| mZuzek said: I played Splatoon 2 and think 3 looks just like it. Like obviously it has its differences, like the ones you pointed out, but it still seems like the same "base" game, same engine, same physics, same movement, and probably a lot of the same weapons, stages and assets in general. Maybe about as big a difference as between 1 and 2, which was passable back then because of the short time between them, now it's just... Feels like the series is stagnant already, and reluctant to take a step forward in any meaningful way. Feels like Nintendo's Call of Duty really. |
| mZuzek said: It made sense for 2 to be iterative because Nintendo obviously wanted Splatoon on the Switch and that meant less time to make a different game, instead they could take everything from the first one and refine into a much better sequel and add a lot more content. It was totally fine for what it was. Now it's just like... everyone expected this to be a once-per-generation series like Smash or Mario Kart. Both of which are series whose games are pretty different from each other, while still retaining the basics and essence of what makes them what they are. No one is asking Nintendo to make an open-world Splatoon, just that they could put some ambition into it. It saddens me because I really love Splatoon but a lot of that love came from how promising it was as an IP and now it feels like its potential is being wasted. |
Ctrl + H, "Pokemon" for "Splatoon", and just about everything still applies.
