighter has a minimum 465 combinations of weapons to choose from the affect gameplay. How many game modes did SFV launch with? One: Versus Mode. I don't even consider online or training to be real modes, but if I had to fine: 3 modes. That would make ARMS have at least 9 modes instead of 7 then. How much of the new characters were really free and didn't force you to grind out the for days on end to acquire them? How many stages actually are more than aesthetic differences? Answer to both is none. SFV didn't even launch with an arcade mode.

And for goodness sakes, please stop with the straw man.

"Is that a good enough comparison for you or doesnt it count because Street Fighter has an F in its name and Arms doesnt?"  <-- It is even more asinine than when you made the DURRRR 100% comparison (which you tried to cheaply make btw) because you insist on ignoring what I said: a bad comparison =/= incomparable. This is sad. This is not cute.  This is not in any shape or form clever. And this only further shows that you have no reasonable argument and just want to be defensive.

What I'm most excited about is that this game just looks FUN. I hope it's as deep as the direct made it out to be and not just two fighters flailing at each other.