• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Reviews Splatoon 3 | Review Thread

It’s very weird to me how some people take it personally when Nintendo makes games in a series they don’t personally enjoy. Doubly weird that it comes up in Splatoon discussion so much when it’s been 5 years since the last game released.
 
Clov said:
You don't understand! Five years is basically one year when you're thinking in base five or something, which makes Splatoon the same as CoD! Also, it's destroyed the Nintendo multiplayer landscape. Nintendo's multiplayer experience is now limited to Smash Bros, two Mario Parties, Clubhouse Games, ARMS, Mario Kart, two Kirby games, Mario Bros U, Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World, Animal Crossing, Pikmin 3, Tetris99, and some others that I forgot. Splatoon isn't especially well loved or successful outside its fanbase, but it is well loved and successful enough to force Nintendo to make Mario Sports games different from how I like them! Also the characters designs make me angry because they're terrible! Anyway I gotta pick up my life sized cutout of the fat Yoshi render from Mario RPG
Click to expand...

Whoah. I'm convinced
 
0
Soul Skater said:
Halo Infinite has even die hard fans calling for 343 to be straight up dissolved and begging MS to give the series to anyone else.

Cyberpunk was a fuck up but people will still be totally in for Witcher 4 whenever that comes.
Click to expand...
I’m sure plenty of people were saying the exact same thing about CDPR during Cyberpunk’s launch, and yet here we are. 343 being the more recent punching bag doesn’t take away from CDPR’s time as the laughingstock of the industry. And, just like how Witcher 4 will still sell, the next Halo will also be a success.

So, regardless of the recent stream of negativity towards 343, it doesn’t beat out just how terrible Cyberpunk was.
 
0
Yoshifan31 said:
While I don’t think either game should exist this clearly adresses the elephant in the room

I know there’s a lot of Splatoon fans here, but why act like another entry on the same console is welcome. Why accept Nintendo’s half measures in terms of implementing games as a service. This is pretty much the worst of both worlds, paying full price for games that get a few updates to then move to the next full priced sequel. The series would be so much more well received if it actually embraced the service model and was just a f2p constantly evolving multiplayer game. You would be paying for NSO and maybe you could sell the single player campaigns as standalone games as well, this has much more potential than simply releasing the games at full price

This is especially ironic considering that the announcement of the very first game was met with memes mocking Call of Duty players, but now it basically fell in the same trap besides that it’s not yearly. Other than that, you know why Splatoon’s reputation isn’t the greatest outside of its fanbase, even among Nintendo fans? Well on top of the soundtrack being annoying and the character designs being extremely punchable besides the jellyfish with the “fuck you” tshirt, the problem is that the series freaking killed every Nintendo multiplayer game except Smash and Mario Kart. Yes, Mario Sports games using the same model as Splatoon basically ruined them, every other multiplayer game now launches with very few content, gets some free updates down the line and then nothing. Splatoon brought a culture of mediocrity while being shielded from criticism purely by the goodwill of it having a unique concept back when it was announced in 2014

Sure, this last sentence is hyperbolic and none of this matters when the games keep selling well and people like it enough to consider it worth full price regardless but clearly Nintendo isn’t properly using the strengths of the GaaS model. The more they do that the more of their series, multiplayer especially, will just no longer be considered by some of their fans
Click to expand...
What? Huh? Wtf did I just read?
 
