Little off topic but can someone explain to me how NSO sign up works? I bought Splatoon 2 with a 12mnth NSO code for my nephew from Amazon but just curious how this will work if they haven't set up an account yet. Presumably they will have to set up an account first to use the code? but does that mean they will have to make a payment to get access to input the code?

I haven't "redeemed" the code yet on Amazon but I presume this will just give me an alphanumeric code that they can input on the Switch... it's not linked to my Amazon account right?

You need a Nintendo account through which you subscribe to NSO. If you enter this code on the eshop or the website you are automatically subscribed for 12 months. A Nintendo account is obviously free.

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.

Yeah man, it looks nothing like them. Basically the only way to change it more would be to turn it into a dating sim, because they changed absolutely everything else.

Come on, you know that's hyperbole. You can't actually believe that.

The thing they have to change is exactly what this guy from the comment is saying. "Not sure what" is exactly what had to be changed. That's what changes from one game in a franchise to another, the feel of it, the physics, the underlying code, you can't describe it but you know it the moment you pick up the controller and things feel different, and you realize this is an entirely new game you'll have to learn how to play again. That is the one thing Splatoon 3 does not change. It is the exact same engine with maybe a few minimal tweaks. The changes are all to the content and mechanics that are put on top of it, but the base remains the same, and that makes it underwhelming.

In all truth, I'm not sure I could ever be impressed by another Splatoon game on the Switch, which is why I don't think there should have been one. It's nice that they're changing the weapons and stages and such, the mechanics seem mostly the same but with a few new ones on top, hopefully they improve the game. But the single-player seems like another major disappointment, given how little they've shown from it, it implies they don't have much on that front. Which is especially sad given that this game is being made out of a pre-existing foundation, they could've dedicated all their effort into making the content a lot more interesting but it doesn't seem to be the case. Who knows, maybe it is, but they're certainly not showing much confidence in it.

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.

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.

But the single-player seems like another major disappointment, given how little they've shown from it, it implies they don't have much on that front. 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm nowhere near the point of disliking Splatoon or anything. I like both games quite a lot and I'm sure I'll enjoy the third one too, whenever I get to play it. I get why they're keeping the same foundation for a third game, it's because it's a damn good foundation. I just wanted it to have more of a "this is a new game" feel rather than "this is new content".

I personally just don't feel like Splatoon 3 needs to be like Mario Kart or Smash. 

It has a new setting, new campaign, new gameplay mechanics/weapons/maps, new music and presentation, quite possibly still more additions we don't know about yet.

It's a sequel in the vein of something like the Uncharted or Halo sequels, or most franchises in gaming, and to me that's okay.

There's room for both once-per-console games that reinvent themselves with each entry, and those that refine and improve a proven formula.