• 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

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...
Yeah, I wish it was F2P so it was $60 every year instead of every 5. What is this post?!
 
It's so easy to just not pay $60 for a game that doesn't interest you

Almost just as easy is paying $60 every 5 years for a game you love
 
0
KC Hazel said:
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?
Click to expand...
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit

(Replying generally here) All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online. The reason is that Nintendo’s series are usually legendary, on top of their genre, offer the most bang for your buck and are very insistently advertised. The last point is why people are always annoyed by “dead time” in Directs. People are always hyped to see their favorite series back on the spotlight. While Splatoon is working very well in terms of sales, it’s just unprecedented for a major multiplayer Nintendo game to receive an iterative sequel on the same console. Again, this is ironic when the first Splatoon meme was literally “pfft, he plays Call of Duty”. Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving? One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them. The fact that Splatoon doesn’t at least use this model is disappointing to me. I liked the Testfire on Wii U (while I’m at it no more Gamepad is a huge loss), but the info about the game’s content just doesn’t incite me to purchase it full price like Smash or Mario Kart. Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase. If the game had Smash-like content and modes and came out once a gen no one would complain
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit

(Replying generally here) All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online. The reason is that Nintendo’s series are usually legendary, on top of their genre, offer the most bang for your buck and are very insistently advertised. The last point is why people are always annoyed by “dead time” in Directs. People are always hyped to see their favorite series back on the spotlight. While Splatoon is working very well in terms of sales, it’s just unprecedented for a major multiplayer Nintendo game to receive an iterative sequel on the same console. Again, this is ironic when the first Splatoon meme was literally “pfft, he plays Call of Duty”. Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving? One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them. The fact that Splatoon doesn’t at least use this model is disappointing to me. I liked the Testfire on Wii U (while I’m at it no more Gamepad is a huge loss), but the info about the game’s content just doesn’t incite me to purchase it full price like Smash or Mario Kart. Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase. If the game had Smash-like content and modes and came out once a gen no one would complain
Click to expand...
Doesn't Fortnite sells skins for like 10-20 bucks? The Goku skin alone is pretty expensive. I don't want Splatoon gear to add up to thousands of dollars in costs when I can just pay 60 and get it all.

I don't mind people who don't like Splatoon, or think they should take bigger strides with each game. To each their own, that's fine. But when you do make statements like the ones you made, don't be surprised when people point out that it makes no sense. Could all of this stuff have been added to Splatoon 2 as DLC? I'm sure a lot of it could in theory, but it's also going to be a full game's worth of content. Other games do this by making you pay for the content or via microtransactions. I can't think of any game that is free to play, and has no method of making money and adds 4-5 years worth of content. When people say Splatoon should 'just do that' other people are going to point out how unrealistic it is.
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit
Click to expand...
Splatoon 3 should bring in about a billion for Nintendo. They would really struggle making that much with any other business model, Splatoon is just fundamentally opposed to pretty much all microtransaction models. Splatoon's design as an arena shooter cannot accommodate the kind of seasonal changes that a battle royale game can do. They can't put weapons behind paywalls because they are all just too different and the roles they play are too unique. Trying to somehow glom on a hero system on top of weapons that you could paywall would work terribly. Cosmetics matter but they don't really matter in Splatoon, all clothing is pretty much completely invisible ingame and the pace of matches means that there are basically zero opportunities for in-match emotes, so there's really not much opportunity to bring in revenue there. You could sell the campaign for like $20 but why do that when you could sell the whole thing for $60?

Then you have to remember that a big chunk of what Nintendo brings in from Splatoon is from new NSO subscribers, which they would lose completely by making it free to play.
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit

(Replying generally here) All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online. The reason is that Nintendo’s series are usually legendary, on top of their genre, offer the most bang for your buck and are very insistently advertised. The last point is why people are always annoyed by “dead time” in Directs. People are always hyped to see their favorite series back on the spotlight. While Splatoon is working very well in terms of sales, it’s just unprecedented for a major multiplayer Nintendo game to receive an iterative sequel on the same console. Again, this is ironic when the first Splatoon meme was literally “pfft, he plays Call of Duty”. Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving? One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them. The fact that Splatoon doesn’t at least use this model is disappointing to me. I liked the Testfire on Wii U (while I’m at it no more Gamepad is a huge loss), but the info about the game’s content just doesn’t incite me to purchase it full price like Smash or Mario Kart. Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase. If the game had Smash-like content and modes and came out once a gen no one would complain
Click to expand...
I do believe that this game exists in an attempt to keep the IP alive and give it a shot at utilizing the now massive Nintendo Switch audience. The system has sold in exceptional numbers since support for 2 stopped, and attempting to tap into that market with a new game makes more sense than trying to garner further sales of the old one.
 
