One Month Later, Animal Crossing: New Horizons’ Review-Bombing Is Only Getting Worse

The incessant noise some idiots make will just result in the removal of comments and user scores.
And nothing of value will be lost. (Let's be honest if my comment right here wasn't available, it would not change your day.)

User scores are a bad thing, and I am glad that they aren‘t included into the eShop.

These people are fools but it is pretty silly that you can't create multiple islands. Why not allow it and let people fly to the other islands on their switch, makes no sense.

It's a valid point people are making but it does not make the game a 0/10. People need to relax. If this is all they have to be outraged about they're living a pretty great life.

Some people are so infantile. Sharing the town is not new. This is part of how the series works. Do your research.

Oh, well...
Dogs may barking but business must go on. 😗
Anyway...

I have prepared some snacks here.
It will be fun to watch some comments here. 😆

I can understand being upset or disappointed, but not everything is the absolute best or most horrible thing ever. Feelings are not binary, but our society has seemed to have lost all nuance to expression. Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you have to destroy anything that disagrees with you and “win” because everyone is going to disagree with you at some point. Otherwise we will live in a very lifeless and boring society.

At least Sony respects it's customers? Ha, the laughs I got from that alone was worth clicking on this article. What a joker.

[Insert Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif here]

@Max_the_German the issue with sites like Metacritic isn’t the freedom of user scores, it’s the overall concept of score aggregation in the first place. All opinions are subjective. A game could score 99% with critics and users alike, but if it doesn’t click with you personally, then all those reviews are irrelevant.

Far better to find 1 or 2 people, whether critics or users, that closely align with your own tastes.

@blockfight well most people only give 0 or 10, theres nothing in between for them (which is sad)

@sanderev
I'm bored for eating popcorn all the time. Let's change a bit by Tortilla Chips. 😆

This is the exact reason why user reviews are irrelevant. AC:NH is not perfect, but what people are complaining about is nonsense. It seems that people who complain are those who never played an AC before.

That last comment is kinda hilarious tbh. Sounds like someone who just bought Animal Crossing for the first time without realizing what the game really is as if it was the first game in the series.

Seriously. Review-bombing doesn’t help your complaint.

It’s a fair criticism.

Nintendo wants to sell more switch systems and games, which is probably why they limited one island per console.

Ignoring it, and “hurtling a 10” at it is just as irresponsible.

Not surprised as It was bound to happen

@mariomaster96 Yep. And if any game gets a review score below 7 the game "must be trash".

I do share the same opinion as some of those reviewers do. It’s absolutely a slap in the face from Nintendo to let their customers have only one island per console. Ridiculous.

My daughters can’t have their own island, I have to buy 2 more Switches. Shame on Nintendo, that decision was only made to make more profit. Saying otherwise is just pure nonsens. A decoy. They just want more money.

Don’t get me wrong, the game is a blast. But that one island per console… Man. That’s just ridiculous and I don’t care what kind of excuse they use… it’s about the money and nothing else.

Meh, I actually enjoy living on the same island as the love of my life. I am surely crazy.

Plus you already needed a separate cartridge/memory card/system for separate towns in the older games as well, so this is not that different. Multiple players living in the same town was always the norm.

I don't really agree with player 1 taking center stage again though, as the others have a bit less to do. It's not much of a problem for us in this instance as we're both active players (and will probably be for some time), but I player New Leaf with my brother, where he was the mayor and stopped playing after like 2 days, and I could barely do many things, and had to play with his account quite a lot to be able to progress in many areas.

One island per console is certainly a baffling choice which I don't fully understand nor want to defend.

However Nintendo did say it was going to be like this very early on, it was talked about by specialised media in the months prior to release, it's mentioned in pretty much every review I've read/seen and it's actually even written on the box.

If this limitation is gamebreaking to the point of warranting a zero why buy the game in the first place? Did these people not read a single review before buying the game? (because they surely know how to use Metacritic when they have to complain).

It's a weird decision for sure. Not a smart move. RIP animal crossing

The one complaint stating that there’s no clear objective to the game shows they never played Animal Crossing before, that’s the purpose of the game.

And also the one about Sony respecting its customers? Really? Releasing unfinished games then releasing patches all the time to fix what shouldn’t be an issue?

Seriously though I don’t really see any of it as an issue

@neufel Well put man. But i do like to take user reviews into consideration in certain cases. Sometimes a game is getting like a 70 on metacritic from critic's averages but is overwhelmingly positive on Steam. Or the opposite. In those cases there might be some very specific things about the game that one might like/dislike and user reviews tend to point those out because they often are the reason for those being written in the first place.

So i would kind of miss them. But better curation needs to be put in place. Steams anti review-bombing system for example is pretty good as it seems to me.

"At least Sony respects its customers."

That was a good laugh.

To be fair the completely hidden 'feature' that only the person who starts the game can trigger the vast majority of progress is bonkers and borderline game breaking for some. It relies on the original player sticking with the game long term so the other members of the household can continue to play.

If you're going to force us onto one island in our household, at least let us all contribute.

Like many others I set the game up but it's actually my son who is the regular player. Unless we nuke all of his hard work I have to put in at least as many hours to allow him to progress.

A simple 'switch island rep' feature would make a huge difference.

Unfortunately legitimate concerns such as this are being drowned out by people complaining about the (clearly advertised) fact that it's one island per console.

I'm wondering, is this really one island per console, or is it per account?
Every other game i know creates new save files for new accounts.

The negasaurus are on the move again

These "reviews" are just embarassing to say the least

Every animal crossing game has had one town/island per game/console. On GC you needed another memory card to have another town. New leaf the town was tied to the cart so you needed to buy another game.
I hate people.

@Archius9

It’s 2020, it’s a non-argument to point out that in the past we needed memorycards so therefore it’s okay that Nintendo did this in ACNH. A memory card costs a fraction of what a brandnew console costs. I could have my own Island on my Cube and my girlfriend too on one console.

They need to give us the freedom to choose. Do I want to share an island or do we all want our own island on my, pretty expensive, console.

Yes, I knew you couldn’t have more islands on one console. I did buy the game yes yes….. I won’t review bomb this game, I really don’t feel the need. I still love this game, but I just don’t understand why so many people defend this decision. It’s a decision made for profit, not for you, not for me.

"Once again, a major release on Nintendo Switch is being review-bombed by disgruntled players."

And once again, it's headline news on Nintendolife.

the 1 island per switch thing kind of sucks since only one player gets to make all the decisions. I’m playing solo, so I’m having an amazing experience, but I get why some families or couples or whatever would be disappointed. People who review bomb are desperate to turn the public opinion on a game from good to bad so they can feel validated. Doesn’t mean the game is flawless, but the motive is always so painfully clear

That the game will not allow me to transfer my island & save to my second (outdoor) switch lite - is also a reason for me not to buy that game. but i would never review bomb it. nintendo just don't get my money, until they travel to the year 2020 and fix that crap but anyways - i would also not pay more than 20~30 bucks for that game. 60 is way to much in my oppinion. especially with those restictions.

Idiots gonna idiot.

'Waaaah, I can't cheat by farming 8 islands on my single Switch, waaaah'

Honestly if you did not know about this before you bought it this issue could be so gamebreaking for your personal situation that it deserves a 0/10.
It is such a stupid choice by Nintendo that makes no sense at all.

Giving the game is 0 is ridiculous. People do this for movies too.
I do understand the anger at locking down the system to one island. Imagine all games having only one save file. It is blood sucking greedy to the extreme. This game will sell many millions, but Nintendo wants your last dollar if it can get it (as do all the big companies). Not having cloud saves is also 100% a financial decision for Nintendo. With fan boys, it’s a one way love affair with these companies.

I let my wife set up the island on her account and then joined after. Had to blow up the entire island and start over after the first day because she was not too interested and I was not able to make any progress since I was not the resident representative.

It's a valid criticism. Probably not worthy of a 0/10, but it might do enough to at least get Nintendo's attention. If the game sells really well, what's to stop Nintendo repeating the design in future?

The one island per system thing I feel is a valid complaint, though not one that warrants a zero score.

As for the other complaint, that's like complaining that Mario still relies on jumping or CoD is still about shooting stuff.

User reviews shouldnt be a thing

RIP Metacritic. As for Nintendo, they're already crying all the way to the bank.

And sorry, but "this is an instant 0/10" (in regards to a feature known months in advance, no less) is an instant "asinine fanship diagnosis". They've voiced their opinion, now this opinion with its tone, content and value shall be the subject of other opinions. Just don't make the Pikachu face as the latter opinions continue to question the very point of user score existence.

@gcunit once again, people seem to run on a highly debatable premise that Nintendo isn't aware of the users' reaction to such decisions - or that they didn't account for it from the start.

Wallet voting is always civil and sensible (regardless of its actual impact), but all these "voices of concern" - even the ones attempted in a human expression rather than a fan one - progressively reek of redundancy. And the only true reason most people persist therein is their inner fans' obsessive refusal to accept the fact that Nintendo may consciously choose to act against their preferences. And - GASP - stick to their choice. As someone said the other day, "not a fantastic choice - to buy another Switch or not play one the year's best games". Because not playing one of the year's alleged best games wouldn't free up more time for the year's OTHER best games, other games and other pastimes in general, no sir! Fans are simply incapable of taking "no" for an answer.

Worse than EA? Really?

@Cyrax77 "A memory card costs a fraction of what a brandnew console costs." You obviously never owned a PS Vita

To play devils advocate, would be that devastating to just take turns playing the same character? You have the options to completely change yourself at will. The only compromise is that you would have to share the house, that’s not that much different from the way it was in previous games since the house is enormous. Actually this sounds way better than moving in as a second player.

The quotes highlighted in the article sound quite reasonable to me - the way multiplayer has been handled will completely ruin it for some people. I hear some sites gave it a 10/10 even with the gimped multiplayer?!?

I bet some of them is because the game is not on your console of choice. Maybe we should all group together and give games like Doom and resident evil 3 remake low marks. Oh yer i forgot we are not sad like them.

@Ogbert

😁. I did. But I was meant the GC 😉

What did i just read? Are these complaints from humans with an IQ?

Metacritic should review the ways a user can score a video game or cancel it altogether.

@LavaTwilight that my friend is an awesome comment. I just think society has become to independent sometimes and we forget what it means to work as a team.

Why give these morons attention, NL? Sometimes I think that's all they want.

Pffff imagine being...

Nahh, it's not even worth it. I haven't been able to get the game yet, unfortunately, as I am greatly looking forward to playing it together with my kids and wife. She has no choice in this matter, she has to play.

User reviews should be removed from Metacritic tbh, they really serve no purpose since there is no way of filtering

They do have a point to be fair but this is no way to make it. User reviews are pointless on all sites unless there’s an algorithm to account for extremes.