Yoshifan31 said:
While I don’t think either game should exist this clearly adresses the elephant in the room

I know there’s a lot of Splatoon fans here, but why act like another entry on the same console is welcome. Why accept Nintendo’s half measures in terms of implementing games as a service. This is pretty much the worst of both worlds, paying full price for games that get a few updates to then move to the next full priced sequel. The series would be so much more well received if it actually embraced the service model and was just a f2p constantly evolving multiplayer game. You would be paying for NSO and maybe you could sell the single player campaigns as standalone games as well, this has much more potential than simply releasing the games at full price

This is especially ironic considering that the announcement of the very first game was met with memes mocking Call of Duty players, but now it basically fell in the same trap besides that it’s not yearly. Other than that, you know why Splatoon’s reputation isn’t the greatest outside of its fanbase, even among Nintendo fans? Well on top of the soundtrack being annoying and the character designs being extremely punchable besides the jellyfish with the “fuck you” tshirt, the problem is that the series freaking killed every Nintendo multiplayer game except Smash and Mario Kart. Yes, Mario Sports games using the same model as Splatoon basically ruined them, every other multiplayer game now launches with very few content, gets some free updates down the line and then nothing. Splatoon brought a culture of mediocrity while being shielded from criticism purely by the goodwill of it having a unique concept back when it was announced in 2014

Sure, this last sentence is hyperbolic and none of this matters when the games keep selling well and people like it enough to consider it worth full price regardless but clearly Nintendo isn’t properly using the strengths of the GaaS model. The more they do that the more of their series, multiplayer especially, will just no longer be considered by some of their fans
Click to expand...
It’s wild how often I’m reminded that my negativity towards Splatoon 3 is pretty lukewarm in the grand scheme of things.
 
Nintendo gamers fell into the annual release franchise trap. As long as you ignore the fact that it isn't an annual release.
 
0
1EC824B6-65EB-43B9-A513-5AA4B2D30CEA.jpeg
 
I'm just stuck on the whole "punchable character designs" part. I'm sorry, but if you look at Pearl, Marina, Captain Cuttlefish, and Big Man and think that you wanna punch them, I'm gonna give you some serious side eye.
 
Clov said:
You don't understand! Five years is basically one year when you're thinking in base five or something, which makes Splatoon the same as CoD! Also, it's destroyed the Nintendo multiplayer landscape. Nintendo's multiplayer experience is now limited to Smash Bros, two Mario Parties, Clubhouse Games, ARMS, Mario Kart, two Kirby games, Mario Bros U, Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World, Animal Crossing, Pikmin 3, Tetris99, and some others that I forgot. Splatoon isn't especially well loved or successful outside its fanbase, but it is well loved and successful enough to force Nintendo to make Mario Sports games different from how I like them! Also the characters designs make me angry because they're terrible! Anyway I gotta pick up my life sized cutout of the fat Yoshi render from Mario RPG
Click to expand...
I like to have my laughs as well, but considering the poster you was talking to, that last sentence is a bit unnecessary.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, most of everything he said is pretty toss, but let's refrain from making comments like this. Because even I would feel a bit insulted by your last comment if my avatar was anything like his.
 
maxresdefault.jpg


The Squid Sisters executed Waluigi during the 3DS and Wii U era and replaced him with a fake as part of a conspiracy to ruin the Mario Sports franchises
 
YoboD said:
It’s very weird to me how some people take it as a personal attack when Nintendo makes games in a series they don’t personally enjoy. Doubly weird that it comes up in Splatoon discussion so much when it’s been 5 years since the last game released.
Click to expand...
Not that I’m really agreeing with that post but in general that isn‘t really the case. I don‘t share the opinion completely, after the Splatfest and the reviews of Storymode I‘m sure I‘ll enjoy the game, but some people really were just hoping for more new or different stuff from Spatoon in the third entry. Dosen‘t mean that they don’t like Splatoon as a Series. It is ok to say to be disappointed about an iterative sequel. I get that it got toxic all over the internet and also here and that was/is kinda unfair to the game. But I really don‘t get this idea that you are only allowed to be a Splatoon fan when you are happy with Splatoon 3.
 
KC Hazel said:
I'm going to ignore the last part about Splatoon killing other Nintendo multiplayer games because it's nonsense, but I'll respond to the GaaS portion. If this is sarcasm then my bad.

