View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Top Gun
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 4762
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 7:16 pm
|
|
|
Full disclaimer: I owned the original Splatoon but barely played it online, and played a bit of Splatoon 2 but quickly lost interest and never bought 3.
That being said, I come back to the question I had when 3 was announced: why did this game even exist as a standalone product? Splatoon 2 launched a few months after the Switch did, got about 18 months' worth of content updates, and then was left alone. Then Splatoon 3 launches a full 4 years later, at least on the surface doesn't look fundamentally different than its predecessor, and then has an active period of only 2 years itself. So Nintendo releases these games much too infrequently to be a yearly content mill like CoD or its ilk (which is a good thing), but also doesn't support the game with content updates between iterations like a true live-service model. It's in this weird in-between spot, and at least for me it's not worth a full-price release. Now if what was introduced in 3 was a $20 or $30 content update to prolong 2's life, then I probably would have paid that without much thought.
(And yes I know the real answer is "to make Nintendo money," but let's try to go a bit deeper than that.)
|
Back to top |
|
|
AiddonValentine
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2329
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 8:13 pm
|
|
|
Grand Fest was certainly one hell of a finale. Unlike most shooters that just do updates, eventually bringing out the new version with little fanfare, the way Splatoon does them helps create a sense of finality. It comes like a conclusion that you're satisfied with instead of just playing forever until you get bored or new maps come out.
With the winner being announced as the Past, now I wonder what direction that's gonna Splatoon 4 in. The game gonna have a Sengoku Jidai theme or something?
|
Back to top |
|
|
jdnation
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2096
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 8:49 pm
|
|
|
Splatoon 4 to launch with Switch 2?
Seems like the simplest thing to make.
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmanatunga
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 65
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 10:39 pm
|
|
|
Top Gun wrote: | Full disclaimer: I owned the original Splatoon but barely played it online, and played a bit of Splatoon 2 but quickly lost interest and never bought 3.
That being said, I come back to the question I had when 3 was announced: why did this game even exist as a standalone product? Splatoon 2 launched a few months after the Switch did, got about 18 months' worth of content updates, and then was left alone. Then Splatoon 3 launches a full 4 years later, at least on the surface doesn't look fundamentally different than its predecessor, and then has an active period of only 2 years itself. So Nintendo releases these games much too infrequently to be a yearly content mill like CoD or its ilk (which is a good thing), but also doesn't support the game with content updates between iterations like a true live-service model. It's in this weird in-between spot, and at least for me it's not worth a full-price release. Now if what was introduced in 3 was a $20 or $30 content update to prolong 2's life, then I probably would have paid that without much thought.
(And yes I know the real answer is "to make Nintendo money," but let's try to go a bit deeper than that.) |
Nintendo just fundamentally doesn't follow the typical trends for multi-player, live-action games. The same arguments you make could easily also apply to both Smash, Mario Kart, and Animal Crossing. But as of now, it seems the way Nintendo prefers to do development is two year support cycles before switching to a different project. I think in that way you avoid developers burning out on just one type of project. It also gives them time to experiment and gain knowledge from different aspects.
As for whether Splatoon 3 is 30 dollar expansion in terms of content. I mean, you can make the argument, but I don't know if I agree. The game has a single-player campaign, two new weapon classes, new movement mechanics, new Salmon Run mechanics, new mode in Tableturf, and new events in Big Run, Eggstra Work, and Challenges. If you only engage in parts, it seems minimal. But as a whole, a lot was added.
Lastly, my pet theory on the these two year content cycles followed by longer drought is that it is a way to get younger, newer players introduced to the game. I think it is harder for people to join a game the longer it exists. But if you essentially have a big release after a period, it gets old folks interested in a new iteration coming out, with young folks possibly joining in to see what it is all about.
Anyways, just my opinion on the matter. No guarantee any of it is right.
Also, as for topic itself, Grand Festival was a blast and a fitting send off.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Top Gun
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 4762
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:14 pm
|
|
|
dmanatunga wrote: |
Nintendo just fundamentally doesn't follow the typical trends for multi-player, live-action games. The same arguments you make could easily also apply to both Smash, Mario Kart, and Animal Crossing. But as of now, it seems the way Nintendo prefers to do development is two year support cycles before switching to a different project. I think in that way you avoid developers burning out on just one type of project. It also gives them time to experiment and gain knowledge from different aspects. |
You're right that Nintendo generally does things their own way, but in this particular case I think it's to their detriment, or at the very least to the detriment of my personal interest in the franchise. The examples you cited are interesting cases though. I don't begrudge Smash its completed development cycle, because it was guaranteed that it will be the only franchise entry released on the Switch, so its lifespan is baked in by default. (Also it wound up with a massive amount of content in the end.) I don't play Animal Crossing, but it's also a once-per-generation title. That's how Nintendo tends to operate with their big tentpole franchises, so Splatoon is even more of a glaring exception. Speaking of, Mario Kart 8 is the weirdest one of all: it's technically a last-generation title, but it received an enormous content update years after its original release. I know that's because it sold a staggering number of copies, but I still think it's a shame that Splatoon 2 didn't get similar treatment.