Have these people even played an animal crossing title before?

this is completely fair. consumers are using 0 scores as a means of demanding the removal of a ridiculous limitation that is very blatantly designed to sell more consoles and copies of the game. shockingly enough, not everyone has the money to spend on this crap.

I think user reviews can be good as long as the comments are valid. Although I do think they'd be better off replacing the 0-10 score system with just a positive/negative user rating as most people won't take the time to give a balanced assessment like a professional reviewer.

Nintendo Life scored it a 10, but it would be interesting to know how much time was spent playing it first. This 'only one island' thing can be a big issue to some gamers. Nintendo are always saying how family friendly they are, but this is forcing families to buy more than one switch; or maybe that it their marketing ploy.

Nintendo Life was a bit to quick with their score of 10. I guess it was reviewed in haste and now the score should be amended.

I don't play AC, so my view is from an onlookers perspective, but I might give a very low score as a protest, if I had spent £50 not knowing that only one player could play at a time, having watched the commercials and reviews.

Not even interested in this game, but the minute I turn into as big a bedwetter as that and start crying and moaning over something as trivial as games, shoot me.

A very greedy move by the Nintendo of now.

There are very valid criticisms of the game (much to my dismay) but it doesn't deserve to be review bombed. There's still a lot they did that is great, like the outdoor furniture and town customization.

@sikthvash This extremist mindset isn't any better than those people scoring it a 0/10.
Also, in case you weren't aware, people are already cheating even with the 1 island per console restriction so that's a poor excuse for this limitation.

Of course the game is not a 0/10, it is absolutley a 9/10. But the critics are right. I mean this one-island-per-console thing is just ridiculouse. Even if you play alone, why should you not have more than one island? there is just no reason to block this. As great as Nintendo and their games are, in some things, they are just not up to date (Animal Crossing, Online Services, OS which still has no simple things like folders and themes, and so on)

@TheNewButler Right. I mean it's not as good as I personally hoped for but it seems everyday something gets added to make it more interesting. Maybe the game has surprises that will show up as we play. One thing I catch myself doing is looking to use the right stick as a way to rotate the land, ala DQXI. That would have been cool. But I can't seem to put it down so I know something was done right.

That last one clearly has no idea what an Animal Crossing game is. An open world Animal Crossing just wouldn't fit the franchise.

I think Nintendo should patch in the ability to have more than a single island per Switch, and here's why: this game is all about spending countless hours building up, organizing, and customizing your own island from the ground up. A family or even a couple trying to share that experience are absolutely going to butt heads over such decision making; it defeats the purpose of making it "your own".

I love the game and I'm able to enjoy it as a single-player experience, but I do agree that limiting it to a single island per console was an oppressively poor decision on Nintendo's part. I realize they were trying to stem the potential tsunami of exploits players would use it for to quickly unlock or access everything (fruit for instance), but face it, exploits are already being found and used (the infinite item glitch, for instance, which I'm sure they're already making a patch to remove ASAP). Maybe a future DLC update will offer extra islands (if so, such a basic feature should be free; players would NOT be happy if they were asked to pay for it after release).

@TheNewButler yah I need to see where the tarantulas are!

whatever a reviewbombing as a thing is stupid, these folks know what they talk about

It's a great game but yeah, one island per Switch sucks.

The last one is hilarious. The fact that they want a narrative out of animal crossing is laughable. That just isn't what the game is.

@MajinSoul being likened to an extremist is a bit overkill. The people would still find something to complain about if they were handed the moon on a stick. Review bombing is very immature. My comment was supposed to come across as a light hearted dig at those who are whinging that they can't cheat. The restrictions placed on one save file is justified I feel. Cloud saves & save restoration however is a pain & one I wish Nintendo would sort. Peace out dude & sorry if I offended you personally.

So why did you guys do the opposite and score it 10/10 despite the game having such a major flaw, especially with how rarely you guys give out perfect 10s?

I'm also sad that you can only have a single island per console, but can we talk about the fact that we have no idea what kind of technical constraints the devs have to deal with? People have to stop assuming every little thing they don't like about a game is the result of corporate evil and greed. Making games is hard and we never know what can be happening behind the scenes.

That being said, I'd say that just a few hundred angry reviews pale in comparison to the crazy sales performance of the game. I'm really happy for the team and for Nintendo for this success, I think they definitely deserve it.

I had no problem sharing an island In fact I though that was a nifty idea. Sharing all aspects of the game including tasks and general play is a terrible idea and makes game uplayable for people sharing a switch. Completely unplayable

You literally cant play the same game.

Who is defending this.... share island but allow multiple tasks to be given out.

No way this game should score highly you shameless fanboys

Tell the truth

@BulbasaurusRex it’s shameless and far worse than the zeros. If you share an island (and not just with your own secondary profile) this is unplayable.... anything the other person does is locked to you - what. Ridiculous

@TheNewButler good game yes. And two people in a family who have been waiting a year to play AC, will be disappointed, or one will be.

A. You take it in turns. One play for the first three months then delete it and the second person plays.

B. You spend another £250 on a second switch and game to keep the peace.

Nintendo would like you to go with B. I guess.

Nintendo made a lot of stupid decisions with New Horizons (not to mention the push to buy another Switch)

But does the game deserve a 1/10 or worse? No, sure the citique is valid a lot of times, but that doesn't make the game bad, especially if you don't encounter all of them.

I mean of the game got a 9 it deserves more a 8 because of the issues, maybe a 7 if a reviewer is more harsh.

But a 1 is reserved for bad games, and again Nintendo made stupid mistakes but the game is still good.

@BenAV it’s not review bombing don’t believe the click bait - I bought this game to play with my wife and it’s rubbish in that scenario. Like close to no point

@javiboy2 Well, it is a legitimate complaint, which is partially why I've never been interested in the series. Still, I agree it's amusing that that reviewer seems to be surprised by the lack of overall objectives and story.

Making your kids share a Switch console is a horrible ideal. Gamers are such idiots. Review bombing isn't new to Nintendo, haters been hating on Nintendo since the 1800s.

I've never played Animal Crossing because it's not my kind of game. I've enjoyed seeing all the screenshots and videos from people who are so happy to be playing it, especially during this time. And importantly, from people who I didn't know owned a Switch or didn't think would ever be interested in owning one. People dragging it down over one "flaw" is just childish.

To be perfectly honest, and I know money is tight for some people, but Switch is a console which really should be enjoyed by individuals rather than have one system per household. Unless you're sharing it your children of course. Me and my brother traditionally shared the home console of the house and owned individual handhelds. When Switch came along it became immediately obvious that it was a console we should own individually. If you intend to travel with it, which is one of the main selling points, you don't want to worry about someone else in your house not being able to play it.

@Quarth Think we might have a Pokemon level meltdown brewing here....

Spotted this earlier on imgur...

https://imgur.com/a/pRccQWB

These are definitely legitimate claims. If I bought this to play with my family and it turned out we couldn't each have our own island I could see rating it a low score. If their sole goal was to play together and that can't really be done I could see others giving it a zero. Just like if someone bought Mario Kart to play with their friends or family at home but the only multiplayer they left in the game was to race against the ghost of your friends and family.

Let's take a look at the past:

Animal Crossing 64 - One village per Cartridge (Where Data is stored)
Animal Crossing (GC) - One village per Memory Card (Where Data is stored)
Animal Crossing Wild World - One Village per Cartridge (Where Data is stored)
Animal Crossing City Folk - One City per Console (Where Data is stored)
Animal Crossing New Leaf - One City per Cartridge (where the important Data is stored)

Now the present

Animal Crossing New Horizons - One Island per Console (where Data is stored)

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think I can see a pattern.

@BenAV I’m all for working together but at the beginning the basic starter tasks should be open to everyone until there is more to do.

User review aggregates are pretty much useless these days. People rage review with 0s when they probably would give more of a 5 or 6. You also have people in the other end trying to counterbalance with 10s. Stick to critic reviews.

@LavaTwilight I think your comment wins the day, and it is great that your family has this experience. However, I still object to this decision by Nintendo.

Not all families will have this experience. Some children have behavioural/mental issues where they can’t cope with others changing their stuff. Others just simply won’t be able to get the escape from real life. We already share everything and will be more together in this period of time. So the option should be there.

Even if they forced a family island and the start and you unlocked the individual islands or had a shared space it would work. But forcing it for all won’t work for everyone. And giving a family sharing a Switch a different experience to kids whose families can afford multiple Switches is unfair.

I can't fathom why someone would try to review bomb a game as wholesome as Animal Crossing, people just can't let others enjoy something anymore.

@IKAY you may have to post that a few times as the going comment is Nintendo is greedy for maintaining a gameplay mechanic inherent to the series.

Animal crossing is literally the only game on the Switch where your profile doesn't have its own save file.
Animal crossing is literally the only game on the Switch where you can start a game and be unable to complete it because you are waiting for someone else to do something on their profile.
Animal crossing is literally the only game on the Switch where you could end up not getting the full experience playing on your profile.

Does it deserve a 10 for this? No.
Does it deserve a 0? No.

But it is definitely game breaking for people that share a home console. Never has it been impossible to enjoy your own game without acquiring an entire new home console. It has only required new memory cards or new cartridges at worst.

@TheNewButler they say that a game can sell a console, and I guess Nintendo want to sell lots of Switch Lite's, and Nintendo can design their games to play how they want. But, in fairness the limitations of player slots should be made known to gamers before they purchase.

@IKAY

Yes yes… I see it too…… It’s called…Let’s stay in the ‘90’s and act like we have absolutely no intention to take more money from our loyal fans…..

@Cheez That's partially why I consider "Mario Kart Wii" to be one of the weakest games in the series. It's just not good for local multiplayer! While it's not so limiting as your example, the Battle Mode is arguably the worst in the entire series, and the only other way to play local multiplayer is against only each other (no AI racers) one race at a time, not even an option for multiplayer Grand Prix.

@BenAV fair dues. I’ll stick with it and see as I get into it if it improves and I feel less like I’m playing half a game. Especially if we start working together. As we are married this seems highly uNlikely mind you ha

While some of those quotes bring up valid points, that doesn't mean the game deserves a score of 0. I feel like that should be reserved for an unplayable, broken mess that someone unfortunately spent money on.

Seriously, review bombing is childish and does nothing. There are better ways to offer constructive criticism in a fair review that weighs multiple aspects of the game. Is it really that hard to play a game for awhile to weigh all its positives and negatives?

@jcvandan
Are you a programmer? Maybe it makes sense to the folks that designed the game

Easy fix metacritic should assign moderators to the user review section and each review submitted should be validated

Spoiled, unrealistic clowns — haters everywhere - tired of it.....

Let’s go back to the early days when you had 1-3 lives and get to the end of a game and die- only to restart the entire thing! Maybe that will give these clowns perspective?!

@Old_Man_Nintendo @Old_Man_Nintendo

Ofcourse it makes sense to them. They want it to sell like crazy. I love Nintendo and I’m more than happy to spend money on them. Boy, I spend a lot of money on Nintendo. They deserve it. But with this? I just really think it’s a slap in the face.