Raccoon said:
I do believe that this game exists in an attempt to keep the IP alive and give it a shot at utilizing the now massive Nintendo Switch audience. The system has sold in exceptional numbers since support for 2 stopped, and attempting to tap into that market with a new game makes more sense than trying to garner further sales of the old one.
Click to expand...
Yes, MK8DX still sells gangbusters. Splatoon 2 does not. Splatoon 2 also has some major issues that to fix would involve removing a lot of specials and stages from the game and replacing them outright with much better designed stuff and at that point you should just make a brand new game anyways.
 
Not to dog pile on anyone but I do find I weird when people go why another Xenoblade game, Nintendo? And it's like because that's all* Monolith makes? Why another Fire Emblem, Nintendo? Because that's one of three IPs that IS makes currently? Why another Kirby game, Nintendo? Because that's all* HAL makes right now? Why another Splatoon? Etc, Etc. Like it's not like these dedicated studios are going to stop making these games
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit

(Replying generally here) All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online. The reason is that Nintendo’s series are usually legendary, on top of their genre, offer the most bang for your buck and are very insistently advertised. The last point is why people are always annoyed by “dead time” in Directs. People are always hyped to see their favorite series back on the spotlight. While Splatoon is working very well in terms of sales, it’s just unprecedented for a major multiplayer Nintendo game to receive an iterative sequel on the same console. Again, this is ironic when the first Splatoon meme was literally “pfft, he plays Call of Duty”. Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving? One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them. The fact that Splatoon doesn’t at least use this model is disappointing to me. I liked the Testfire on Wii U (while I’m at it no more Gamepad is a huge loss), but the info about the game’s content just doesn’t incite me to purchase it full price like Smash or Mario Kart. Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase. If the game had Smash-like content and modes and came out once a gen no one would complain
Click to expand...
Not to be mean and read this in bad faith, but this comes off like, "Those annoying Splatoon fans on the internet won't know what hit them - soon the world will see this game the way I do, and all the good will it has will come crashing down!" Is that hyperbolic? Yes. Absolutely. But it really, really comes off as you projecting your feelings for the game and its fandom onto the world's wider perception of Splatoon as a franchise.

I'm sorry that Splatoon 3 isn't a good deal to you because it isn't F2P or isn't a once a franchise deal. It's fair to feel that way. Plenty of people have expressed that opinion in less hyperbolic ways than you have. And yes, fandom in the social media age is loud and obnoxious and rude, you can say that about most any large one. But at the same time, plenty of people find that the game is worth it at 60 dollars for the content in the base game plus the 2 or so years of updates that are bound to come along with it, just like the find Smash or Mario Kart worth it. If the greater gaming populace rejects that, then okay, Nintendo will cross that bridge when it gets there. But for now, the company considers Splatoon one of its A-list in-house franchises. It's a new pillar franchise, advertised alongside Mario, Zelda and Animal Crossing, and it sells to match. They have practically dubbed it a classic, for better or for worse. So it is not surprising at all that they are trying to capitalize on that with a new game in the series, one released after 5 years, adds a full new campaign, rebalances the game with its new weapon types and specials, builds upon previous worldbuilding with the passage of time in universe similar to our own, and updates the tone and presentation to match that. It's producers care about it, it's creative teams care about it from the dev interviews, they want to make this. F-Zero and Star Fox and all the other neglected franchises aren't going to be made any faster.

And hey, if that's not enough for you - you look at Splatoon 3 and see an iterative sequel not worth your time or cash - then hey, it's perfectly valid to not buy it, regardless of whatever zeitgeist is going on around the game. There are so many more things to be excited over that it's not worth wasting your time.
 
