Splatoon interview.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-12-22-nintendo-on-giving-splatoon-2-another-fresh-lick-of-paint

It's a joy to be back, except we're playing on the boy's sign-in and we're having a giggle alternating goes. Come boxing day I'll be getting my own level up.

And the Squeezer is pretty cool.

Anyone about?

The updates for this are just great btw. Clam Blitz looks great but need teams. Ahem.

Just been playing the campaign with my lad. It's alright this, I thought.

Then played a game online.

Urgh.

It's great. You just have to treat it as it is, not how you expect it to be. It's not really a game that supports sitting down for hours and playing it non-stop, that's against the philosophy of its design which is quick, short bursts every so often. Maps rotate every few hours and everyone is always playing on the same maps, which is meant to bring the playerbase together. It's a very Nintendo game, in that they've taken something as well trodden as online multiplayer, and done their own take on it. It seems a shame so many bounce of what is a very dense and well designed game because they want it to be a different online shoot with lobbies and map votes and voice comms - each part antithetical to what the team have worked on to design a very child and new gamer friendly shooter. Also if you're getting dominated by rollers you're also bad at the game and I can't help you there.

But seriously, I understand why people don't get on with it, but I think much of that is refusing to take it for what it is, given an inculcated understanding of what Multiplayer Shooters are and have been for a long time. I wouldn't want every game to be Splatoon, but it's wild that it's basically one of the few Multiplayer Shooters of the last decade or so that's approached the idea in any other way than lobby, random map, done. 

It's probably the single biggest alteration the format has undergone since... Modern Warfare? Bad Company? Team Fortress 2? One of those, for sure.

I disliked it for all of those reasons you mention above Fran. You never really feel like you're doing anything worthwhile other than splurging paint about.

It's just a bit vacuous for me. Each match has little to get your teeth into. The standard 4v4 barely gets a chance at ebb and flow. A game can turn around in seconds but there's no peril or much to worry about if you lose. Most of the time I could be fighting bots. It just goes on and on without anything of interest to keep me playing.

There's no emergent scenarios that occur - it's just splurge as much paint as you can about the place until you die. There's no arguing that there's more to it than that really. You can do some team stuff and hold areas but if you just roll solo and avoid other players you can usually turn the tides on your own. I got so bored very quickly. After one or two games I was itching for something else.

There's plenty of decision making to be made, it's just all rather quick, and there's space for that in the market given the time demands of most other games. It's 100% about accessibility, which is why the go to match type is so short, but I've had Ranked Matches in some objective types last five times that of regular types because of how they plays out as tense back and forths. 

There's plenty to the combat, and plenty of decisions to make in each match, whether you hold your ground, or gamble for early pushes. After the first minute of the match, coverage mean dictates what strategy you take  - or you could just splat stuff with no care - all the options are valid, but strategy frequently wins out of randomness. So what if at the end of the match you get bustled straight into another? It's quick, and breezy, but saying you can't argue it is anything other than splatting is the same old reductive argument you can chuck at any game "it's just X but you do it over and over.". The domination of rollers isn't really the thing people think it is, they only really tend to work when the opposing team doesn't know how to react, but there are plenty of games with pocket strategies like that. If you suss it, you can wreck shop, much like other games.

Again, it's entirely fine to not be on board with it, I don't really like racing games but I understand that mechanically they've got a lot going on under the hood. Despite its looks, so does Splatoon.

Ach, I know i'm changing no minds. I just think people really misunderstand the game, just because its philosophy of accessibility is so counter to the way most modern FPS games work. It's ok for just this one to be different.

FranticPea wrote:

I'm pretty sure I understand it, it just ain't for me.

You must be a super genius because it took me a good while to get it. Tempy knows.

Splatoon is great as a single player game. I find it pointless to even consider it multiplayer.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

FranticPea wrote:

I'm pretty sure I understand it, it just ain't for me.

You must be a super genius because it took me a good while to get it. Tempy knows.

I don't mean get it as in I'm an expert, but cheers anyway.

I mean I get what they're going for. Accessible multiplayer, yeh that's cool. There's absolutely zero point in caring about winning it losing though, which is also fine. It's just all a bit random, which again is fine.

It's ok for people to dislike it.

That's what Turf Wars is, you always gain something. As soon as you unlock ranked (lvl 10 I think? By that time you'll know the map layouts etc) losing too often will make you lose rank and not gain any points. Which always happens just after you had a drink to double cash rewards.

Turf Wars is mainly a testground for weapons once you've leveled up a bit, and a sure way to get some cash / level up points at the end. If you lose in ranked you win nothing.

Same goes for Salmon Run, losing too often will see your rank go down and you'll be stuck in that mode for longer than you wanted to if you're trying to get both the super bonuses.