I don’t WANT to buy 3 new consoles and three copies of the same game just to be able to let my daughters play this game too. Yes, I know. Then don’t buy it…. But you have not seen the tears in their big brown eyes…. The way they look at you because they wanna have their own Island… The smile on their faces when you go to the store and spend like € 500,00 so they stop crying about it. I wanna be daddy cool…. So yes. Nintendo screwed me over…..

This is why I hate metacritic, people only seem to give 1 or 10 stars with nothing in between.

@Old_Man_Nintendo I actually am a programmer.

“Encourages cooperation and sharing amongst loved ones. An absolute nightmare. 0/10”

I’m enjoying it but have some of the same frustrations. For example. I setup the island. One day I met a ghost. Then my daughter joined in and was the leader. It would not let her catch the spirits. I had to. Then she got them from the box and it wouldn’t let her speak to the ghost. She also could not drop the spirits so I had to take the lead, catch 5 more spirits, then talk to the ghost. I have her the gift he gave. But it wasn’t much fun for her and quite frustrating.

Why the hate it was always one island per cart now it's just per console. Same difference to most. Only time it wasnt was game cube with memory cards maybe Wii I dunno never bothered me and the siblings

So is this going to become the norm with highly anticipated Nintendo Switch releases? The exact same thing happened with Super Mario Maker 2, FE: Three Houses, Astral Chain and NOW it's happening again with AC: New Horizons.

While people DO admittedly have valid reasons to voice their grievances with the overall quality for SMM2 and AC:NH (SMM2 missing online multiplayer features and AC:NH having a very asinine solution to cloud saves and a rather anti-consumer business practice of locking players to one island per Switch), I don't think that should be enough to render all the positive aspects of those games completely null and treat them like their unplayable garbage. IMO, both games deserve an 8/10, they DO have flaws but I say their overall great gaming experiences.

Oh and if anyone tries to defend the review bombings for Astral Chain and Three Houses, all of I got to say is don't throw that nonsense at my face. You all know the only reason why those two particular games got mass bombed were because salty playstation players were upset because they couldn't play those games on their preferred console of choice, despite them being the same people who costantly mocked and belittled Nintendo fanboys for demanding Persona 5 to come to the Switch.

The sooner Metacritic bin the user (read entitled idiots) score the better.

@Nourldean ikr? Remember the time Sony installed DRM that was a virus? And what about the time the Sony marketing-suits spray-painted graffiti in the city as part of their ad campaign? I could go on...

The only drawback for me is having the tools break, even the normal net and fishing rod, it's either craft another or buy another. I wasn't too happy with the swords breaking in Breath of the Wild either.

@IKAY glad someone posted this.

The idea of animal crossing on the N64 was that one village was shared between all players, so that all family members could interact, change the environment, and send each other gifts while the others were not there. This game is just keeping with the fundamental gameplay concept that the series came up with 20 years ago.

“This is the worst decision since Nintendo only allowed 4 players to share one village in the GC original, only allowed one player per village on the DS, only allowed 4-players to share on Wii and only allowed 4-players to share a village on 3DS with only one allowed to be mayor.

I am vehemently angry at a limitation that has been in the series since it’s inception. How dare Nintendo ruin a game I had been looking forward to by keeping a feature that has existed for over 20 years.”

Things are okay now that a certain character has arrived and set up but I do wish there was a "Don't let your seven year old daughter be the first player" warning screen at the beginning.

I don't understand people who say:

• It's ok because other AC games were like this
• It's ok because they told you in advance

They did this to sell more consoles. Spending $260-$360 for a console plus another copy of the game can't be compared to buying a Gamecube memory card (especially a third party card) or buying another copy of a DS/3DS game for a maximum of $40.

@WiltonRoots Sadly can't see the picture you posted. If possible, please gimme the link.

But yeah, it seems to be people being angry about one thing in the game, therefore it deserves a 0. I can understand that the decision of only one island per console is upsetting to some, but that doesn't make the game a 0. I'm more bothered with cloud saves not supported.

But I believe most of the low scores comes from trolls.

We currently have three of us playing together at home. I don't mine the one island thing, it's actually fun for us to work together and visit each other's home.

What I do mind is that the only person who can advance the game is the first one who moved to the island. I had to use her account to be offered the axe recipe or to donate to the store. No other player can trigger those events or even contribute towards some of the goals. To me, that is the thing that has broken the game. I was allowed to donate to the museum, once she unlocked that, so there really isn't consistency. If they are going to force us to one island, they need to patch is to allow any player to trigger events. Another option would be to add something in the settings to switch who can do that without having to delete and start over. Otherwise I'm just relegated to collecting resources.

So let me get this straight. If I buy the game, digital or physical, and my son and I have separate profiles on the one Switch in the house, then we can't have our own separate saves with different main characters and island?

All muppets, Animal Crossing has always been like this and the idea behind the entire game is to live and play together!. My son is 3 so for now I'm playing both his and mine with absolutely no issues in progression, in fact it's made it a lot easier

@mreeves83 That's correct and people are defending this.

@Crono1973 they didn't, the concept behind the game is to live together. Its always been like this

If you’re review bombing Animal Crossing because you need to share it with your wife, you might have bigger issues on hand.

@mreeves83 you have your own character and progression, you just live on the same island that's all so everything you do benefits each other

@carlos82 Yes, they did do this to sell more consoles. The 'living together' part seems to be little fun for everyone except the first villager.If that was the concept then they failed miserably.

@MrT33 any recipes you miss from these can be bought in the shops, some of the other stuff can be a little clunky

@gaga64 - "A game could score 99% with critics and users alike, but if it doesn’t click with you personally, then all those reviews are irrelevant."
Not really, because that's not what aggregate scores are meant for. They're meant to provide an average from critics or users in order to provide a general guide to how others feel about a game. They're not, and were never meant to be, a blind metric on a particular user's tastes, so to call them 'irrelevant' based off that is a bit unfair.

@The_Legged_One - That's just how people be, unfortunately.

@Roibeard64 - The difference is that a console is a heck of a lot more expensive then a memory card or game, so it's a lot harder to justify splashing out.

@carlos82 Exactly, people are missing the point of the game. People fear what they do not understand.

Leave my baby alone! You do not do this to Animal Crossing! Btw looking forward to whatever content they add to the game. Really like the online aspect its so cool, but feels limited. Minigames or events with friends would be really fun.

@ummyeahnintendo They can't stop Animal Crossing, it's the fastest selling Switch game ever made. Haters got rekt'd.

Haven't tested this yet, but if you download and install the game on different Micro SD Cards, couldn't you have more than one island on the same Switch?

It's a pain to have to switch between Micro SD cards, but it might be worth a shot.

@Smeltos No, it's tied to your console. Either you play together and share, or you get different Switch.

@carlos82 @Crono1973 Thanks for the replies. I get the living together thing is a big part of what Animal Crossing is, but if what @MrT33 said is true about only one person being able to progress things then that's kind of dumb.

Xbox is better

@FullMetalWesker ok yeah, irrelevant is a bit of a broad and unfair statement. “somewhat irrelevant to you” might be a little more accurate.

Yes, the scores are useful as a general guide to a game’s overall quality and how a growing number of people feel about it. Worth considering as part of a wider assessment of whether or not to spend your money, but shouldn’t be taken as the sole judge.

@Zephyr_Sonic Yeah, that's why it's in last place. We save the best for last. Animal Crossing will probably outsell Xbox.

@jcvandan I think the games have always been like this, the animal crossing for ds was one city for all accounts, and I think it makes it more fun and charming. I don't get why people don't understand that.

@Zephyr_Sonic You're on the wrong site.

Sharing one island isn't THAT bad. The real problem is playing at the same time. It's worst than playing as Tails in Sonic 2.

Players are doing what now? Unbelievable!

Why is it that whenever a popular game gets a few bad reviews, people call it "review bombing"? Not everyone likes the same game! Get over it!
Admittedly, some of these 0 scores look ridiculous, but that's what happens when customers get pissed off. And don't don't give me any of that "entitled" crap. Paying customers have every right to nitpick. It doesn't mean they're telling you how to feel.

So... I take it that Animal Crossing: City Folk was only created to try to shill more Wii consoles? It only allowed one village per console, also.

I'm not saying you have to like it, but there's not some sinisterplot here. Animal Crossing has always been about the theme/thesis/philosophy of community, including amongst the people who are playing it. That's like complaining about having to jump on platforms in a Mario game.

@BKPyrexx I guess most people who are buying it have never played an AC before (me included). I think there should be an option to either share an island or have separate islands. It's obviously a design decision, i.e. Nintendo wanting to encourage co-operative play and sharing, but maybe just give people the choice.

@Crono1973 the game has been like this for nearly 20 years so no they didn't do this to sell consoles. I'm playing my sons profile and can't see anything he can't do that I can

@mreeves83 I think it's very limited things very early on from what I've seen, I'm playing 2 profiles as my son is 3 but wants one and I've not had any issues progressing with him

I found that "From now on we'll stick with our Playstation 4." comment especially hilarious, since it means they'll have 0 islands on the PS4 instead of 1 on the Switch. ^^

@jcvandan It's mainly just trolls. Not this many people are trying to share Animal Crossing with out knowing.

@DrDaisy It's more than a few, and they come in at the minimum possible score. That's why it's called "review bombing. It's mindless/thoughtless action taken with the xpress intent to lower a score as much as possible rather than try to provide a fair assessment for aggregation. It's not like the game is functionally brokn and unplayable or completely hoses everything or goes back on promises made, even.

If you give thensame score to New Horizons because you don't like a design decision as you do to, say Warcraft 3 Reforged, review and score lose all meaning and significance.

@carlos82 Do you really want to go with the 'it's always been like this and shouldn't change' argument?

This is exactly why I don’t let reviews of any kind influence my gaming decisions. I’m currently having a blast with.

@Crono1973 if that's the idea behind the entire game then yes I do and I don't see an issue

@mesome713
Gotcha, it's my first time playing AC since the gamecube version.
Thanks

@carlos82 Ok, then you must be upset about the changes made. Things like resource collecting, crafting, all the tools breaking, etc...

@gaga64 - Pretty much; sorry, I got the impression you were criticising it for not being the sole arbitrator on whether to get a product or not.

@DrDaisy - Have you seen the number of negative reviews there are? This is more than just 'a few bad reviews', this is almost 200.

@DawgP - Having to share an island isn't really the problem, it's that the representative has ultimate control, while the other villagers have next to nothing. This wasn't really a problem with City Folk, as that game didn't have a player-controlled mayor/representative, and it wasn't a problem in New Leaf because saves were tied to carts, which were a lot cheaper and thus easier to justify. This time around, however, since saves are tied to consoles, it's a lot harder to justify splashing out to get your own island, meaning more people are stuck on the same island, most without any means of deciding what stuff they want to build without seeking approval from the island rep.

