spemanig said:
Nuvendil said:
spemanig said:
Splatoon is such a frustrating game to me. It has such a great foundation, but there are just too many issues with it right now for me to jump in for the asking price. Nintendo could have killed it by pulling a Team Fortress 2 and making it free to play. Or they could have kept it at $60 and made it a full package.
I'd jump in if:
- It didn't artificially restrict the maps you could play every four hours. Maps should be selected like in Mario Kart 8 where you vote from a pool of selected maps.
- It had Pro Controller support online. There absolutely no excuse for leaving that out.
- It had more modes. I always say this: Mario Kart is fun for the tracks. Smash is fun for the characters. A game like Splatoon should be thriving on it's modes primarily. That's what keeps people playing. A four player free-for-all multiplayer mode should have been a no brainer. A 2v2 local mode too. Maybe a local mode against a giant boss monster like what was in Metroid Blast, the Nintendo Land game. I don't even work there, and I already thought of three excellent multiplayer modes for the local multiplayer alone. The lack of modes is embarrassing. It needs at LEAST one decent local mode and 4-5 online mode. And that's the bare minimum.
- Way more maps. There should have been at LEAST a dozen maps at launch. In a perfect world, there would have been 24 minimum. It's hard to see people making blatant comparisons to Smash and Mario Kart without noticing the vast difference in arenas.
- Voice chat. There's no excuse. People should be able to play with their friends. Even if you had to pay like $.30 DLC to unlock the right to use it, there's no reason someone should have to go through a third party application like Skype to talk to their friends while playing Splatoon.
Splatoon is such a let down to me. So much dropped potential. |
1: understandable complaint. IMO, not a big deal though
2: there is a reason. Not agreeing with it is your own business, but given the pace of the game not using the gamepad may actually constitute a disadvantage. Can't be sure with that.
3. On principle, that is understandable. However, in practice the complaint holds little water. Most games thrive on limited modes. Halo: capture the flag (and fundamentally similar modes) and slayer. Basically two modes carry the weight of the game. CoD: team death match does all the heavy lifting for that game. One mode carries that game and anyone saying otherwise is in denial :P . Battlefield is conquest. MOBAs (no single player) have launched with as few as one mode. So while everyone likes numerous modes in principle, in practice it's usually one or two that carry the weight of the game and sustain the community. So the real question is how good are the two initial modes.
4. Understandable. Most games do launch with around 10 or 12 in the shooter genre.
5. Agreed, if only on principle.
But the release model also has to be considered. Especially when talking maps and modes. More modes and more maps and more weapons and gear are all on their way in a reasonable timeframe. And they are free and thus must be factored into the value proposition of the initial purpose. The delay for them also must be factored in, but not to the degree of dismissing their existence.
|
2. There is no reason. If the "pace of the game" was a worry of theirs, they wouldn't give players the option to turn gyro off. It's stupid that you can ignore motion controls but can't ignore the abomination they're tethered to.
3. No point in arguing this. I don't agree at all. Especially not with a game like Splatoon that had so much more potential for variety.
I am considering the release model, but I think it's a stupid one. Paying $60 to actively wait for your game to be finished for you over several month numbs my mind. I keep saying this - Splatoon should have been a F2Start game. They should have allowed you to play the online game with a basic foundation of weapons and all maps and modes for free, then charged for the extremeties like clothing unlocked after a specific level. Maybe pay $20 for the single player mode. They could have even added a Nintendo flair to it, like a Rusty's Baseball-like haggle system for the content you buy. Then the lack of content would be a non issue because the game would be free.
As it is now, people are just blindly hoping that the free DLC will add up to something worth $60, and there's no reason to believe that yet. Even after all the announced updates, that leaves the game with 4 online modes, one local mode, and a 5 hour singleplayer mode. Much more digestable then what it launched with, but nothing to write home about, and again, not for $60. And not even close to being worth drawing comparisons to Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
|
2. I am not referring to the motion controls; no idea why you think I would. I was referring to the map functions on the gamepad, including the ability to quickly jump. Without the gamepad you would have to fumble through menus. That could constitute a problem. If you disagree, fine. I am neither here nor there on it.
3. I agree on principle, I was simply pointing out how - in practice - the lack of modes can be less of an issue than it seems. Especially with more free modes on the way. If you disagree, fine.
If you don't like the release model, fine. Personally, given the timely manner of the initial wave of content launch, I don't see a major issue here. If it had no timeframe or a long one (like a whole year), then I would be upset. And I also highly dislike the "free to play" model. You can wind up paying more than $60 for less content with that model. I quite prefer this model to f2p given the number of horror stories surrounding *that* model. But if you disagree, your choice.
