By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - 6 Ways Nintendo Will Save Us From Awful Shooter Video Games

There is an interesting design choice I haven't seen get much attention. It gets the occasional negative remark, but it's a lot less controversial than the lack of voice chat.

You can't leave a lobby once you've joined it. You can't quit a match once it has started. I've seen a few people complain about these, but I think the benefits far outweigh whatever 'problems' these cause. Ever struggled to start a match in an online game because people kept leaving the lobby? Ever had someone join and leave immediately upon seeing that their teammates were low-leveled? How about leaving a match midway through because they thought it was hopeless?

I'm glad people can't pull that crap in Splatoon. It does make the game less frustrating.



Around the Network

What I like will save the industry, what I don't like is destroying it. All the millions of consumers who like something different are wrong--they're not really having fun, they just think they're having fun. Blah, blah, and, by the way, blah.

People preaching about video-games never stops being amusing.



because we all asked Nintendo to "save us" from shooters.... I would have been easily pleased with a proper Metroid game for the Wii u or even an August release date for Xenoblade- but no, Nintendo goes and saves the world while assassinating its own Wii U console, yes the same console that Splatoon was born and is still very early in its fragile existence. I sincerely hope Splatoon stays strong as my Son wants it very badly but I am waiting to see if Nintendo is going to give up on it as fast as they have on the Wii U



Thank god im not the only one who thinks this way.



Nice read, I may not agree with all points, but in the end, still an enjoyable read.



Around the Network
midrange said:
I find it funny that Nintendo releases a colorful semi-decent shooter, and everyone is claiming that Nintendo is the only one that innovates.

Splatoon actually does not add anything to gameplay that hasn't been done before. Teleporting is nothing new. paintball guns are also nothing new (just check out the wonder weapon from cod:bo2 : sliquifier). Colorful graphics have already been done in team fortress 2.

Instead, titanfall/call of duty are adding more parqour to their shooters. Destiny/borderlands/mass effect are fusing the shooter and rpg genre. Team Fortress/Overwatch are making more team oriented shooters.

Say what you want about these games, but there is no denying that they are more ambitious in actually innovating in the shooter genre than Splatoon (especially when looking at their budgets and reviews). But It may not matter since people here seem too focused on Nintendo to actually notice.

Nintendo is not revolutionizing or saving anything, especially a genre that is thriving. If anything, Splatoon only shows how Nintendo is desperately going "me too! me too!"

I could be wrong but character movement seems pretty unique.  Slow while in the enemies ink, able to transform and move swiftly when in your own ink (who needs parquor when you can swim up a wall, parquor really just translates into platformer).  I'm not saying Splatoon is better than any other shooter out there but to claim it isn't at all innovative makes it sound like you have never played it ... so have you actually played it?


Large Budget = ambition in innovation ... LOL ok



How can Nintendo be saving the fps genre if it is alive and better than ever. If anything, Nintendo is themselves in danger of becoming irrelevant and should dedicate their time to making big games worth having, not budget games that play catch up.



The_Yoda said:
midrange said:
I find it funny that Nintendo releases a colorful semi-decent shooter, and everyone is claiming that Nintendo is the only one that innovates.

Splatoon actually does not add anything to gameplay that hasn't been done before. Teleporting is nothing new. paintball guns are also nothing new (just check out the wonder weapon from cod:bo2 : sliquifier). Colorful graphics have already been done in team fortress 2.

Instead, titanfall/call of duty are adding more parqour to their shooters. Destiny/borderlands/mass effect are fusing the shooter and rpg genre. Team Fortress/Overwatch are making more team oriented shooters.

Say what you want about these games, but there is no denying that they are more ambitious in actually innovating in the shooter genre than Splatoon (especially when looking at their budgets and reviews). But It may not matter since people here seem too focused on Nintendo to actually notice.

Nintendo is not revolutionizing or saving anything, especially a genre that is thriving. If anything, Splatoon only shows how Nintendo is desperately going "me too! me too!"

I could be wrong but character movement seems pretty unique.  Slow while in the enemies ink, able to transform and move swiftly when in your own ink (who needs parquor when you can swim up a wall, parquor really just translates into platformer).  I'm not saying Splatoon is better than any other shooter out there but to claim it isn't at all innovative makes it sound like you have never played it ... so have you actually played it?


Large Budget = ambition in innovation ... LOL ok

The two bolded things are just variable speeds on paint. I referenced a paintball gun in black op 2 that does pretty much that (damages enemies and makes anything traveling over it move quicker). Transforming is pretty much increasing evasion and speed but having no fire power (with the added animation), a cool addition no doubt, but nothing that revolutionizes/saves a genre by itself. I actually have played it recently (friend's game) and I will say that it is quick yet very limited fun (poor local multiplayer especially!). Enjoyable, but nothing special when compared to team fortress/mass effect/destiny/etc.

Large budget =/= innovation, but Large budget == opportunities. These opportunities are then seized by developers that truly want to gain great reviews and breed innovation. Splatoon seems more like a budget game designed to fill in the gap between mario party 10 and mario maker (6 freaking months!!), not a game that is meant to save the shooter genre like the thread implies



midrange said:
The_Yoda said:
midrange said:
I find it funny that Nintendo releases a colorful semi-decent shooter, and everyone is claiming that Nintendo is the only one that innovates.

Splatoon actually does not add anything to gameplay that hasn't been done before. Teleporting is nothing new. paintball guns are also nothing new (just check out the wonder weapon from cod:bo2 : sliquifier). Colorful graphics have already been done in team fortress 2.