@Crono1973 nope

The one-island decision is kinda bad, but not terrible. Encouraging you to play together with your family is a reasonable decision. But the game makes it so damn hard to have fun when playing with other people. Why not just let everybody roam in split-screen? Why can't you bring your co-players to another island??? Why not give the followers access to their inventory? Why not let them put things IN their inventory? Why make everybody use this convoluted recycle box system? Why not let you put things directly IN the recycle box? Why not let followers use their tool ring?

Just so many nonsensical design choices that make multiplayer a lot less fun than it could be.

The internet brings out the worst in people. Just play and enjoy things for what they are, and not what they are not.

@carlos82 That doesn't make sense, you can't say 'it's ok because it's always been this way' while also being ok with the changes they did make.

@FullMetalWesker I dont think very many people shared a ds or 3ds with 2 copies of animal crossing
Living in same town as your family members was kinda the point of multiplayer in the early ones

I've not got it yet but I will and it will be my first AC game! Tell me however, is it technically possible to have an island per profile on the same Switch like you do with a save file on BOTW?

@Samwise7 No, see that's the problem. If you want another island you'll need to buy another console (and maybe another game). Rinse and repeat for each profile. It can get very expensive, I guess that's why Nintendo put it out during tax season.

@Crono1973 it does if you read my responses, this is building upon mechanics and not changing the concept

I'm a bit confused as to why we would need an open world animal crossing? It's not an action adventure game....

This was made very clear before release. It's a trivial issue and has been this way in every single Animal Crossing game.

Having one island a system is an awful design choice. The game being made by Nintendo doesn't cancel that. The game being fun doesn't change that. They easily, easily, easily could have given an option that lets people play in single player instead of forcing multiplayer. The game is full of design decisions that make sharing an island a huge pain in the rear. I'm glad I don't have to. And it's okay to acknowledge that. It's a product for sale, not a gift.

But a comments section on a Nintendo site isn't a great place to convince people that Nintendo purposefully made a bad design decision. Guess that's what Metacritic is for.

@Dodger But a comments section on a Nintendo site isn't a great place to convince people that Nintendo purposefully made a bad design decision.

You would think but there are many people here that agree that this is bad design.

@KBaker This was made very clear before release.

Anything is justified as long as I warn people in advance?

I don’t get it. They did i this to prevent “cheating”? It’s mostly single player experience? Who would cheating hurt in this case? It’s not a competitive MP game. Seems like an antiquated design choice to me.

Games have been review bombed for far less than this. If people are upset, let them voice that in any way they can. Nintendo wants to sell more Switches. Period. Anyone here want to defend Anthem from the review bombing it got? Didn’t think so.

Jesus Christ how insular can you be? Getting bent outta shape by folk negatively reviewing a game?? Who cares what they write, the game has sold a ton

This is just typical Nintendo. Out of touch with their fans and making people play the way THEY want and not the way FANS want. I really do like this game and i dont suffer from this problem myself but it sucks for people who have to share. This is clearly a way to shift more consoles and itll probably work too.

The sharing an island isn't the main problem for most people. It's the whole "everyone other than the first one to play on the island is treated as a second class citizen and doesn't get to play the same game" thing. This wasn't the case for, say, the Gamecube version, for people living in the same town.

Although speaking as someone not sharing a console, I have my beefs with the game too, compared to other installments. My first impression is it's everything I disliked about New Leaf (significantly limited villager interactions, aka basically no errands/chores) and everything I disliked about Pocket Camp (mobile grind micro-goals being a primary currency) under the same roof. And needing to run back and forth to constantly replace the broken fishing rods and nets is annoying, which is a whole new problem. You can make sturdier ones later, but if you want to hit all the micro goals you pretty much HAVE to use the easily breakable ones. And when I saw the initial layout of the town, I had some specific areas in mind for where to put things, but you're locked to about 1/4 of the map at the beginning and need to build everything in that tiny spot (being able to change the layout "later" doesn't really make it okay). And the game both tells you how and actively encourages you to break rocks at the beginning, failing to mention they re-spawn really, really slowly if you weren't planning to time travel (which is a major issue on account of them being a primary source of materials for "tapping" them). Just to name a few.

@Anti-Matter eats some of the tortilla chips while reading the comments
Thanks mate

Like, it's okay for people who share a switch to not be happy that Nintendo isn't letting them play the game in a way that makes sense. It's okay for them to not be happy. Someone not being happy about something that doesn't bother you much doesn't mean they're whining. It might even be a chance to try empathizing with someone else who has different priorities and to think about why they feel and think the way they do.

@Darlinfan Calm down there bud, I have no problem with contrary opinions, but review bombing helps no one, that type of criticism is not constructive at all.

Yeah the multiplayer thing might suck but it's really not cause for a 0/10 review. Also, you have got to he silly if the objectives aren't clear to you.

@zool You’re just as sad as the people giving it zeroes.

I can understand their complaints, but come on. A zero? This has happened a lot with big Nintendo releases. In don’t think Nintendo even looks at metacritic. New horizons is my second AC game and me and my friends have been enjoying it.

@Akurusu I hope you also protest perfect scores because we know it isn't perfect.

I would just like to point out how ridiculous it is to protest a company's alleged anti-consumer attitude by review bombing. Because rendering a consumer review site virtually pointless by swamping it with aggressively skewed reviews is about as anti-consumer as it gets.
No matter how valid their criticisms may be, attaching them to 0/10 reviews renders them moot, because no serious consumer bothers to read those (since the score is blatantly absurd). So all they do is essentially rob customers of another way to get proper information or make it all the harder for them to find the useful and informative reviews and criticisms.

@Wesbert The zero's have made you talk about it.

@Crono1973 I talk about the zeros and not the game. And that's precisely what review sites are NOT supposed to be for. [Edited]

@Wesbert Many people in this thread are talking about the WHY, like it or not the zero's get people talking just like perfect scores get people talking.

@Crono1973 That's an excuse. People also talk about games without 0/10 reviews. And people who visit Metacritic do not automatically go to Nintendolife afterwards to read their articles about the reviewbombing and the forum discussion afterwards. So no - to most the 0/10 reviews are just worthless.

@Crono1973 Yes but would it be possible? Could they do a patch which means each member of a household that had a profile could have their own island?

I mean...are they wrong?

does review bombing even work?

I don't know, before they announced one island per Switch I was debating whether I would want to have my own island or share on with the family. This just made the decision for me and it didn't bother me really.

One reason for the limitation is because they just want to slow people down. The game is designed to play over a long period of time, to progress a little each day. To rely on others in a community to build up your island not just yourself. There are probably a few reasons for the limit of one Island per Switch but one is so that you can't speed things up by harvesting 8 islands a day, increase your odds on the turnip market, get all the different fruit trees without relying on friends or family, have islands on different hemispheres easily accessed, and so forth. In a way the game teaches you to slow down. The waiting is part of it's charm for me, same with the slow progression.

I so agree that the island representative could have been done better though. I made sure I was the first one to play so progression will be made, but they could have at least made it possible to change the island rep if things weren't working out. Why everyone can't easily work towards that progression is a head scratcher to me.

@Quarth replaced it with a link, look back...

@Samwise7 Of course it would be possible.

@Jiorl Well, they review bombed Pokemon Sword/Shield due to the limited pokedex. As a result the game continued to sell because most didn't care and Nintendo did not fix the pokedex. So... no.

@Jiorl does review bombing even work?

Review bombing makes headlines and threads like this one.

@Crono1973 Which is great news for everyone who runs video game sites and forums and pointless to everyone else...

>2020
>trying to destroy every single thing, person or opinion that you personally doesn't like for whatever reasons

Why do we have the Internet for everyone, again?

@Wesbert ...and yet here you are pushing the thread on by telling us all how these things do nothing. LOL

@WiltonRoots 😆 That's a good one!

that site needs to start banning those idiots for good.

Metacritic should really do what Rotten Tomatoes does and have a "verified reviews" section. That way these "reviews" can't hinder someone's buying decision.

Bit of a malicious way to go about this but I understand. Switch is the best multiplayer console Ive have owned so it would make sense to have more islands. This game especially is suited for all age groups = a whole family.

@TheNewButler this is a moronic view of the world and it's why Nintendo as a whole gets such a bad rap. If you see a bunch of negative scores come in and your first thought is "well screw literally all of those people. We'll do what we want" then you're not in the right business. Go make edgy flash games on newgrounds because that's the real community you want. Edgelords putting out mediocre games solely for negative reactions.

@Wesbert unfortunately, review bombing does not work specifically on Nintendo because as nice as this community is, it's extremely toxic because of how loyal they are to corporate. It's impossible to question Nintendo or their practices without being shouted down by legitimate fanboys that say all criticism can't exist because I'll hurt daddy Nintendo's bottom line.

Yeesh. Expecting narrative in Animal Crossing is like expecting it in The Sims.

@LegendaryIcarus Sometimes the consumer is right and being able to have your own save file per profile is the standard.

Even for Animal Crossing it is the standard.

Gamecube - Memory cards are like profiles, no extra consoles needed.
DS/3DS - The game saves onto the game card so each game card is like a profile, no extra consoles needed.
Wii had no profiles, game cards to save to and no memory cards.

I've seen some salty folks complaining about how Animal Crossing has outsold Doom Eternal.

@Crono1973 Yes, the thread is being pushed on and on and on... And it changes NOTHING about the game itself(just as it didn't in Pokemon, Astral Chains, Fire Emblem etc...). Ergo, review bombing is useless as a tool for effecting changes in games. You are merely proving my point.

@Wesbert If you say so, I am just glad people are talking about this issue.

It could be due to technical limitations of how the island is generated and stored in system memory. This has been something going far back in the franchise. They might even develop a patch in the future and while it does stink that some fans will feel limited if they only have one Switch.

It's not an issue for my family as we all have separate Switchs. I could see this being a problem for those are not financially able to do that. But, to review bomb an admittedly excellent game is childish and makes it more unlikely for the developers to listen. People tend to listen when the complaints are sensible rather than over the top and angry.

@PlaybunnyLucy Has review bombing ever worked? Has the review bombing of the Star Was movies achieved anything? Or Marvel movies?

@Wesbert In Pokemon's case they are adding in 200+ pokemon as a free update when the expansion comes out. So they will be close to having every Pokemon back in the game. But, I doubt that was due to review bombing and more a desire of the internal development team being disappointed that they could not do it in the initial release. Masuda himself expressed his disappointment about having to cut National Dex.

@Crono1973 "I got them to talk about it" is the excuse that's always muttered when one fails to actually achieve anything. If you set your bar low enough then everything can be counted as a success.

All this will make little to no difference to the games sales, and all the critics reviews seem to like the game, but the vocal internet minorities all feel their review bombing will make a difference, and Nintendo will change their ways next time round.