GaaS have to be monetized, which means Nintendo will have to withhold content in order to charge for it. When you factor that in with a paid single player experience, you could end up paying way more for the same content. Publishers don't do GaaS as a gift to consumers, they do it because many consumers will spend well over 60 dollars over the course of their time with the game. With Splatoon, you can spend your 60 dollars and get the vast majority of the package. Valorant for example has skin packs that cost over 100 dollars. Cosmetics are also a big part of Splatoon, as are weapons and stages, so the things Nintendo could charge for without ruining the experience is pretty small.

It's fine to want a FTP game if you intend to not spend any money on it ever, but I can assure you that many people have spent well over 120 dollars on FTP games so this isn't the 'worst of both worlds'. The worst part of FTP is microtransactions, Splatoon does not have these because you buy the game.
Click to expand...
I mentioned games as a service solely in reference on them being constantly updated. While microtransactions are often the way for them to be profitable I don’t think they are needed, they could have an approach closer to something like Tetris 99

I still think that full price retail releases for multiplayer games are simply not ideal nowadays, unless you have subtantial content at launch. For example, Smash and Mario Kart are always full priced because they are synonymous with quality, people buying them know that it would last the whole gen. When Splatoon was announced, at first people thought it had a cool concept but the scale of the demo made it seem like it would be an eshop only multiplayer only game. Then when the game actually came out people were a bit more skeptical because while Nintendo were pushing it alongside stuff like Smash and Mario Kart, it simply didn’t have as much going on as those series in terms of content. The fact that the Splatoon sequels are so iterative is just not appealing to outsiders, therefore its potential is basically limited to only Splatoon fans. For others there’s just this uncertaintity about jumping into Splatoon because what if they support 3 for two years and announce 4 for the next Switch? They are already clearly opting for a service-like model when it comes to delivering these games due to the presence of updates. Why not drop the half measures and make the multiplayer available for NSO subs or something.

Even fighting games, which stuck to the traditional model, are beginning to go f2p. People jumped on the janky looking Multiversus notably because it’s free, meanwhile when traditional fighters make a big deal of their character trailers, the only people that care are the established players of those respective series. If you want people to play your multiplayer game, you need to give them compelling reasons for them to jump in even if they are late adopters. I don’t think Nintendo is doing that well for their non-Smash and Mario Kart games, you need to convince them well to buy your game that barely goes on sale
 
Yeah I get it, bad takes happen, but it is kind of a bummer when we proceed to take up a full quarter of a fucking page singling out and making fun of a specific user instead of actually engaging
 
0
Clov said:
You don't understand! Five years is basically one year when you're thinking in base five or something, which makes Splatoon the same as CoD! Also, it's destroyed the Nintendo multiplayer landscape. Nintendo's multiplayer experience is now limited to Smash Bros, two Mario Parties, Clubhouse Games, ARMS, Mario Kart, two Kirby games, Mario Bros U, Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World, Animal Crossing, Pikmin 3, Tetris99, and some others that I forgot. Splatoon isn't especially well loved or successful outside its fanbase, but it is well loved and successful enough to force Nintendo to make Mario Sports games different from how I like them! Also the characters designs make me angry because they're terrible! Anyway I gotta pick up my life sized cutout of the fat Yoshi render from Mario RPG
Click to expand...
i also love fat yoshi we hav SO much in common we should be hang out although you wouldn't be my bff cause that spot is filled by fat yoshi (also boshi)


this-is-you-lmao.jpg


As for splatoon 3, i wish it had splat screen

Just found out there is a user called yoshifan i will definitely befriend that person
 
Fuckin' Nintendo man, I can't believe they're releasing a quality iterative shooter that isn't trying to squeeze hundreds of dollars out of me for cosmetics, how dare they
Yoshifan31 said:
The fact that the Splatoon sequels are so iterative is just not appealing to outsiders, therefore its potential is basically limited to only Splatoon fans.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, Splatoon 2, a game with such a narrow appeal that it only sold... 13 million copies
 
YoboD said:
It’s very weird to me how some people take it personally when Nintendo makes games in a series they don’t personally enjoy. Doubly weird that it comes up in Splatoon discussion so much when it’s been 5 years since the last game released.
Click to expand...
Who's taking it as a personal attack?
 