Instead, titanfall/call of duty are adding more parqour to their shooters. Destiny/borderlands/mass effect are fusing the shooter and rpg genre. Team Fortress/Overwatch are making more team oriented shooters.

Say what you want about these games, but there is no denying that they are more ambitious in actually innovating in the shooter genre than Splatoon (especially when looking at their budgets and reviews). But It may not matter since people here seem too focused on Nintendo to actually notice.

Nintendo is not revolutionizing or saving anything, especially a genre that is thriving. If anything, Splatoon only shows how Nintendo is desperately going "me too! me too!"

I could be wrong but character movement seems pretty unique.  Slow while in the enemies ink, able to transform and move swiftly when in your own ink (who needs parquor when you can swim up a wall, parquor really just translates into platformer).  I'm not saying Splatoon is better than any other shooter out there but to claim it isn't at all innovative makes it sound like you have never played it ... so have you actually played it?


Large Budget = ambition in innovation ... LOL ok

The two bolded things are just variable speeds on paint. I referenced a paintball gun in black op 2 that does pretty much that (damages enemies and makes anything traveling over it move quicker). Transforming is pretty much increasing evasion and speed but having no fire power (with the added animation), a cool addition no doubt, but nothing that revolutionizes/saves a genre by itself. I actually have played it recently (friend's game) and I will say that it is quick yet very limited fun (poor local multiplayer especially!). Enjoyable, but nothing special when compared to team fortress/mass effect/destiny/etc.

Large budget =/= innovation, but Large budget == opportunities. These opportunities are then seized by developers that truly want to gain great reviews and breed innovation. Splatoon seems more like a budget game designed to fill in the gap between mario party 10 and mario maker (6 freaking months!!), not a game that is meant to save the shooter genre like the thread implies

Oh so you can make your character invisible while in the paint in BO2 ... must have missed that.  The character movement (aside from jumping / teleporting to a teammate) is different than in any other shooter, it just doesn't fit your narative so you don't want to admit it.

 

As for your second paragraph you are moving goal posts now you said "Say what you want about these games, but there is no denying that they are more ambitious in actually innovating in the shooter genre than Splatoon (especially when looking at their budgets and reviews)."

 

Large budgets are going to be the death of studios.  I see more innovation out of Indie studios than large studios.  With a gigantic budget you about have to play it safe (i.e. less innovation) or you will sink your studio if the game flops.

 

Edit: I agree the Local Mulit in Splatoon is weak sauce (very dependant on weapon choice)



The_Yoda said:

midrange said:

 The two bolded things are just variable speeds on paint. I referenced a paintball gun in black op 2 that does pretty much that (damages enemies and makes anything traveling over it move quicker). Transforming is pretty much increasing evasion and speed but having no fire power (with the added animation), a cool addition no doubt, but nothing that revolutionizes/saves a genre by itself. I actually have played it recently (friend's game) and I will say that it is quick yet very limited fun (poor local multiplayer especially!). Enjoyable, but nothing special when compared to team fortress/mass effect/destiny/etc.

Large budget =/= innovation, but Large budget == opportunities. These opportunities are then seized by developers that truly want to gain great reviews and breed innovation. Splatoon seems more like a budget game designed to fill in the gap between mario party 10 and mario maker (6 freaking months!!), not a game that is meant to save the shooter genre like the thread implies

Oh so you can make your character invisible while in the paint in BO2 ... must have missed that.  The character movement (aside from jumping / teleporting to a teammate) is different than in any other shooter, it just doesn't fit your narative so you don't want to admit it.

 

As for your second paragraph you are moving goal posts now you said "Say what you want about these games, but there is no denying that they are more ambitious in actually innovating in the shooter genre than Splatoon (especially when looking at their budgets and reviews)."

 

Large budgets are going to be the death of studios.  I see more innovation out of Indie studios than large studios.  With a gigantic budget you about have to play it safe (i.e. less innovation) or you will sink your studio if the game flops.

 

Edit: I agree the Local Mulit in Splatoon is weak sauce (very dependant on weapon choice)

I did admit the squid transformation as unique..... I was referring to the paintball gun as having already been done. Of course the character movement is different, but that is because no 2 games will have identical movement (outside of sequels). Shooters have already applied wall clinging, double jump, vehicles, sliding, diving, gliding, and many more movement options. Why does a squid movement mechanic deserve to be called the savior of the fps genre when borderlands, destiny, and mass effect a freaking fusing 2 genres of gaming!?

I do think that the games I mentioned are more ambitious. Them having a large budget only shows the confidence the publisher had in the concepts of the game. And it payed off seeing as how highly rated games like mass effect are.

Playing it safe does not imply no creative process at all. An excellent example is Smash Bros wii u. High budget, new concepts, core mechanics in tact, a safe but rewarding improvement in almost every way to brawl (except the subspace adventure). If anything, not delaying splatoon to add more concepts, weapons, maps, local multiplayer, customizable modes, voice chat with restrictions,... all to release in May is what I call playing it safe at the expense of creativity.

Splatoon may be fun, it may be colorful, but it is in no way, shape, or form, revolutionizing or saving a genre that has been innovating and thriving without it. 

Edit: Don't take this as a rant against Nintendo. I do think their Metroid Prime is more than an excellent example of a game that innovated the shooter genre with exploration, adventure, puzzle solving, and platforming. Splatoon however is Nintendo playing catch up to all the other huge mulitpplayer shooters, which is why I am surprised people are using splatoon over metroid as Nintendo's innovative shooter