@neufel How dare you say that?!?! Your comment changed my life and enriched my day immensely. Now having read it, I shall never forget it. When the corona lifts I will get it tattooed on my face

Now I haven't gotten to play yet so I might be misunderstanding, but on the Nintendo site it says "To change roles, have the Leader access the NookPhone, select Call Resident, then Change Leader."

I guess I was the other way round. When they first announce they are going to limit one island per Switch, I find it off putting. I rather they make it per game. Cos people might be more forgiving buying more copies of the game than system.
But because of their decision, I got myself a Lite and now I am so much more happier playing Switch game. I can't play on the Standard. idkw, just 5 mins into any game on that standard Switch ( dock or handheld ) make me nausea every time.

These are legitimate reviews. They had a negative experience and reviewed the game negatively. Bloggers don't have a say in other peoples reviews of a game, nor should they be trying to suppress reviews by creating internet mobs from their ignorant and stupid readers to harass and put pressure on reviewers to review a game how a blog wants a game reviewed. Also, you are nothing but bloggers, so acting like "critics" reviews of a game are somehow worth more than any other moron is nonsense.

If you think this "review bombing" is bad then stop and attempt to think at what these blogs are doing. They are trying to influence the reviews of a game to be what they want them to be.

Try thinking for yourself, kids.

@Wesbert "I got them to talk about it" is the excuse that's always muttered when one fails to actually achieve anything. If you set your bar low enough then everything can be counted as a success.

You are really angry aren't you?

I think the multiplayer is definitely flawed & the one island per Switch system was a mistake. Switching to Animal Crossings limitations between my Lite and main console has been a bit jarring. I wonder which version of my game they will back up since I have it digital on two Switch systems under the same Nintendo account? Liking the game a whole lot so far despite the issues with local & online multiplayer. Let me use my tool belt when I'm not the leader! 😂

@Akurusu that's what you call constructed criticism. I guess you are off school then.

@Nico85 "One island per console is certainly a baffling choice..."

Not at all. Nintendo has always considered this to be a social game, so you have always been limited to one town per system or cartridge. The GameCube was the exception only because of hardware limitations, but in all subsequent games for the DS, 3DS, and Wii, you're restricted to a single town unless you buy a second system or cart. I don't know why some people are acting like this is some new and unheard of feature.

People, the entire premise of the game is to build up an island community! The complaints about the single island are ridiculous because they are an attack on the core spirit of this game. The "lack of resources" argument is flimsy at best. Insects and fish spawn continuously and you can hop on a Dodo flight to a mystery island for all your other resource needs.

@Crono1973 No. Just tired of vocal minorities inflating their own importance.

The review bombing actually does accomplish something useful to a point. A 0/10 is silly, yes. It's however not any more silly than a 10/10. Calling a flawed game essentially "Perfect" invites this kind of thing. If reviewers would actually review the game as the 7 or 8 it is, then people could change their expectations appropriately. Instead, they suck up to Nintendo, and call a good game a "Masterpiece." A User score at 6.5 overall while maybe a touch harsh is probably a fine aggregate.

This is why Metacritic is useless today.

@shani

I'm sure they can make a far, far inferior Animal Crossing clone in Dreams that every you tuber will praise.

Enough with the review bombing, though. I agree with the 1-island criticism, but a zero score? For a game that is otherwise amazing? Just stop.

@Mountain_Man

Why is it so hard to understand that if something has always been a certain way, that it doesn’t make it right? I just don’t care if it has always been this way (it wasn’t, because there is a big difference between a memorycard of even a second copy of a game and a whole new console), it’s just a slap in the face of the NS owners.

Nintendo wants to sell the Switch as a family console. Animal Crossing is one of THE games of this year. But you can’t have your own Island on console. No sorry. Buy more Switches and more copies of the game please. Thank you very much…

No, it doesn’t matter how people are trying to justify what Nintendo is doing. If it smells like poo, looks like poo and feels like poo, it is poo..

All you people enjoying your island with friends and family make me want to puke!!! What is this industry coming to when people are forced to share things, cooperate, and get along?!? Where’s my Doritos?!?

Nintendo does sometimes have a weird habit of forcing their ideals about multiplayer onto people. I can understand restricting a competitive game to local multiplayer only for some philosophical reason, but one game save per system in a game that's at least partly about creative expression is a weird move.

@Cyrax77 "Why is it so hard to understand that if something has always been a certain way, that it doesn’t make it right?"

Why are you talking about this like it's a moral question? Seriously, man, get a sense of perspective. Sharing a town with other players is one of the central design conceits of the series. Anybody who was expecting Nintendo to suddenly abandon it after 20-years is not being reasonable. If you don't like it then don't buy the game. It's really that simple.

Let's review omb because of the most dumbest reason.

Laugh in Animalese

This makes me think of the people giving negative reviews of DOOM Eternal on Steam simply cause of how it plays differently from DOOM 2016

@Tyranexx I agree with you 100% there. Probably touched on this before, but it’s really annoying to see people so grossly misuse a platform like this. I mean they bought the product without knowing anything about it. It wasn’t like a sneaky microtransaction thing Nintendo did at the last minute.

@jcvandan

Well said.

It is ridiculous that Nintendo limits players to one island per Switch, but it is also ridiculous to call this game a "0 out of 10".

The general public isn't even capable of following advice to stay indoors, as if I'd trust their opinion on what games to buy... Have any professional critics given this game 0/10?

This game isn’t a 0 or exactly a10. The single island thing is going good for me at least me and my girlfriend only play co op I have a switch and she comes over when I get off work we switch back and forth a lot and make decisions together so far it’s pretty chill we just got built a bridge and got new villagers so far so good

@bimmy-lee Hey buddy. I see you over there hoarding all those nacho iron nuggets. Just wait till your shovel breaks. It’s on! 😛

I was so anxiously waiting for this game!!!

I have been waiting for two generations to be able to play Animal Crossing, because I wasn’t interested on playing on my daughters island previously, and I thought that finally I could get my own island as Switch OS has own profiles for each player for each game.

But what is this!? I should buy two more Switches and three copies of the game so that my daughters can get their own islands and I could get my own.

What if my Wife wants to play? I need to buy a fourth Switch!?!

This Switch deal is getting worse and worse.
(We Also have 4 pairs of drifting Joy Cons)
Fffffuuuuuuuu

I’m losing my religion. And I have been such a Nintendo fanboy!!1!1!1

Does make you wonder what the point of having accounts on the Switch is.

I'm just wondering where all the outrage over Animal Crossing on the Wii having only one village was...
Oh wait, there wasn't.
Look, I get being disappointed, but a lot of you guys are coming across like whiny crybabies over a feature that's been a staple of the series since the very beginning.

You can tell these ppl have no idea what animal crossing is or has ever been

@Krisi yeah, separate game or separate memory card is EXACTLY THE SAME as needing an entire second console LOL

@Skunkfish but you follow the advice of "professional" critics??? Lolololololol

@NotTelevision - Crap. Okay, if you promise not to tell anyone else about my nacho cheese iron nuggets, I’ll give you five. If you plant one, it’ll make a Doritos factory. But that’s ALL I’m giving because everything else on my island only belongs to meeeeee!

I actually really like the one island thing. In our family, my wife is the one who plays the most, so we made her the first player. She progresses the island (and enlists help from the rest of us through communicating either in-person or on the bulletin board) and we all reap the benefits. If we had separate islands, mine would perpetually be "behind" hers by a lot and I'd probably stop playing much sooner. With Dodo Airlines there are more than enough natural resources to go around for everyone.

@Mountain_Man
What about the massive number of solo players? Sharing a town isn't central to their play.

You can't see the difference between having to buy a console as opposed to a game cartridge to have your own island/ village?

Maybe people play game differently. Maybe, just maybe Ninty screwed this one up to sell more consoles.

It could really be that simple.

@FullmetalB I take into consideration the critique of critics whose opinions I trust. And the general aggregated Metacritic score is a reasonable indicator as to a games quality, very unlikely to be an absolute stinker if the game is rated 80+. But still, personal preferences and irritants need to be factored in...

EDIT: Also, unlike the faceless Metacritic user reviews, at least MOST of the professional critics have actually played the game

@Mountain_Man

Easy my friend. I was responding to your comment that it is all good cause it always has been that way. I said that was nonsens.And it was never so that you needed to buy a whole new console just to have multiple Islands.

You don’t respond to that argument but suddenly It’s about putting things in the right perspective. What do you mean? You don’t know me or how much I know about life.

I can live my life. I wont sleep a minute less over this. But I do know when a company is trying to screw me over.

So don’t change the subject and make it a different thing.

@k8sMum "What about the massive number of solo players? Sharing a town isn't central to their play."

Then those people should probably simply not buy the game, or if someone in their household buys it, they should probably refrain from playing it, if it doesn't suit their play style. There are countless video games released every year, and many of them don't appeal to me for one reason or another, so I don't buy them. Is that really such a difficult concept to wrap your head around? Why do some people seem to have the expectation that every game released should cater to their specific tastes and then get bent out of shape when they don't?

I actually don't mind the 0/10 rating people are giving it. They're trying to send a clear message to Nintendo, though it's doubtful Nintendo will bother listening. Still, if it drags the overall rating down from 9 to 6.5, then it means Nintendo has done something to upset its fanbase.

@Mountain_Man

What are you talking about??? Many AC players play solo. We love the games. There are probably as many solo players as those who share.

You seem to have difficulty wrapping your head around people who don't play a game like you think it should be played.

How you went from my post to what you wrote is baffling.

@Cyrax77 It's not a nonsense argument. One island per system/cartridge is a central feature of the series. Complaining that the latest game has a feature that the series has always had is like complaining that the latest DOOM can only be played exclusively from the first-person perspective, or that it doesn't have dialog trees.

@k8sMum "Many AC players play solo."

Not if more than one person in a household wanted to share a Wild World or New Leaf cartridge, or play City Folk on the Wii. New Horizons is literally no different in that respect than previous games in the series. If you don't like it then don't buy it, or buy it and selfishly refuse to share your console with anybody else. It's as simple as that.

@bluesdance Okay I have received a mail from Harvard and I will receive an honorary Phd for my first comment so maybe you were right????

@Mountain_Man

No man. You don’t read my comment. It is nonsens to be okay with something just cause......

If you are fine with buying more systems and copies of the same game just to have your own island doesn’t mean we all have to like it. I certainly don’t.

@FullmetalB My point is that you needed to buy something extra to have a different town from the very beginning. And in case of the Wii version, you did need a separate Wii console.

@LUIGITORNADO but it was exactly the same on the nintendo wii version when it wasn’t connected to a cartridge and was a disc so this isn’t something new and it’s not like it was hidden before so i really don’t understand why people are outraged

I love user reviews. It is one of my favorite features of Steam and GOG and I think all platforms should have them despite the trouble they cause. I definitely use the user reviews in my decision making when buying a game. User review will often mention details about the game that the pro reviews skim over. ALso user reviews are more likely to play the game the same way I will. THey play the game for enjoyment instead of racing to finish it to meet a deadline.