Magic-Man said:
I'm just stuck on the whole "punchable character designs" part. I'm sorry, but if you look at Pearl, Marina, Captain Cuttlefish, and Big Man and think that you wanna punch them, I'm gonna give you some serious side eye.
Click to expand...
Inklings look like 2000s cartoon rejects that got cancelled after one season, sorry

The pop idols are the least terrible looking Inklings but that not saying much

Had to google the last two. Captain is okay but Big Man is a very forced meme
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I mentioned games as a service solely in reference on them being constantly updated. While microtransactions are often the way for them to be profitable I don’t think they are needed, they could have an approach closer to something like Tetris 99

I still think that full price retail releases for multiplayer games are simply not ideal nowadays, unless you have subtantial content at launch. For example, Smash and Mario Kart are always full priced because they are synonymous with quality, people buying them know that it would last the whole gen. When Splatoon was announced, at first people thought it had a cool concept but the scale of the demo made it seem like it would be an eshop only multiplayer only game. Then when the game actually came out people were a bit more skeptical because while Nintendo were pushing it alongside stuff like Smash and Mario Kart, it simply didn’t have as much going on as those series in terms of content. The fact that the Splatoon sequels are so iterative is just not appealing to outsiders, therefore its potential is basically limited to only Splatoon fans. For others there’s just this uncertaintity about jumping into Splatoon because what if they support 3 for two years and announce 4 for the next Switch? They are already clearly opting for a service-like model when it comes to delivering these games due to the presence of updates. Why not drop the half measures and make the multiplayer available for NSO subs or something.

Even fighting games, which stuck to the traditional model, are beginning to go f2p. People jumped on the janky looking Multiversus notably because it’s free, meanwhile when traditional fighters make a big deal of their character trailers, the only people that care are the established players of those respective series. If you want people to play your multiplayer game, you need to give them compelling reasons for them to jump in even if they are late adopters. I don’t think Nintendo is doing that well for their non-Smash and Mario Kart games, you need to convince them well to buy your game that barely goes on sale
Click to expand...
Tetris 99 and Splatoon are not comparable here. Splatoon is a 3D shooter, they have to design weapons, and stages and modes to keep it updated. With Tetris 99 they design a theme and do a few musical numbers (or just rip them from the source game).

You have to compare Splatoon to games that are in the same field, and all of them have microtransactions. Splatoon 1 and 2 ended up being pretty meaty games by the end, with fully development cycles. There is a reason every game that is similar has microtransactions. It would be nice to get Splatoon completely free, and not have to pay for microtransactions, but surely you know that's not doable?
 
That post was a work of art to be honest, a master class in camp.

Anyway the tidbits of reviews I’ve been reading have me super excited to play the game, it’s a bummer I won’t have a chance to put in solid play time until Sunday
 
Yoshifan31 said:
Inklings look like 2000s cartoon rejects that got cancelled after one season, sorry

The pop idols are the least terrible looking Inklings but that not saying much

Had to google the last two. Captain is okay but Big Man is a very forced meme
Click to expand...
.....

Imma keep quiet on this one, I'm out
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I mentioned games as a service solely in reference on them being constantly updated. While microtransactions are often the way for them to be profitable I don’t think they are needed, they could have an approach closer to something like Tetris 99

I still think that full price retail releases for multiplayer games are simply not ideal nowadays, unless you have subtantial content at launch. For example, Smash and Mario Kart are always full priced because they are synonymous with quality, people buying them know that it would last the whole gen. When Splatoon was announced, at first people thought it had a cool concept but the scale of the demo made it seem like it would be an eshop only multiplayer only game. Then when the game actually came out people were a bit more skeptical because while Nintendo were pushing it alongside stuff like Smash and Mario Kart, it simply didn’t have as much going on as those series in terms of content. The fact that the Splatoon sequels are so iterative is just not appealing to outsiders, therefore its potential is basically limited to only Splatoon fans. For others there’s just this uncertaintity about jumping into Splatoon because what if they support 3 for two years and announce 4 for the next Switch? They are already clearly opting for a service-like model when it comes to delivering these games due to the presence of updates. Why not drop the half measures and make the multiplayer available for NSO subs or something.