Granted I'll freely admit that my stance on multiplayer-focused games is extremely skewed by the only one I actively play being Team Fortress 2...which is still receiving new content updates seventeen years after its initial release. Not that I'm expecting any other game to have that level of commitment.
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmanatunga
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 65
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2024 12:24 am
|
|
|
Top Gun wrote: |
You're right that Nintendo generally does things their own way, but in this particular case I think it's to their detriment, or at the very least to the detriment of my personal interest in the franchise. The examples you cited are interesting cases though. I don't begrudge Smash its completed development cycle, because it was guaranteed that it will be the only franchise entry released on the Switch, so its lifespan is baked in by default. (Also it wound up with a massive amount of content in the end.) I don't play Animal Crossing, but it's also a once-per-generation title. That's how Nintendo tends to operate with their big tentpole franchises, so Splatoon is even more of a glaring exception. Speaking of, Mario Kart 8 is the weirdest one of all: it's technically a last-generation title, but it received an enormous content update years after its original release. I know that's because it sold a staggering number of copies, but I still think it's a shame that Splatoon 2 didn't get similar treatment.
|
If I had to guess, Splatoon 3 was probably originally intended for the next Switch. But between the Switch generation lasting in so long and the lull in the releases, they decided to go ahead. And while it is rare, Nintendo has done multiple franchise releases in the same generation. The other Switch launch title of Breath of the Wild got one. Pikmin 1 and 2 in Game Cube, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 in the Wii days, and I am sure others I am forgetting. Granted those are single player. The only multiplayer example is really Mario Party. Plus, Splatoon 3 is crazy popular in Japan. It became the top for selling the most in a 3 day period.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Juno016
Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 2415
|
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2024 6:05 am
|
|
|
Top Gun wrote: | Full disclaimer: I owned the original Splatoon but barely played it online, and played a bit of Splatoon 2 but quickly lost interest and never bought 3.
That being said, I come back to the question I had when 3 was announced: why did this game even exist as a standalone product? Splatoon 2 launched a few months after the Switch did, got about 18 months' worth of content updates, and then was left alone. Then Splatoon 3 launches a full 4 years later, at least on the surface doesn't look fundamentally different than its predecessor, and then has an active period of only 2 years itself. So Nintendo releases these games much too infrequently to be a yearly content mill like CoD or its ilk (which is a good thing), but also doesn't support the game with content updates between iterations like a true live-service model. It's in this weird in-between spot, and at least for me it's not worth a full-price release. Now if what was introduced in 3 was a $20 or $30 content update to prolong 2's life, then I probably would have paid that without much thought.
(And yes I know the real answer is "to make Nintendo money," but let's try to go a bit deeper than that.) |
The jump from Splatoon 2 to Splatoon 3 was so huge that it dwarfed the jump from Splatoon 1 to Splatoon 2, imo. For one, Splatoon is technically a lore-based game, and just like how Splatoon 1's Final Fest influenced the story of Splatoon 2, Splatoon 2's Final Fest influenced an entirely new story for Splatoon 3. There was a big passage of time between the two as well. The graphics update was massive (Splatoon 3 is soooo much brighter and colorful), they changed the format of Splatfests (from two teams to three teams, adding a new game mode), added an entirely new idol group to match the new format, had an entirely new design philosophy around the main game, made huge changes to quality of life mechanics in the game (squid rolling, B-charging), changed the way customization works, didn't require you to buy a DLC to play as an Octoling, upped the visual age of the player characters, completely changed the Salmon Run schedule and mechanics, and started from scratch with a MUCH more balanced set of weapon kits. These are not things that would have been easy to update in Splatoon 2. Besides, the finality of the Final Fests/Grand Fest felt important. They told us from the beginning how long content updates would last, so I knew what I was buying, and I even looked forward to the "end" because of how much effort they put into these. I really wouldn't want them to do it differently. The GrandFest had me in tears.
I can appreciate your perspective, though. For me, Splatoon 2 was fundamentally flawed, and Splatoon 3 fixed all my major complaints and added even more goodness. It's hard to go back to Splatoon 2 now in light of everything.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|