@Northwind it was like that for the wii version though

Poor children, having to share their Switch with their siblings. Boo hoo!

@mckennacat it was like that for the wii version though

Not the Gamecube, DS or 3DS though. With those systems you need only buy another memory card or another copy of the game, $40 maximum vs $260-$360 on the Switch.

Most people don't leave balanced reviews. Many people give 10s even though there are things that they don't like about the game and many give 0s even though they are things they do like. Those should balance out and if there are enough 0s to bring the score down with a big sample size then the game is deserving of that rating. If this couple issues really ruin the game for someone then it might make it a 0 for them and that's fine. The only time I see this as a problem is if people set up a campaign to get many people to alter the score unfairly.

@Chaoticwhizz I was half-way to agreeing with you, until I realised that the game only came out on Friday so any users posting review scores already haven't exactly taken their time to play the game thoroughly before posting their scores. I'd be amazed if anyone has enjoyed anywhere near the full number of (time-locked) experiences the game has to offer...

@Mountain_Man

I've been a widow for 13 months; I play solo. So do many, many players. Not everyone has your lifestyle. We can still play and enjoy the game.

My kids both had their own memory card for the gamecube. Their own game cartridge when necessary. Easy work around without having to invest in a new console. Selfishness not necessary.

You keep using the word literally. I don't think it means what you think it does. (Thank you, Princess Bride.)

You obviously want to die on this hill. Me, I'm going to play some solo ACNH.

Nah it's perfectly valid if people want to rate AC 0 bc of the island limit per switch. AC is a very personal experience for many. I'm lucky that my husband isnt that interested and my kids are too young to really want to play.
The fact nintendo won't even let you just buy another game is just totally unnecessary and greedy, period. I would have gotten two in a heart beat. Most families cannot possibily afford to buy another switch plus 60 dollar game for every family member that wants total creative control over their islands. The players that dont care about sharing probably dont care much for the more creative aspects this game has to offer anyways.
Nintendo has the right to pull a greedy ahole move and customers have a right to rate them 0 for it. Just bc YOU dont care doesnt mean anybody else isnt allowed to be upset about it. Not everybody wants the same experience as YOU.
Giving a 0 rating will hopefully show Nintendo how unhappy customers are that were hoping to experience animal crossing with their families and on their own. If that makes you salty, too bad!

@k8sMum Well if your kids were playing the original on the Gamecube back in the day, then they're probably nearing the age where they should be moving out as adults anyway. New consoles for each player may be in line regardless without being about being selfish. Could be a great way of keeping you all connected too.

The people making this one island per Switch thing a big deal I guarantee that most of them have their own phone and their own tablet so what is wrong with your own Switch?

Secondly I remember people buying multiple GBC’s and multiple Pokémon’s during the late 90’s and early 2000’s granted those were $79 and $29 respectively but the prices of everything has gone up.

@mckennacat sure, but it's 2020. Maybe Nintendo should have a little foresight with quality of life features for their games.

It makes no sense not to be able to have multiple islands on one console other than Nintendo is trying to sell more Switch consoles.

@ecco6t9

You mean the system Nintendo has been advertising as a local play machine? Yah. Everyone has their own cellphone. Let's have that family of 5 buy 5 switch systems.

@ecco6t9 The people making this one island per Switch thing a big deal I guarantee that most of them have their own phone and their own tablet so what is wrong with your own Switch?

As soon as Verizon starts financing them I guess I'll be able to afford another one.

Here's a thought for you, what if Sony and Microsoft started doing this too? Are you willing to buy multiple PS5's and XSX's? What if this became the standard because you let Nintendo get away with it?

The Switch has profiles, there is a standard about how profiles are treated on home consoles.

@LUIGITORNADO Eh, Nintendo has leaned more toward advertising the Switch as a portable system that also happens to be playable on the TV. Sometimes they lean into it as a home console first, but typically the portable nature comes first, especially when the new model of the system is portable only.

To your last point, yeah that is kinda what Nintendo is aiming for: single households owning multiple Switchs. They've stated that they want families to view the Switch like a 3DS or DS or GBA, something that they can purchase one for each child. And it seems to be working, I've seen a few families buy each child a Switch of their own, with the Lite only costing $200, this is seeming like a more and more reasonable reality that they want to make happen on a larger scale.

@zool HOLY CRAP, ITS ZOOL! Where's the reboot game at?

lol. Sounds like a bunch of people who have never played Animal Crossing before. That's literally how the game has always been. You've always shared a town. Buncha whiny crybabies.

@mariomaster96 I rate everything on a Unreal 2/ Duke nukem forever scale. How does this game compare to Unreal2 in fun factor and how does this game compare to DNF in quality. DNF is a 3 in fun factor and a 5 in quality so a 4.5 and unreal is a 5 in factor and a 8 in quality so 6.5

Yeah seeing all the comments from other gamers saying "This is how Animal Crossing has always been, just suck it up" is very disappointing.

Simply put, the game could've been designed to accommodate both single and multiplayer play styles, but the devs chose not to give us the option. It's bewildering because I bet 99.9% of all other Switch games allow separate save data for different player profiles, so it must be a rude shock for those of us who didn't realize this game was going to be so different from all our other games on the system.

@Cyrax77 "If you are fine with buying more systems and copies of the same game just to have your own island doesn’t mean we all have to like it."

Your premise is specious. You may as well claim that the limitation existed on the GameCube only to sell more memory cards, or that it existed on the DS and 3DS only to sell more cartridges, or that it existed on the Wii only to, I don't know, sell more Wii consoles? It sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? Gee, maybe it really is nothing more than a design choice for gameplay reasons and not a cynical attempt to unscrupulously increase profits.

And my point stands: If you don't like it then vote with your wallet and don't buy it. It's as simple as that. But I guess some people just aren't satisfied unless they have something to complain about.

¯\__(ツ)__/¯

@Mountain_Man You may as well claim that the limitation existed on the GameCube only to sell more memory cards, or that it existed on the DS and 3DS only to sell more cartridges, or that it existed on the Wii only t

None of these systems had profiles. However, with the exception of the Wii there was no need to buy another console. On the Gamecube you could even buy third party memory cards which were cheaper than Nintendo brand cards. The Switch has profiles and they could easily let each profile have it's own save file.

@Crono1973 That "whooshing" sound you hear is the point going over your head. People say, "Nintendo is only doing this to sell more consoles!" But if that's true then what was their impetus for including this exact same feature in previous games in the series? Has it always been nothing more than a cynical attempt to strong-arm customers into buying additional memory cards, cartridges, and consoles? It's an absurd premise.

The first two reviews I can see as complaints that people would have. The third one sounds like it came from someone who doesnt even know what Animal Crossing is.

@Mountain_Man With the Gamecube, all saves were on memory cards and one save file filled the standard sized memory card (which they gave you for free with the game). Therefore, one village per memory card made sense. Third party memory cards worked just fine.

WIth the DS and 3DS, the saves were on the game card and like the Gamecube, I would imagine the save took up lots of space and therefore only one save per card made sense.

On the Switch though, the space is on the SD card and is far less limited and the Switch has a profile system which easily allows different save files per profile. Nintendo has gone out of their way to prevent this.

Now the cost difference is huge: $20 for a memory card, $40 for a DS/3DS game card or $260-$360 for a Switch plus game.

As one of the 0/10 reviewers, I can say the 0 is deserved IMO, because the multiplayer limitations have made the game non-playable for me. I'm sure my gf, who is Player 1, would give it a much higher score. But as P2, the game isn't even a game for me. It is absolutely no fun to be a glorified NPC in someone else's awesome world.

I've been looking forward to this game since it was announced. I absolutely wanted to play and love it, just as I've played and loved previous AC games. But my gf bought the switch and game, and I'm not willing to spend another few hundred to buy my own, so I don't get to enjoy the game. If the game is ever fixed (unlikely I know) so P2 can have the same experience as P1, I'll be happy to adjust my rating accordingly.

Who buys Animal Crossing for a storyline?? It's a sandbox game, there is little to no story, it's just free roam, and how is it locked to 1 island? Is there no account switching?

@FatalS 0 is only deserved if it's the worst thin you have ever played. You're just being dramatic.

The game was NEVER a multiplayer game. Every game in the series leading up to this should have prepared you for what you got.

@blockfight I kinda feel like it's a 0/10 for me. I got the game to play with my wife. She's so irritated by being locked to my progress, that she doesn't even want to play anymore. Instead of being something enjoyable, and a way for her to enjoy a video game, it's just given her yet another game to frustrate her into never wanting to play again. So I let her delete the save and start over with her has the Ambassador, but the damage has already been done. She spends more time worried about how her actions are going to hold me up or frustrate me than on her being able to enjoy it. This anti-consumer money grab has turned what should have been an enjoyable experience for us both into an aggravating, frustrating experience, and I wish I could get my money back. This is the first Animal Crossing I've been seriously disappointed by, maybe because it's the first I've bought explicitly to play with someone else.

Read the reviews, folks. Know what you're buying before you buy it.

@RavenFellBlade Do you not know how review scores work? It's based on how you like the game, not if it pissed off your wife. It sounds like someone got some enjoyment to have started the game (you)

Not judging, but the users on the Switch subreddit appear to be older than those here and also represent a broader range of console/game sharing situations. I've found their explanations of their issues with the game's design to be more nuanced. Those interested in constructive feedback can take a look there: https://redd.it/fo13xf

Daaaamn there are a lot of apologists here. The complaint about one island per console us an extremely valid complaint and really deserves criticism

Usually I'm the first person to hate on Nintendo but this was made clear before the game launched. People are literally whining about nothing.

@IKAY I've got 2 memory cards, and I can't store town data on my 2nd, roomier memory card. Only the 59-block large one.

@mariomaster96 You also have folks that rate everything a 4,5, or 6, because to them everything is in shades of average.

@Crono1973 But why didn't Nintendo simply ship the GameCube version with a larger memory card, or multiple memory cards? Why didn't the DS and 3DS versions use cartridges large enough to accommodate multiple save files? Why couldn't the Wii version have included a simple menu on start up to allow you to choose to play a different town?

Has it always been an unscrupulous scheme to force players to buy additional cards and/or consoles? Or are you committing the fallacy of special pleading by claiming that it's only true now but not then?

@lordzand Usually I'm the first person to hate on Nintendo but this was made clear before the game launched. People are literally whining about nothing.

LOL, anything goes as long as you warn people. Brilliant!

@bimmy-lee how bingocardtastic is this particular comment section? Just cracked open a big bottle of Stella and going to sit back and watch the show.