Even fighting games, which stuck to the traditional model, are beginning to go f2p. People jumped on the janky looking Multiversus notably because it’s free, meanwhile when traditional fighters make a big deal of their character trailers, the only people that care are the established players of those respective series. If you want people to play your multiplayer game, you need to give them compelling reasons for them to jump in even if they are late adopters. I don’t think Nintendo is doing that well for their non-Smash and Mario Kart games, you need to convince them well to buy your game that barely goes on sale
Click to expand...

Are you going to feel this way when the next Mario Kart comes out
 
0
Yoshifan31 said:
For example, Smash and Mario Kart are always full priced because they are synonymous with quality
Click to expand...

The crazy thing is, so is Splatoon! Great games that sell extremely well. 2 has sold over 13 million copies. Right beside Mario, Link, and Isabelle, there's an Inkling statue at Nintendo Tokyo; Splatoon is not niche, it's beloved by people all over, and Nintendo clearly knows that, even if you do not.

Yoshifan31 said:
Inklings look like 2000s cartoon rejects that got cancelled after one season, sorry

The pop idols are the least terrible looking Inklings but that not saying much

Had to google the last two. Captain is okay but Big Man is a very forced meme
Click to expand...

Incredibly ironic coming from someone whose avatar looks like sub-Beast Wars quality CG
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I mentioned games as a service solely in reference on them being constantly updated. While microtransactions are often the way for them to be profitable I don’t think they are needed, they could have an approach closer to something like Tetris 99

I still think that full price retail releases for multiplayer games are simply not ideal nowadays, unless you have subtantial content at launch. For example, Smash and Mario Kart are always full priced because they are synonymous with quality, people buying them know that it would last the whole gen. When Splatoon was announced, at first people thought it had a cool concept but the scale of the demo made it seem like it would be an eshop only multiplayer only game. Then when the game actually came out people were a bit more skeptical because while Nintendo were pushing it alongside stuff like Smash and Mario Kart, it simply didn’t have as much going on as those series in terms of content. The fact that the Splatoon sequels are so iterative is just not appealing to outsiders, therefore its potential is basically limited to only Splatoon fans. For others there’s just this uncertaintity about jumping into Splatoon because what if they support 3 for two years and announce 4 for the next Switch? They are already clearly opting for a service-like model when it comes to delivering these games due to the presence of updates. Why not drop the half measures and make the multiplayer available for NSO subs or something.

Even fighting games, which stuck to the traditional model, are beginning to go f2p. People jumped on the janky looking Multiversus notably because it’s free, meanwhile when traditional fighters make a big deal of their character trailers, the only people that care are the established players of those respective series. If you want people to play your multiplayer game, you need to give them compelling reasons for them to jump in even if they are late adopters. I don’t think Nintendo is doing that well for their non-Smash and Mario Kart games, you need to convince them well to buy your game that barely goes on sale
Click to expand...
This is worded in a way that suggests Nintendo’s multiplayer offerings are struggling to sell, which they just…aren’t. The Mario Sports titles are all moving at least 1M units, Switch Sports has taken off in a big way, and Splatoon 3 is poised to gobble up another 10M units across its lifetime.

It’s fine if you don’t like how they do things, but it’s clearly working for Nintendo. Making Splatoon F2P would realistically only lose them money.
 