Magic-Man said:
Gamers have a weird obsession with saying everything they don't personally like is terrible and shouldn't exist. It's exhausting.
Click to expand...
It is exhausting. Not every single game can appeal to everyone in the world. It’s okay for a game to appeal to its audience of 10-15m players. Should Nintendo want to expand that audience as much as possible? Of course, but for the second game on the same system, it’s okay if it’s more of a refinement than a revolution. All I ask for is that it is the best Splatoon has been thus far, and it looks like they’ve delivered on that front.
 
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit
Click to expand...
You're seriously underestimating how much those F2P games pull in through microtransactions. If Splatoon were to survive as a F2P model, there'd be microtransactions out the wazoo. Pretty much everything cosmetic would have a price tag slapped onto it, and the actual content rollout would likely be much slower than what we typically get.
Yoshifan31 said:
All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online.
Click to expand...
"Why couldn't it be DLC" arguments show up all over the place in the modern gaming sphere, and they rarely have any sort of impact on the performance of a game. The internet community propagating that narrative make up a very small minority of the overall consumer base.
Yoshifan31 said:
Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving?
Click to expand...
Ignoring the obvious sales argument, IPs need the proper developers. The Splatoon team makes Splatoon, not F-Zero. A new Splatoon game has nothing to do with those missing IPs, because they were never going to make one in the first place.
Yoshifan31 said:
One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them.
Click to expand...
Mario Kart consistently had two games per generation until the Switch, and Smash had two games in the previous generation. There was never any guarantee that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe or Super Smash Bros. Ultimate would be the only games of their respective IPs on the Switch, because that was never the standard to begin with. Maybe that's changed now, but to say that they were always "sacred" is false.
Yoshifan31 said:
Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna need a source on that, because I don't really see where you're getting this from. Sure, it's not a smash hit, but general reception to Splatoon is generally pretty positive overall in my experience. Hell, I've found that the Nintendo community has generally been harsher on Splatoon 3 than anyone.
 
The idea that Splatoon is somehow widely disliked outside of its direct fanbase is the strangest notion to come out of the last couple of pages.

Like, where have we observed the general “lack of goodwill”?
 
Animal Crossing is only popular with Animal Crossing fans. Imagine how much more goodwill the franchise could get if it started appealing to F-Zero fans
 
Sander RX said:
The idea that Splatoon is somehow widely disliked outside of its direct fanbase is the strangest notion to come out of the last couple of pages.

Like, where have we observed the general “lack of goodwill”?
Click to expand...
It’s bog standard "people are saying" rhetoric. Not every take is worth engaging with and I’m not sure why people on here fall for it every time.
 
Yoshifan31 said:
why act like another entry on the same console is welcome.
Click to expand...
Because it is welcome.
I love Splatoon. I love my Switch. Getting a new Splatoon game without having to wait for the next system is awesome.

Was I not allowed to welcome Mario Galaxy 2 on the Wii because the system already had a 3D Mario?
How about Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3 on the SNES, or Majora's Mask on the N64, Metroid Prime 2 on Gamecube, or Xenoblade 3 on Switch?

And why does Splatoon 3, a new entry in a unique series that brings a new campaign, new gameplay mechanics, new modes, new maps, new QoL features, and more, constantly have to justify its existence while the majority of video games sequels are similarly iterative but get a free pass?
 
Last edited:
Clov said:
Animal Crossing is only popular with Animal Crossing fans. Imagine how much more goodwill the franchise could get if it started appealing to F-Zero fans
Click to expand...
Maybe if Mario Kart started appealing more to Knight Move fans it’d finally be popular beyond Mario Kart fans.
 
I'm surprised the serie scores "so low", not that it matter that much, it still gets good scores, but I would have expected it to score in the 87-89 range that most big Nintendo games that are not 3D Mario/Zelda get. Feels like the industry doesn't "get" Splatoon to the fullest like the fanbase does.
 
I'm a big Splatoon fan, but I wish this new entry was a bit fresher. I'll still buy it, but I probably won't enjoy it as much as I did #2.
 
really happy that the game is well received. Can't wait to dive into the singleplayer after all the new tidbits and infos on progression and world/level design.

only about 13 hours left here in middle europe.
 
0
MaitreWakou said:
I'm surprised the serie scores "so low", not that it matter that much, it still gets good scores, but I would have expected it to score in the 87-89 range that most big Nintendo games that are not 3D Mario/Zelda get. Feels like the industry doesn't "get" Splatoon to the fullest like the fanbase does.
Click to expand...
The recurring and distancing "fans will like it" in reviews even positives has been dull and weird to witness, like yeah your kids will like it, you can buy safely!
 
I've been mostly disconnected from Splatoon discussion because I know it will be a banger and I'm going to get it, but imagine my surprise at seeing how unhinged the last few pages have seemed. (To me, anyway.)

I had no idea there was some sort of animosity toward the Splatoon community/Splatoon 3 from other parts of the internet. lol I feel like every game series I'm into has some sort of "Why are you making this series this way?!?!?! Why aren't you making the games I want?!?!" discourse around it.

Even the reviews seem odd. Does Splatoon need to be """ambitious?""" If you've heckin' nailed the gameplay formula to this degree why not just iterate on it?

I am the guy who thought the traditional Pokemon formula (my favorite series) was fine when everyone started losing their mind about it (and the more Pokemon changes recently the less I'm interested) though so I might not be the best one to judge how "ambitious" something should become.
 
BradenAndEggs said:
I've been mostly disconnected from Splatoon discussion because I know it will be a banger and I'm going to get it, but imagine my surprise at seeing how unhinged the last few pages have seemed. (To me, anyway.)

I had no idea there was some sort of animosity toward the Splatoon community/Splatoon 3 from other parts of the internet. lol I feel like every game series I'm into has some sort of "Why are you making this series this way?!?!?! Why aren't you making the games I want?!?!" discourse around it.

Even the reviews seem odd. Does Splatoon need to be """ambitious?""" If you've heckin' nailed the gameplay formula to this degree why not just iterate on it?

I am the guy who thought the traditional Pokemon formula (my favorite series) was fine when everyone started losing their mind about it (and the more Pokemon changes recently the less I'm interested) though so I might not be the best one to judge how "ambitious" something should become.
Click to expand...

Videogames are a large part of my childhood, many happy memories were created around gaming so they're part of me. now as I grew older life had some plans with me in the shape of responsibilities and one of the only things that still seem rather untouched from that day are videogames. They're still fun and I am still in control. Now imagine if anyone decided to stop doing that thing I like and do something else... or worse, SOMETHING NEW instead without my approval. Madness I tell you. <-- probably something along these lines :p

Videogames are serious business and we probably just like to see them as something bigger then they actually are. same as every other hobby or sport, we pour our passion into it.
 
0
Yoshifan31 said:
I thought about Tetris 99 mainly because it sold its single player content separately. There are many 3D service games out there that look like they have high budgets, Fortnite barely looks like the same game in between seasons. The question here is that do those games really depend that much on whales to be sustainable? There can’t be that many of them no? Wouldn’t a Splatoon multiplayer tied to Expansion Pack be doable? Surely this would bring many new subs. Super Mario Run was a “bomb” because they decided to make it a honest game but it still made a profit

(Replying generally here) All I’m saying is to not be surprised that this kind of discourse comes back for future Splatoon games. It’s perfectly valid to be a fan of whatever series you like but the thing is, the Splatoon sequels simply don’t stand out from each other in an outsider’s point of view and that will spark the “why couldn’t it be DLC” discussion whether you like it or not. I see people are amused by “how much Nintendo fans can dislike other Nintendo series”, while this is pretty silly there are very understandable reasons why this kind of situation sparks hyperbole from me, the one I originally quoted and whatever unenthusiastic comment you can find online. The reason is that Nintendo’s series are usually legendary, on top of their genre, offer the most bang for your buck and are very insistently advertised. The last point is why people are always annoyed by “dead time” in Directs. People are always hyped to see their favorite series back on the spotlight. While Splatoon is working very well in terms of sales, it’s just unprecedented for a major multiplayer Nintendo game to receive an iterative sequel on the same console. Again, this is ironic when the first Splatoon meme was literally “pfft, he plays Call of Duty”. Splatoon fans already ate well on Switch, why are they getting even more while F-Zero fans are starving? One of the reasons why Smash and Mario Kart have crazy legs is because they are sacred, they have one game per gen and you know they aren’t going on sale and that you will get a lot of bang for your buck so people buy them. The fact that Splatoon doesn’t at least use this model is disappointing to me. I liked the Testfire on Wii U (while I’m at it no more Gamepad is a huge loss), but the info about the game’s content just doesn’t incite me to purchase it full price like Smash or Mario Kart. Now this doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things as Splatoon is still successful but again, there is clearly a reason why this series doesn’t have as much goodwill outside of the Splatoon fanbase. If the game had Smash-like content and modes and came out once a gen no one would complain
Click to expand...