@NotTelevision Yep, an unfortunate misuse of the intended function indeed. That's an insult to those of us who aren't associated with a review website or publisher who do try to leave honest feedback on Metacritic and in areas like the Games You Recently Beat topic on the forums here.

@Mountain_Man Or are you committing the fallacy of special pleading by claiming that it's only true now but not then?

Did you miss the part where I compared the cost to have extra villages? $20 on the Gamecube, $40 on the DS/3DS and $260-$360 on the Switch.

Metacritic continues to show why it's not a reliable source.

@Crono1973

What I struggle with is the 'they're just doing it this way for the money' comments. The video game industry is not a not-for-profit endeavor. Of course it's for the money. The 'money' is the reason we all have a piece of electrogadgetry with which to make these comments. How much is a phone? And the plan attached to it? And the case on it? Remember when everyone was howling for Nintendo to close the coffin on the 3ds? Did anyone not realize that Nintendo's goal was for everyone in the household to have a Switch? Was the Switch Lite not the greatest clue ever of Nintendo's plan? It's a personal electronic device. The era of sitting in the same room and taking turns is OVER. Everyone fire up their Switch and we'll visit each other's islands.

@Scott_PdP Now you need to tell the other side that Nintendo designed it this way for the money, I already know that

@Scott_PdP I think the difference here is making a game have features that cost money (IE microtransactions). Or gimiping the whole game out to get you to buy a new console (the crazy theory going around).

While micros might be understandable as a source of rage this is just a crazy conspiracy theory that they expect people to buy extra consoles.

The person that mentioned Sony just showed that their "review" has an agenda. Figures, most people who review-bombed the likes of Three Houses and Astral Chain were salty because they weren't on PS4.

According to these people, the Switch has no games, but they're mad that they the Switch has the exclusives to does have. You can't make this stuff up. 😅

I am one of those who has been waiting for a new animal crossing to come out but I expected it to be a very modern game. I did not even consider the game would come out in the way it did with the whole one person thing. It was said that up to 8 could play and 4 at the same time. I expected it to be a split screen like it is in mariokart. I am not happy about the over the top rules! It is not fair to allow only one island per console. The console is 300$$$$ game 60! No, it isnt fair. I expected my daughter who grew up with the game to be able to have an island with her friends and me and the grandkids have another. I grew up with 5 siblings and under any circumstances do I like the rules as they are. How would you pick the primary person with a house full of kids??? Who can afford 460$$$ per person???

@peaceonearthxxoo You expected all this stuff and they didn't give it to you. Guess what you do? You just don't buy the game, you don't review bomb it.

@doctorhino You don't get to control how other people using rating systems on games. It is a 0/10 to me because it is not only not fun for me, but because I anticipated it so much that the letdown has made it an unpleasant gaming experience. To me, it has earned 0/10 points. It is the most disappointing game I've played.

For those mentioning that the one-island thing was announced before release, that's true, but it was announced long after we'd pre-ordered the game. I was immediately disappointed to hear I wouldn't be able to get an island, but I still held out hope that it wouldn't mess up my P2 experience too much. Obviously it did mess it up, and basically every part of being P2 makes for a disappointing time compared to any previous AC games.

The only game I'd rate worse for being P2 is Super Mario Odyssey, where you literally get to be the actual players clothing item. But at least that game still allowed for multiple P1 saves, so everyone could still get the actual game experience.

I'm totally fine with local co-op being trash as long as there's the option for each person to enjoy the game individually. New Horizons has made sure to prevent that. Your options as P2 are buy double of everything, be a glorified NPC, or don't play.

@Crono1973 "LOL, anything goes as long as you warn people. Brilliant!"

Yes, truth in advertising is a good thing. Giving a game a bad score because of a widely advertised feature is stupid. I don't like the fact that you need a Nintendo online subscription in order to use the online features, but it would be stupid for me to buy the game anyway and then bitterly complain about it.

"Did you miss the part where I compared the cost to have extra village."

That doesn't change the premise. Either it has always been a cynical cash grab, or it has never been. Take your pick, but before you choose, I will point out the irony of you defending this design in earlier games while criticizing it in this one.

The one island limit was made known ahead of release.

@FatalS If this is the most disappointed you have been by a game than I think you're going to have a hard future ahead of you in gaming, but SURE, give it a 0/10. (i'm actually not being sarcastic, I'm not going to question if someone is really that upset)

But it sounds like you were ill informed as well. At least take some credit it not reading up on the game like you should have.

The second review is funny. What did they expect? Did they watch a trailer? I find the game boring. Played New Leaf a while and got bored with it's gimmicks and attempt to keep you coming back. So I didn't buy this one. You don't see me writing a bad review for recycling it's monotonous chore filled mechanics all over again. It achieved what it was trying to. Baffled as to why so many like it, including an occultic tattooed, fully grown, beardy, metal head acquaintance of mine. Let live, is the key. I suppose the island tjing is some what understandable considering New Leaf didn't have such a restriction.

@FatalS "For those mentioning that the one-island thing was announced before release, that's true, but it was announced long after we'd pre-ordered the game."

That's your own fault for buying something before all the details about it were announced.

@FullMetalWesker Fair enough. I figured that if you are sharing a physical Switch console, you would be able to just communicate and cooperate to do things no matter who the rep is. But I can see where that might not be for others, especially when (as it seems to me) people are very much more in a "mine" culture (though that may just be me noticing it where I didn't when I was younger).

@Mountain_Man Yes, but that's ultimately not the main problem. The main problem is the combination of "one island only" with the "only the first player drives progression". If you had one island where everyone drives progression, or multiple islands where you had a "Mayor/Representative", this wouldn't be problematic. Both of them is unacceptable, and patently anti-consumer.

I, personally, like the game and will play it. The people who gave 0 reviews are clearly just angry . With a lot of hype it is easy to be disappointed. Nintendo said very little about the game early on and the one island thing was not initially mentioned. It was promoted as being able to play 4 at one time! 8 on 1 island. With those facts it is easy to believe that there was room for more than 1 island. They conveniently left that part out when promoting early releases.

@Mountain_Man Or are you committing the fallacy of special pleading by claiming that it's only true now but not then?

Fair enough, it's always been a cash grab but it's never been this expensive.

EXACTLY!!! Why don't people acknowledge that?

@WiltonRoots - I forget, do we count clusters? If so, I have bingos galore. Even if we don’t, I have so many bingos I could share them with the entire comment section, but I won’t, cause they’re mine!

@doctorhino You are not a nice person!

@doctorhino Reading up on what? Critics reviewing the game ahead of time didn't mention it (I think one mentioned it a bit the day before launch - "local co-op is tearing my family apart" or such). It wasn't until launch day that people started posting about the problems.

Re the hard future in gaming, probably true. Not many games are my cup of tea. Animal Crossing usually is. Probably why this ended up being so disappointing to me.

@Mountain_Man That's what a pre-order is. Gamer-nerd gf pre-order most of our games from series we like. Usually it works out great, this time it didn't.

@FatalS wait wait wait... Am I to believe you pre-ordered and paid for the game and ended up as not the primary?

And how is playing as non-rep impossible? Did you play and enjoy previous AC games? Does this one not provide a same experience? I'm inclined to believe that your poor [edit: autocorrect misfire] game experience is directly the result of a lack of actual cooperation and communication between you and whoever the rep is, a rep who might be actively not letting you participate. And bashing the game for that if such is the case is like rating Donkey King Country because your older sibling gave you an unplugged controller and was playing in 1 player mode instead of 2 player team.

@peaceonearthxxoo Which comment was that in reference to?

I don't have a lot of patience for people who think 0/10 is an acceptable score for anything but a piece of crap on the sidewalk.

@LavaTwilight very nuanced clear rational. Something so rare nowadays. Bravo!

@doctorhino I don't have a lot of patience for people who think 0/10 is an acceptable score for anything but a piece of crap on the sidewalk.

How about those who give 10/10?

@FatalS Here is an article from 10 months ago about it, freaking headline of the article
animalcrossingworld.com/2019/06/you-can-only-have-one-animal-crossing-new-horizons-island-per-nintendo-switch-system/

i can't seem to find this anywhere...so i am wondering...if i have a downloaded copy on my main switch and a hard copy on my switch lite then i can play two different islands, correct? And with the hard copy it wouldn't require the 'online' verification correct? I'm asking because my wife is playing on our main switch and i am going to get a copy for our lite to have my own island. Then we can visit each others islands also. No big deal though. I just want to make sure it works okay. i would appreciate the help if anyone knows for sure.

@DawgP Naw, my addiction is reptiles, not games. It's her game and she's entitled to be P1.

We actually didn't think the one island thing would be too bad since we both have different parts of the game we like. But we also both tend to play differently and the way it's set up where only one player matters ruined it for me. I have played previous AC games quite a bit, and will be continuing to play those instead.

@duffmmann THey need the drop the prices then! I can not afford that!

@Crono1973 I mean that can be equally as damaging to the integrity of the score but overall people who flood the internet with hate everytime a game doesn't live up to their expectations are making the gaming community toxic.

It's not even about being entitled, it's just the hate of saying there is nothing about this I like and the devs might as well have done nothing then gave me this. That's what a 0 means.

Many companies (especially EA) look for Metacritic as the easiest way to see if they game match up the expectations of their public, however, the only way to comment there is to accompany it with an user score. Well, what if I don't really care about that and just want to say something? Then just give it a 0/10 if it's negative, and 10/10 if it's positive!
But criticizing the game just for one thing? I know some (well, more than 200 "individuals", actually) are disgruntled about this, but why don't you just email Nintendo and/or the developers? Haven't you learned about Super Mario Maker 2, or the fact that ACNH will recieve updates that will fix some early complains? Don't mess with them. Still, I hope this makes Nintendo speak more about this limitation.
Who are those people, anyway? Almost no one review-bombed New Leaf when it came out, why do it this time?!
Well... at least people here talking in a civilized manner. That shows why companies like Nintendo need to talk more directly to their audience.

Most only complain about 1 island per switch, why so little people make noise about save file ( not sure if it's one time thing or you can eventually cloud save them as often as you like ) will come only for sub member?

Boo they are expressing their own opinion lets do away with freedom of speech

@kalosn But criticizing the game just for one thing?

Is there a lower limit to the number of things a consumer can criticize a game for?

I know some (well, more than 200 "individuals", actually) are disgruntled about this, but why don't you just email Nintendo and/or the developers?

So Nintendo can ignore them? Reviews are for consumer consumption. Why do you want only positive reviews allowed to be seen by consumers?

@doctorhino So I should review it 8/10 because it's an amaz-a-balls game and super pretty, except for the minor part where because I'm not P1 my experience of the game sucks? That doesn't make sense either. Reviews are meant to express your personal experience of the game. They are also editable should your experience improve/get worse.

I think the fact that it's getting review-bombed just goes to show how many people have been having bad experiences playing this. It may be an incredible addition to the series, but if it's not fun to play for a lot of players, it's not going to get top reviews.

I will add that I've seen a lot of replies to people's multiplayer critiques saying "good to know, I was going to buy this for my kids and now I know that's going to end up with fighting". To me that seems a big plus towards public reviews - it saves headaches for a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have known.

While too me the 1 island per system doesn't affect me but I do support them doing it to get the message too Nintendo as Nintendo would just ignore those emails. The only time I disagree with review bombing is when games are exclusive or timed exclusive on one console or platform and people have too wait for it too arrive on their console or system.

@TheNewButler "You have to take review bombing as sign you have done something right. No one review bombs mediocre games."

This is something I disagree with. When Payday 2 added in lootboxes into the game and people (including myself) review bombed it. Then in your word they did the right thing too add lootboxes.

@Freddyfred @doctorhino This is confusing. You talking to me?

I am very confused about the nasty people berating people with an opinion . Of course it isn't too surprising because that is the way the world seems to work these days. "Agree with me or you are a jerk" mentality.

@FatalS Had to go up and read other comments to make sense of things. I was under the impression that you, personally, were the one who pre-ordered and paid, but ended up being not the rep.

And each their own, I s'pose. To my sensibities, New Horizons is nothing new in the Shared Space theming of Animal Crossing. Single island, single town, etc. It baffles my mind that people who share a console can't communicate and coordinate things together, but I'm sure I baffle many other people with my various things. Taste is a thing for which there is no accounting.

I still, though, think it's silly to claim the game is "0/10". It's functional, it's what it advertised on the tin, and it really is still external factors that affect your outlook on the game. If you set that as the bottom, then nothing matters. There is no "it's not for me, but I can respect its craftsmanship" about it. It's lumped in the same bucket as Warcraft 3 Reforged or Fallout 76 or Sonic '06 or any slew of other games from other publishers that are functionally broken and don't work and crash and have bugs that prevent completion in normal play.

And similarly, if you have problems with it, even if as a result of external issue, then it probably isn't 10/10 material either. A flux of 10/10 ratings on things is just as inane, in my opinion.

And if you like and can still play older iterations, by all means do so! Vote with your wallet and provide feedback, by all means. Just know that engaging in hyperbolic activity is the quickest way to get ignored.

@FatalS You are right! I started playing this game with my youngest daughter and enjoyed it so I was looking forward to it. I was on the pre-registered list. I am enjoying the game but was disappointed by the strict rules. I don't understand why nintendo had to do it this way for a system that is so costly with its games. I certainly do not think 0 for a rating is right!

@FatalS Dude, 0/10 is a joke score. Its' basically throwing a baby fit, so if you want to defend it fine. Next time just write nothing if you are too angry to be objective.

This is why user reviews fail, because people get angry and think they can make more noise with a 0 than a 5 so F it screw this game, etc. It's just people being frustrated, it's not good information to go by how good the game is.

@Crono1973
Is there a lower limit to the number of things a consumer can criticize a game for?

There should be, but I guess it all depends on the consumer. But most of these complains are about the island-locked-to-one console-thing. But hey, the game just got released, and there is still enough time for future updates.

So Nintendo can ignore them? Reviews are for consumer consumption. Why do you want only positive reviews allowed to be seen by consumers?

That's a good point I didn't thought much before. Nintendo receives a lot of mail every time, and it can be really difficult to check them all out, even if they actually do. I didn't specifically mean all negative reviews. There should be at least constructive criticism, which is always helpful. In this case, it's an excellent game even if I don't have it yet. I still see many video footage of it and, I'm liking it. However, there are still some missing things from previous entries. It will be interesting to see how the game has evolved one year later.

@doctorhino Who the H are you??? I bought and play the game and I enjoy the game and am certainly entitled to my opinion! However you do not have the right to be a jerk about my opinion! I didn't rate the game but offered my opinion. Who do you think you are??//

Been reading the Reddit thread, they get it. Not only do they see this as a way to sell more consoles, they make alot of great points about the online multiplayer design. Why does Nintendo make simple online interaction such a chore? One user (Maximelene) said:

The online mode is broken too. Having to watch a loading screen for 30 seconds each time someone joins your island makes opening it to visitors a chore. We tried to get 6 people on a single island, it was horrible. When the 6th player joined, 5 players had to wait for 30 seconds, watching a fixed screen.

On top of that, nobody can join if any player is currently talking to an NPC, or simply have its menu opened. And if someone disconnects, everyone is rolled back a bit, and teleported to the airport. And when someone leaves properly, everyone has to watch it in a cutscene.

On top

And that's not talking about the "interface" to join, which is essentially only text bubbles. If you try to use a Dodo code and it fails, you have to redo it from the beginning, including the not-so-funny-after-the-50th-time quirky introduction. It's tedious, and absolutely not ergonomic in any way.

After less than 10 minutes of that, we gave up. It's absolutely unenjoyable.

Does Nintendo just not know how to program online play properly?

@kalosn
I have been trying different sites to gain more info on the game and have seen people complain of several issues. People are having trouble with the multiplayer thing. People are having trouble playing period. Unable to join a game as 2nd person

@Crono1973 Is this typical when a new game comes out??? Too many bugs?? This is the first time I have done this so I don't know. I didn't realize I had to play blindly! NO instructions at all? LOL I thought we would get something...

@Crono1973 "Does Nintendo just not know how to program online play properly?"

My opinion, no they don't know. The only (sort of ) "online" I like from Nintendo is Streetpass. But sadly the newer bundle ( for the New3ds ) we have to pay did not last long. I had fun with the Zombie game, and always look forward going to the Mall to collect Mii .

@peaceonearthxxoo I haven't figured out how to visit other towns or have people visit mine. It's isn't straightforward at all but after seeing what others say about the experience, it's probably not worth the effort.

Review bombing or not, maybe companies should take some hints from the complaints.

@Nourldean RIght? XD

@EmirParkreiner Yes, it's one island per console. That can be shared by 8 uses in that console. There is no possibility of a creating a second (or 3rd etc.) for somebody else to play. Also, the person who initially creates the island is the "representative" (used to be called the Mayor in past ACs) who is "the boss" if you will and nobody else can progress the island except for that person. And there is no way to change who is the rep.
So, if my son started the island, he os the boss. Doesn't matter if he plays for an hour and gets bored, my daughter then plays 20 hours gets stuck not being able to progress any further. And now he doesn't want to play anymore so the only option is to completely delete the island and all of her work and start over... Only to be repeated the other way around at some point in time.
And no, you can't save on different memory cards or use different game cartridges. It's one per console. Also, Nintendo says they will allow a one time only (per account) save transfer to a different Switch in the future. Once.

@Northwind
Well, that's definitely weird and surprising, i didn't even know it was possible.

"At least Sony respects its customers"

That REALLY made me laugh out loud...

Having to share an island (basically your game file) is not appealing for most parents, such as myself. The concerns could be addressed by Nintendo.

Frankly, we are a two-Switch household but with six kids (and I’d like to play too!), I decided against grabbing the game. I love AC (tremendously) but the file-save system deterred me from purchasing New Horizons.

@Drack911
Thanks!
Sounds like Nintendo needs to update the game with a function to switch the mayor.

They do have a point though, considering for them, the game is literally unplayable. The rest of the experience really doesn't matter if they can't even play the game.

Nintendo is being hypocritical here. They make us buy a separate online subscription for each account on the same console. No sharing allowed. Then, they force all all accounts to share an island. It seems deciding when we have to share or not share depends on if they get more money out of it.

@kalosn Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is a perfect example of developers getting feedback and active in fixing quality of life problems. From fixing Core-Crystle drop rates, fixing issues with the game running in Handheld mode (my entire second playthrough was in handheld mode to test the update and it was excellent) to general UI fixes. This isn't the 1990s or 2000s, developers listen to sensible complaints and fix these issues regularly. Even, Gamefreak took the issue with the National Dex to heart (more of an internal desire than due to review bombing) to add a substantial more pokemon to Sword & Shield through free updates.

I believe Nintendo EAD will be supporting this game and performing some lovely fixes to an already excellent game. So, I think people would be better served emailing or PMing NOA or EAD about their issues with the game politely and they'll address them. Even if its just being able to swap who the "island rep" is because I believe that is the real issue here not the one island restriction.

EDIT : And yes Monolith counts as Nintendo listening to their fans. They are owned by Nintendo and work on Nintendo series when not working on Xenoblade, like Zelda and Smash Bros. So, I'm sure EAD is going to be doing the same thing as Monolith did with Xenoblade.

@WesEds You can't blame that on Sony. It's usually the game dev's from separate companies who do that. Even if Sony owns one of the companies doesn't necessarily mean it's their fault. However, I don't agree that Sony cares about us. Microsoft and Sony have swapped places with Sony becoming the greedy peeps and Microsoft actually caring about us.

Nintendo has always been greedy. Look at past Pokemon games. Let's Go series, and Sword and Shield are the first games in the series to allow multiple saves per cartridge. Every one before that forced you to buy multiple copies if other family members wanted to play.

@SeerCoot If it's always been one per console with this series, then maybe they just forgot to change it?

Yeah, they forgot. LOL

@glenny3214 That was more because that's where the data for the game was stored on the cartridge. That was a limitation for the GBC, GBA, DS because they had no internal storage mechanism. And the one save per-copy was more to try to curb cheating because Pokemon was a social experience. The 3DS is a little bit different, because the 3DS had internal storage... but other 3DS games did that too, so we can't really say it was because of greed. Maybe more technical limitations. But, they've fixed that on the Switch with Let's Go and Sword and Shield so I'm assuming earlier cases were technical drawbacks of the consoles they were working with.

Nintendo has actually historically been the least greedy of big AAA devs by avoiding stuff like microtransactions, loot boxes, and predatory DLC practices. There are some exceptions, but they've generally been more on the up-and-up with customers than an EA, Activision, Ubisoft or... this hurts saying this Blizzard.

8 years of Obammie created this garbage cancel culture..

I’ve been wondering when this article was gonna show up... it’s basically garunteed for every single major switch release

I don't care for review bombing, but the criticism is valid. The lack of multiple islands doesn't affect me, but it can hurt the game for those who have to share their consoles.

This is why I no longer consider user reviews relevant, although Steam and GOG seem to be the only decent source of user reviews these days.

@Adrik Are the personal attacks necessary?

@LUIGITORNADO maybe im selfish but im not sharing my switch with anyone if im honest, so this doesnt really affect me. Honestly, if there was anything we should be complaining about its the fact that a nintendo online subscription is needed to play with friends and that sucks honestly

@Wexter Blizzard fan, huh? Understandable. I love most of EAs games but hate the way they squeeze every penny from players. Sims series has been my jam for so many years, but with Sims 4 they want 40 dollars US for each expansion, like 20 for each game pack, and 10 for each stuff pack. In the end, for Sims 4 as it is now, it's probably well over 500 dollars