RailWays said:
From a content standpoint I understand, since Splatoon 2 has its entire roadmap available right now. No doubt when Splatoon 3 gets a year worth of updates it'll have surpassed it though.
Click to expand...
Splatoon 2's online community will be MIA by the end of the month, if not weekend.
 
Maxrunner said:
As a Nintendo fan the last fews months have been a desert. This game proves that Nintendo mojo that they need new concepts for approving games is a fad. More of the same then. Meanwhile they could have made an arms 2 game with new gameplay.
Click to expand...

What if both Splatoon 3 and ARMS 2? 🤔
 
bellydrum said:
Who's taking it as a personal attack?
Click to expand...
It’s not just limited to Splatoon and I’m not talking about anyone here specifically, it’s pretty prevalent over the internet in places like Era and YouTube. There’s quite a few people online who take it personally that Nintendo continuing to release Splatoon/Fire Emblem/Xenoblade etc games instead of making a new F-Zero, or Starfox or whatever, like they’re taking away resources that could be going to these dormant series and that’s the reason they’re not seeing new games.

Like I can sort of understand being miffed about Xenoblade and Fire Emblem even if it doesn’t really make sense, as they’ve seen a pretty steady stream of new games and re-releases over the last few years. Whereas with Splatoon in the last five years we’ve had one expansion and one new game, so it’s not like they’re pumping them out.

Should’ve clarified that I wasn’t taking a shot at anyone here specifically, my bad.
 
Last edited:
Kartina said:
It's reviewing like a splatoon game
Who would have guessed.
The 90 curse lives on
Btw the game is looking great.
Click to expand...
As soon as Metroid Dread didn't get a 90 or higher I realized how damn difficult is to score in that echelon these days
 
lexony said:
Not that I’m really agreeing with that post but in general that isn‘t really the case. I don‘t share the opinion completely, after the Splatfest and the reviews of Storymode I‘m sure I‘ll enjoy the game, but some people really were just hoping for more new or different stuff from Spatoon in the third entry. Dosen‘t mean that they don’t like Splatoon as a Series. It is ok to say to be disappointed about an iterative sequel. I get that it got toxic all over the internet and also here and that was/is kinda unfair to the game. But I really don‘t get this idea that you are only allowed to be a Splatoon fan when you are happy with Splatoon 3.
Click to expand...
Hey if it’s too derivative for people that’s fair enough, I didn’t mean to imply that it’s ridiculous to have a negative opinion about the game. You like what you like and all that. It’s when that attitude goes to ‘why does this game exist’ that I think is a bit much. But as I said above, this isn’t so much a post about an attitude in Fami specifically as it is one I’ve seen in the broader internet. I’m just posting about it here becaus this is the only place I actually post instead of just lurking >_>
 
I really love Splatoon, and Splatoon 3 is a game for people who really love Splatoon. If they keep making these, I will keep buying them, no matter how derivative or basic they get.

I understand that many do not like Splatoon, and I cannot fault them for that. However, I feel very strongly that the value of a new IP is not a momentary novelty. Splatoon may have not been reinvented in its seven years of existence, but I feel very strongly that its value has not diminished in that time. If we come to expect that every new IP constantly keep up with its reputation as a new idea, every series will be destined to fail. Time has not eroded the value of Splatoon, and I feel strongly that its core idea is worth the sequels it has gotten.
 
PillFencer said:
Ok I admit I tend to exaggerate some things when reacting to these hot takes™️ ARMS is fun and one of Nintendo's best in terms of aesthetics
Click to expand...
And bangin music! My only issue with arms is that the world and characters are ripe for a story mode.
 
0
Raccoon said:
I really love Splatoon, and Splatoon 3 is a game for people who really love Splatoon. If they keep making these, I will keep buying them, no matter how derivative or basic they get.