I mean, Mario Kart and Smash are iterative sequels. But each entry improves on the next, with 8 being so big because it was the first HD installment that to this day looks gorgeous - and even then, the OG release was not an improvement in regards to battle mode, which they rectified in Deluxe.

Smash is Smash, but with each entry we get refinements, new characters, stages, and little bonuses for our inner collector. The biggest difference between all is single player, but even that is the same thing under a different skin. World of Light is pretty fun, but underneath the skin and cinematic, it is just the normal Smash events and challenges as the other single player modes, but now we collect cool spirits instead of trophies.

You are too concerned from an outsider perspective. I mean, someone not a fan of Kart or Smash can look at Ultimate and Wii U and think it is the same game until they play it, or when Kart 9 comes up (and is in HD) until they play it, they may think it looks like 8.

It seems - from what I can tell - you have no interest in Splatoon. So why concern yourself that it does not grab you? Or subs?

Also, another Splatoon game does not take away from another game. Different teams and devs. I mean, the Splatoon team has cross pollination with the Animal Crossing team, and we got both series on Switch.

Nintedo gives their devs a good deal of creative freedom. You know when we will get a new F Zero or Wave Race? When someone actively champions it at Nintendo and pitches their concept. But Nintendo does not seem to force their devs to make a game. They will certainly request a new entry - such a they do for their bread and butter of Mario Bros, which is obvious - but from all accounts, they will never go "Make this now".
 
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...
...

Anyways, my preorder has shipped! I elected to get the Walmart one because of the free plush inkling.
 
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...
The only elephant in the room is that we're still getting these posts.
 
Glad the game is reviewing well, but man do I feel like I’m getting this game out of obligation of being a Splatoon fan. Loved 1, liked 2, and loved Octo Expansion. But despite all the improvements made here, way more could’ve been done to make this game stand out more. I’m glad that in the Nintendo Life review they point out how despite improving on everything from Splatoon 2 to near perfection, the lack of any new mode after FIVE YEARS is quite baffling. Maybe we’ll get something post launch, idk.

I’m not great at this game so most my time will be spent in single player and Salmon Run. Salmon Run seem to be a unanimous upgrade between the permanent availability, throwing eggs, king salmonids, and practice hub. But with single player again I feel like more could be done. It’s nice to hear that levels can be done in any order and is structurally similar to Octo Expansion, but the fact that we’re still fighting octarians in floating obstacle course levels is disappointing after we’ve done this for 7 years. Hoping that Splatoon 4 gives us a new enemy and levels are more cohesive and open.
 
DittoM said:
I’m glad that in the Nintendo Life review they point out how despite improving on everything from Splatoon 2 to near perfection, the lack of any new mode after FIVE YEARS is quite baffling. Maybe we’ll get something post launch, idk.
Click to expand...
oh, we absolutely will. in fact, if we don't I'll become a hater
 
Seems like the best kind of "iterative sequel": so many little things got thoughtfully tuned. Tweaked Inkling design (a little longer, creeps me out less) and less obtrusive walking animation quietly being big deals for me personally.
 
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...
...so I take it that you're not a Splatoon fan?
 
I didn't realize Splatoon 3 release would be so... debated? I thought it was the only IP that blew up the last decade with the "traditional Nintendo" fans (the ones who hate Xenoblade and Fire Emblem) , so this weird turn on the series feels odd. In fact reading in some of these reviews that "Nintendo dropped the ball with the IP" and I am confused as more of an onlooker. A tweaked and iterative sequel with better online features and a better campaign is what I thought people wanted (I haven't played 2 but everyone says Octo Expansion was great and it sounds like the level design in 3 picks up from this). If I am honest this discourse over the last year leading into this review period has made me really slow down on believing gaming fans in wanting iterative sequels for insert dead ip here. There has been so much negative talk historically about Nintendo saying they need a reason to bring back a dead IP but I think this release shows that subconsciously that a huge gaming demographic believes in that same sentiment. Like even if you aren't a Splat person... this series is so novel in the market that it justifies it own existence as an iterative release, because, what else feels like Splatoons movement?
 
DittoM said:
If after 5 years they couldn’t come up with a new mode that uses Splatoon’s mechanics and had to resort to a completely different style of gameplay then that’s alarming.

But no, this doesn’t count.
Click to expand...
What’s alarming exactly?
 
DittoM said:
If after 5 years they couldn’t come up with a new mode that uses Splatoon’s mechanics and had to resort to a completely different style of gameplay then that’s alarming.

But no, this doesn’t count.
Click to expand...
Why is that alarming? Don't just assume they don't have any ideas for new modes simply because of how they went about this.
 
I do urge people to read the recent dev interviews. Anyone who says this game is just a soulless product slap-dashed by corporate is deluding themselves.

The passion the devs talk about it and the care they are putting not just into the game, but the world itself - these people are passionate.
 
TheWolvesDen said:
I didn't realize Splatoon 3 release would be so... debated? I thought it was the only IP that blew up the last decade with the "traditional Nintendo" fans (the ones who hate Xenoblade and Fire Emblem) , so this weird turn on the series feels odd. In fact reading in some of these reviews that "Nintendo dropped the ball with the IP" and I am confused as more of an onlooker. A tweaked and iterative sequel with better online features and a better campaign is what I thought people wanted (I haven't played 2 but everyone says Octo Expansion was great and it sounds like the level design in 3 picks up from this). If I am honest this discourse over the last year leading into this review period has made me really slow down on believing gaming fans in wanting iterative sequels for insert dead ip here. There has been so much negative talk historically about Nintendo saying they need a reason to bring back a dead IP but I think this release shows that subconsciously that a huge gaming demographic believes in that same sentiment. Like even if you aren't a Splat person... this series is so novel in the market that it justifies it own existence as an iterative release, because, what else feels like Splatoons movement?
Click to expand...
It’s the combination of this being on the same system as Splatoon 2 and there not really being any big additions that has some people a bit miffed. Like 5 years isn’t too absurd of a wait between releases but they haven’t really added anything to the core formula. Just refined it. Which is still good but more definitely could have been done here.

As for fans of other series like F Zero saying they want an iterative sequel that’s because it’s been like 20 years since the last game and they’ll take anything as long as it’s good, even if it isn’t super different from the last game. It’s only been 5 years since Splatoon 2, which is already on Switch, so it’s not that drastic. With that being the case people wanted something big in Splatoon 3 for it to say “Okay now THIS is what makes Splatoon 3 “Splatoon 3”. We haven’t gotten that yet.
 
DittoM said:
It’s the combination of this being on the same system as Splatoon 2 and there not really being any big additions that has some people a bit miffed. Like 5 years isn’t too absurd of a wait between releases but they haven’t really added anything to the core formula. Just refined it. Which is still good but more definitely could have been done here.

As for fans of other series like F Zero saying they want an iterative sequel that’s because it’s been like 20 years since the last game and they’ll take anything as long as it’s good, even if it isn’t super different from the last game. It’s only been 5 years since Splatoon 2, which is already on Switch, so it’s not that drastic. With that being the case people wanted something big in Splatoon 3 for it to say “Okay now THIS is what makes Splatoon 3 “Splatoon 3”. We haven’t gotten that yet.
Click to expand...

That’s silly. Splatoon does not take away from a new F Zero or a new Pilot Wings. Nintendo is made up of so many different key talents and teams. Know when we will get a new F Zero or Pilot Wings? When a key dev wants to make one and champions it.
 
Clix said:
That’s silly. Splatoon does not take away from a new F Zero or a new Pilot Wings. Nintendo is made up of so many different key talents and teams. Know when we will get a new F Zero or Pilot Wings? When a key dev wants to make one and champions it.
Click to expand...
Where on Earth did I say Splatoon takes away from F-Zero? I said fans of F-Zero want a iterative sequel because it’s been so long since the last entry. Can you at least read what I say before jumping to Splatoon 3’s defense?
 
The lack of innovation in Splatoon 3 is irritating if only because there just seem like so many obvious ways to do fun stuff. Like, I should be able to ink surf on another team member when they're in squid mode and do tricks. Why can't I do that, Nintendo?
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom