Splatoon 3 highlights my issues with iterative sequels as a concept. Ostensibly this game exists to vaguely update the formula fans enjoy and do absolutely nothing to alienate anyone who bought the first Splatoon or its sequel. Indeed, this concept is seen in many other franchises on the market today. Call of Duty, John Madden, Assassin's Creed, iterative sequels are everywhere, though they usually see an annual release.
Splatoon, not so much. 5 years separate the releases of Splatoon 2 and 3, and I have no idea what the developers could have spent that time doing. Splatoon 2 is a game I have not played, but having played the first I can say it feels exactly the same as Splatoon 3. The core gameplay is the same, the multiplayer maps are the same, the layout of the (lacking) single player campaign is the same, and the online systems are just as archaic as always.
The idea of an iterative sequel taking so long to come out rubs me the wrong way. Why is Splatoon 3 $60 if not for all the time that went into its development? If someone just kept playing the second one, or even the first, what would they be missing out on that is unique to this title? Not much.
A review for Splatoon 3 is very unsatisfying to write, as one would be essentially reviewing the other two games concurrently. What am I going to discuss here? The stagnated gameplay formula? No, all I can really point out is the redundancy of this series, which is really disappointing from a company like Nintendo who basically built their legacy on each of their major franchises constantly innovating with each release. The Splatoon series, while overall decently fun, misses that boat.
But hey they added a CCG. That's half a star right there.
Splatoon, not so much. 5 years separate the releases of Splatoon 2 and 3, and I have no idea what the developers could have spent that time doing. Splatoon 2 is a game I have not played, but having played the first I can say it feels exactly the same as Splatoon 3. The core gameplay is the same, the multiplayer maps are the same, the layout of the (lacking) single player campaign is the same, and the online systems are just as archaic as always.
The idea of an iterative sequel taking so long to come out rubs me the wrong way. Why is Splatoon 3 $60 if not for all the time that went into its development? If someone just kept playing the second one, or even the first, what would they be missing out on that is unique to this title? Not much.
A review for Splatoon 3 is very unsatisfying to write, as one would be essentially reviewing the other two games concurrently. What am I going to discuss here? The stagnated gameplay formula? No, all I can really point out is the redundancy of this series, which is really disappointing from a company like Nintendo who basically built their legacy on each of their major franchises constantly innovating with each release. The Splatoon series, while overall decently fun, misses that boat.
But hey they added a CCG. That's half a star right there.
DeoxysPrime
1 year ago
Making Animal Crossing, for the actual answer to this. Splatoon 3 would have been a game with more of a two year development cycle.