I understand that many do not like Splatoon, and I cannot fault them for that. However, I feel very strongly that the value of a new IP is not a momentary novelty. Splatoon may have not been reinvented in its seven years of existence, but I feel very strongly that its value has not diminished in that time. If we come to expect that every new IP constantly keep up with its reputation as a new idea, every series will be destined to fail. Time has not eroded the value of Splatoon, and I feel strongly that its core idea is worth the sequels it has gotten.
Click to expand...
Damn well said
 
0
The reviews are not convincing me so far, i think I will pass on this one , at least for the time being.
 
Fercho said:
The reviews are not convincing me so far, i think I will pass on this one , at least for the time being.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is a game for Splatoon fans. I really hope that it manages to expand the series via sheer numbers despite this, and the next entry is ambitious enough to draw in new players on its own.

To be clear, I expect the latter to be the case. With Hero Mode being called the finale of the trilogy (and being pretty closely aligned with the format of the previous two), I suspect that the next Splatoon game won't be "Splatoon 4," if you understand my meaning.
 
@Yoshifan31 , it seems that the series is just not for you. And I don’t mean this as an attack. Take aside the core gameplay, but the music, characters, and visual identity is core to the series and it’s what drew so many people into it.

The world is so vibrant and unique to us, and it’s has tremendous world building and lore that is fascinating. It’s not in your face or chatty (minus Octo Expansion which is) but it’s richly laid out. Playing through Octo Expansion, when you read through all the dialogue, messages, and see the visual storytelling in the final stretch, you can tell it’s not throwaway but that the devs put so much care and love into the world they created.

And those are things that the fanbase loves. The great thing about the games, is that the single player adventures within them are rock solid pure gameplay and platforming shooting action. Like, if the games did not even have multiplayer but instead were 25 hours long single player games, they would still be friggin great - that’s how good the single player stuff in the games are.

As for the actual gameplay itself, it is super polished. Ridiculously so.

I would rather pay 60 bucks every 4 - 5 years instead of having a GAAS with micro transactions and season passes. If there is significant content added like in Splatoon 2, I want to have a DLC pack.

Can they make more money and bring more people in if they made it F2P? Sure. But since I don’t get a check from Nintendo, I don’t care about any of that.

It just seems this game is not for you, and I know some people get upset being told that, BUT that’s not a bad thing. There’s plenty of games that are loved that just are not for me. It’s not the bad thing some people seem to make it out to be. We have more variety than ever these days in gaming.
 
Clix said:
@Yoshifan31 , it seems that the series is just not for you. And I don’t mean this as an attack. Take aside the core gameplay, but the music, characters, and visual identity is core to the series and it’s what drew so many people into it.

The world is so vibrant and unique to us, and it’s has tremendous world building and lore that is fascinating. It’s not in your face or chatty (minus Octo Expansion which is) but it’s richly laid out. Playing through Octo Expansion, when you read through all the dialogue, messages, and see the visual storytelling in the final stretch, you can tell it’s not throwaway but that the devs put so much care and love into the world they created.

And those are things that the fanbase loves. The great thing about the games, is that the single player adventures within them are rock solid pure gameplay and platforming shooting action. Like, if the games did not even have multiplayer but instead were 25 hours long single player games, they would still be friggin great - that’s how good the single player stuff in the games are.

As for the actual gameplay itself, it is super polished. Ridiculously so.

I would rather pay 60 bucks every 4 - 5 years instead of having a GAAS with micro transactions and season passes. If there is significant content added like in Splatoon 2, I want to have a DLC pack.

Can they make more money and bring more people in if they made it F2P? Sure. But since I don’t get a check from Nintendo, I don’t care about any of that.

It just seems this game is not for you, and I know some people get upset being told that, BUT that’s not a bad thing. There’s plenty of games that are loved that just are not for me. It’s not the bad thing some people seem to make it out to be. We have more variety than ever these days in gaming.
Click to expand...
This is very well said. Hell, I wish fewer things were "for me," then maybe I'd actually play everything I like!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom