Bolt_Strike

I never got a Wii U, partially because I was broke at the time, but I also didn't really want one. In addition to the other issues the Wii U had the library seems really overrated and the kinds of games I gravitate to were largely absent. I primarily look towards large, open area adventure games that are chock full of exploration, you know, stuff like 3D Zeldas, sandbox Marios, Metroid, etc. The Wii U... just didn't have those kinds of experiences. BotW was delayed into being a cross gen title. Mario completely abandoned the sandbox formula. Metroid was completely absent. And there was little else in terms of these styles of games, pretty much just GC Zelda remakes and Xenoblade Chronicles X, none of which excited me. So that really deflated any excitement I had towards the console. I was greatly looking forward to the next big 3D Mario game and Metroid Prime 4 on the console, and I was really excited when Iwata teased in 2013 that they were about to reveal a 3D Mario game and a beloved IP by Retro Studios, only to be crushed when it was just 3D World and Tropical Freeze.

Additionally, many of the games they did come out with didn't really use the Gamepad well and some of them felt really rehashy. Nintendo loves their gimmicks and they can turn out really well when the games use the controllers in creative and interesting ways, but these games just... didn't. It was mainly the same old stuff the Wii and DS did. As for the rehashy games, you had the usual NSMB game that looked and felt the same as other NSMB games, but there were other games that felt similarly, especially from their platformers. This gen really felt like a creative slump for platformers (and they really haven't quite escaped that slump with their linear platformers, which leads me to wonder if it's a problem with the entire genre). 3D World kind of felt like the NSMB of 3D Mario, rehashing 3D Land with a Totally Not the Mushroom Kingdom setting and largely similar gameplay mechanics, a far step down from the creative locations and mechanics of games like Sunshine and Galaxy. Tropical Freeze didn't really advance things much from Returns either, adding in multiple characters that really didn't change things up too much and bringing back mechanics that Returns had dropped. Yoshi Woolly World recycled Kirby's Epic Yarn's gimmick with Yoshi's gameplay and didn't really feel particularly groundbreaking either. Everyone praises the creative level ideas and yes, there's some good ones, but creative levels can only get you so far if the overarching experience is largely the same and these games did little to nothing to make that overarching gameplay feel fresh and innovative.

(comment too long, continued in next post)

@Sinton They're third party games that were downgraded to run on the Wii U. They needed first party games to show this. You can play third party games on Xbox and Playstation and better. The Wii U needed a game like that that you had to buy a Wii U to play.

It is pretty rare that I'm ever impressed with a launch lineup, or even a launch year lineup. It does usually take until Year 2 or 3 for things to really get going. But that's part of the issue here, the lack of open adventure games didn't really get fixed Year 2 or 3 and their idea of "getting things going" was "more linear rehashy platformers". The lack of open adventure games was a consistent theme throughout the Wii U's entire lifespan and an issue with the total lineup, not just its launch lineup. The kinds of games I expected from the Wii U, such as sandbox 3D Marios or Metroid Prime 4, weren't just absent from the launch lineup but they were absent from the system entirely.

To answer your question though, the only lineup off the top of my head that I was really impressed with was the Switch, and more for launch year than launch day. Having the likes of BotW, MK8D, Splatoon 2, XC2, and Mario Odyssey in its first year is extremely impressive and more than I ever would've expected.

@Edu23XWiiU Again, I don't really agree. I don't find anything in that launch lineup I like, and there's only a handful of games I like in the Wii U's entire lineup. The Switch had just as many if not more games I liked Year 1 than the Wii U did all time.

@Sinton I mentioned that, it's the single player adventure games primarily, the ones that let you explore vast open areas/worlds. You know, your BotWs, your Mario Odysseys, your Pokemon Legends Arceus', etc. The Wii U almost completely lacked those types of experiences (it had some, but they were all either niche IPs, remakes, or cross gen titles and weren't remotely prominent during the Wii U's lifespan). No sandbox Mario, no Metroid, and Zelda being cross gen really hurt the Wii U's lineup. Some Western Nintendo fans even consider those IPs to be "the Big 3" (perhaps erroneously so because Metroid sells far less than the other two, depending on your definition of "big") because 3D Mario, 3D Zelda, and Metroid tend to be some of the largest, most ambitious, most explorable, and most console feeling IPs Nintendo has and all three of them were let downs in different ways (3D Mario because its game wasn't an open explorable sandbox and was more of a NSMB-esque linear platformer, 3D Zelda because it was frequently delayed to the point of becoming a cross gen title, and Metroid because it was absent entirely). In fact I'm going to make a bold claim and say the lack of those types of games were a factor in the Wii U not selling well (probably not the biggest factor, the confusing marketing and overall lack of games were probably larger factors, but I think it still played a part). Those types of games are very important to a console's lineup because they help market the console as AAA, they show the console is capable of grand, ambitious experiences that you would want to sit down and immerse yourself in for long periods of times. Not having them makes the Wii U look like a casual machine that can't run the big, beefy games that console gamers tend to gravitate to.

@Edu23XWiiU Oh right, I tend to think more in terms of launch year than launch day, i.e. I'm thinking in terms of the Switch's entire 2017 lineup (looking at the Day 1 lineup feels kind of worthless IMO because it's usually somewhat limited). And 2017 Switch is peak Nintendo IMO, that lineup truly has something for everyone with tons of highly regarded and diverse games, a lineup that I'm skeptical will ever be topped (although everyone seems to want Nintendo to replicate it seeing how people are constantly looking for a future year to be "the next 2017"). Nevertheless, the point still stands, because no range of time for the Wii U, launch day, launch year, all time ever had a lineup that I would describe as "having something for everyone" (in fact I found pretty much as many Switch games I wanted in 2017 as Wii U games I wanted throughout its entire life). It felt sorely lacking in certain genres and IPs.

@Sinton Something for everyone? LOL no. The Switch's lineup had something for everyone. The Wii U was mainly casualized linear platformers, party games, and gimped third party ports. One thing the Wii U's lineup, both at launch and through its entire life, was desperately missing from its lineup was the ambitious, open area adventure games, especially from its first party studios. The only first party games it had of this caliber were Xenoblade Chronicles X, which is a side game in a niche IP that hasn't really sold well, and BotW, which came far too late to save the Wii U and ended up benefiting the Switch more. Meanwhile, 3D Mario didn't get the grand, ambitious, and creative sandbox adventure it typically gets, instead getting 3D World which felt like a glorified DLC pack of 3D Land on the 3DS (although it did get an open world side mode... but again that was on the Switch and didn't salvage the issue on the Wii U). Metroid got nothing, with people thinking that Prime 4 was just around the corner but constantly got shafted by Nintendo until 2017 (and still isn't even out, but that's because of an unexpected restart). And there really... wasn't anything else remotely close to this kind of experience that filled the void that these IPs left aside from the two games mentioned. They put way too much time on casual mini games, rehashy linear platformers that felt like glorified DLC packs of Wii/3DS games, and multiplayer games. The open single player adventure games got shafted badly on the Wii U. I remember leading up to E3 2013 when Iwata teased that they were showing a 3D Mario game, a 3D Zelda game, Mario Kart, and a beloved IP from Retro Studios I got hyped thinking we were getting a sandbox 3D Mario game and Metroid Prime 4, and then when I saw it was just 3D World and Tropical Freeze that was an utterly crushing disappointment. That pretty much sums up the issues with the Wii U's lineup. It didn't feel like we needed 3D World and Tropical Freeze because those games give off the same vibe as NSMBU, lazy, rehashy, uncreative linear platformers. But we needed an actual sandbox Mario game and Metroid because there wasn't anything remotely close to those experiences on the Wii U.

Additionally, the overall lineup was lacking... quite a few IPs. I mentioned Metroid skipping, but beyond that Luigi's Mansion got nothing, and several prominent IPs (Kirby, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem) only got spinoffs but didn't get a main entry. So there were quite a few holes in the lineup.

So yeah, I wouldn't say the Wii U, or any part of its lineup, has something for everyone, to the contrary it felt really lacking. The Switch's lineup is just about everything the Wii U's should've been (the only major gripe I have is no original Mario Kart and no original DK game, and if the rumors are true we'll be crossing DK off that list by the end of the generation).

I would add:

-Water Temple (OoT)- This dungeon really isn't as confusing as it's made out to be, and I actually appreciate its mazelike design as it gave me a good challenge. Also the Dark Link miniboss is one of the most memorable moments in the game.
-Dark Palace (ALBW)- Again a remix of a previous dungeon from ALttP (and also a remix of the Light World dungeon Eastern Palace), but this time it takes "Dark" quite literally by incorporating a lot of light/shadow based puzzles into its design.
-Ice Ruins (ALBW)- This one is interesting because it's kind of a remix of an ALttP dungeon but not really because ALBW swaps the locations of Ice Palace/Ruins and Turtle Rock. Like with the Water Temple in OoT, it has the sort of challenging mazelike design that I love, with tons of walkways and elevators every which way and as you progress you keep connecting new areas to old ones. It also is very precarious with the dungeon being built into Death Mountain and has a lot of narrow, icy walkways over giant pits.

Also remove Swamp Palace and Shadow Temple, neither were that memorable to me. Swamp Palace started water dungeons but didn't have the unique water puzzles that later ones had (such as OoT Water Temple, TP Lakebed Temple, or ALBW Swamp Palace), and Shadow Temple was spooky, but not interesting or puzzling, the only part that really stood out to me was using the Hover Boots but they're criminally underutilized (although really every item past the Fairy Bow is in OoT, it really doesn't make good use of its late game items).

Needs more systems ASAP. GB/GBA should already be there. And we need GC and Wii to really justify the Expansion Pack's high price tag. Get a move on Nintendo!

Be Afraid of the Dark from Yoshi's Crafted World is a glaring omission from this list. Yoshi games are always so cute and cuddly but suddenly you have crazed axe murderers bursting out and trying to chase you around. Never expected to see something so dark in a Yoshi game.

@Eagly Well they could always have more gun related powerups like Cannon Boxes and capturing Bullet Bills and Sherms (I've always wanted to see a Bazooka Bill power up, a giant bazooka Mario could wield that shoots Bullet Bills, but that might not be the most original of powerups anymore). But yeah, a full main series game revolving around gunplay seems a bit much and too limiting.

I'd like to see Odyssey 2 before we move on to next gen. There's just way too much they can still do with Odyssey, too many levels they can add, too many enemies we can capture, for me to feel satisfied with just one game of the concept. I do want to see something totally new next gen (and that is what they tend to do, they seem to design the flagship 3D Mario game around the capabilities of the console), but I want to see Odyssey 2 first.

Not enough systems to be worth the money, especially not enough home consoles. Really needs GC and maybe even Wii to really be worth it (and yes I know that probably won't happen this gen, but that's where we need to be for this price point to be worth it).

@Waluigi451 From what I've heard, it's because those characters originated from games that weren't made by the mainline Mario team and they mainly want to use "their" characters. So you only see them in spinoffs that aren't made by the core Mario team.

@Bizzyb You need at least 4-6 months, maybe even longer, to market the new console, and we're cutting it pretty close already. And you need more than just unverifiable rumors at this point, the company will usually start confirming that the next gen console is in development under a codename at least a year out. And that's regardless of the previous gen's success. With all of that in mind it's a pretty safe assumption that we are not getting a next gen device in the first half of 2023 (second half is still possible, but we can just about rule out first half).

@Bizzyb Highly doubtful TotK is being pushed out for a new console, if they were a new console coming in May 2023, they'd be telling us about it by now (or we'd at the very least be aware of the system under a codename like NX if not a full reveal).

@Bizzyb If there's a new console on the horizon they shouldn't be releasing ANY tentpole titles, they should be saving them for next gen, that's the best time in a console's lifespan for a 2017-esque lineup. The fact that we have Splatoon 3 and TotK around this time makes me question if we're really headed for next gen that soon or if there are other factors going on such as COVID or organizational troubles. Most of the tentpole releases have come from EPD and we've had almost nothing from them since 2019, so is it time to start worrying about what's going on at EPD right now?

@GreenNinja500 We keep hearing "this next year is going to be the new 2017" but it keeps not happening and everyone keeps shifting their hopes for a blowout lineup into the next year (I've seen people saying 2020 would be the new 2017, 2021 would be the new 2017, and 2022 would be the new 2017). At this point I think it's just not happening again anytime soon. I'll believe we have a new 2017-esque lineup when I see it, the last 3 years have come nowhere close.

Once again a very uninspiring lineup. Calling most of these games "big hitters" is laughable. When's the next Mario game? When's DK? when are we getting a release date that isn't TBA on Prime 4? Those are the kinds of "big hitter" announcements we need to be seeing, not these niche franchises that only a handful of dedicated fans care about. We need to start seeing announcements of that caliber again.

@shoeses I'm not saying you're wrong about the problem (I agree that is a problem and I largely didn't make much progress through it myself for the same reason), I'm saying Game Freak is wrong about the solution. Removing the Battle Frontier outright has done more harm than good. It needed to be changed to make it so you can progress through it without a competitive team designed around it.

@shoeses So then simplify the competitive requirements for them. Competitive battling isn't really the appeal of the Battle Frontier, it's the unique battling styles. We've pretty much lost that now (they did experiment a bit with unique battling styles outside of the Frontier with things like Rotation, Triple, Sky, and Inverse battles but those things are gone now too) and we're stuck with just the basic bitch Single, Double, and Multi battles we've been using for the last 20 years.

@Anti-Matter There doesn't appear to be any. The past/future theme just seems to be an aesthetic/storyline difference between the two versions. Time travel is not confirmed and at this point probably does not exist.

Most if not all of this we probably won't know until release, they don't tip their entire hand like this because they want to actually leave something for you to discover as you play. What we know now about the games is about as much as we typically learn before release (maybe with slightly more Pokemon, but that's pretty much it).

Bellchime Trail is actually kind of disappointing. Areas that are nothing but scenery are kind of pointless, and there is so much more they could've done with the autumn themed scenery there (like maybe a forest behind Ecruteak City where you can find Ghost types and stuff like Murkrow and Misdreavus earlier in the game).

Also, there's a much better autumn themed Pokemon level in the form of Rt. 16 in XY. Its leaf piles are endlessly fun to run through and (unlike Rt. 15 which is similar) it has Halloweeny Ghost types like Pumpkaboo and Phantump.

Neat, but calling this "convergent evolution" is a bit of a misnomer by Pokemon standards because of the Pokemon concept of evolution. Evolution in Pokemon refers to a form change of an instance of a Pokemon when they reach a certain milestone, not the IRL definition of a change in biological traits after adapting to an environment. This would breed a lot of confusion in the community, leading people to think that Wiglett will evolve into Dugtrio instead of a new Pokemon that's similar to Dugtrio (Wugtrio?). I think we need to come up with a new name for this in Pokemon.

@fenlix He was saying they should've been developed by Nintendo, not just exclusive to Nintendo consoles. Lost World and Boom's issues were because of SEGA and BRB's design decisions, not simply because they were limited by the Wii U. A Nintendo developed Sonic game on the Wii U would've likely been 10 times better.

@KayFiOS Metroid isn't a high seller either but it's sold more than F-Zero. Metroid games have consistently sold about 1-2 million, with Dread closing on 3 million. F-Zero struggles to even hit 1 million.

@Heroofthenexus I assume you're referring to the Nagoshi interview? Continuous reports on other sites don't back that up and instead have GX listed around 600,000.

@KayFiOS Probably because not a lot of people are buying high-speed anti-gravity death-racing games (neither F-Zero nor Fast Racing NEO have cracked 1 million in sales anytime recently) so they don't think the market needs it.

@steventonysmith Mario 3D World is a Wii U port that likely didn't take them more than a year to put on the Switch, while it's been 5 years since Odyssey. I don't buy for one second that that and 3D All Stars were all they were working on from 2017-2020.

And who said I was praising PS5 and XBSX? Their lineup sucks too, but more because the games they actually chose to make are dull and samey feeling. Nintendo's definitely suffering from a lack of output.

@steventonysmith Oh please, I have more than my fair share of Switch games (I have at least 50-100). The current lineup is just... not great. It's especially lacking on the first party front, with them relying on a lot of niche IPs and DLC for the foreseeable future and not enough major first party releases, while there's still a lot of big IPs that have been AWOL for 3+ years (2D Mario, 3D Mario, 2D Zelda, Metroid Prime, DK, Yoshi, and we haven't had a full retail Mario Kart game of any kind either instead porting tracks from a mobile game to revitalize a 5 year old port of a Wii U game). This has nothing to do with narrow tastes, there's just been long droughts and less games coming from Nintendo's biggest IPs.

I only care about the first 2 games on this whole list. The rest feels like mediocre filler. Nintendo really needs to step their game up, their lineup has been lacking for several years and I don't think that's just because of the pandemic.

@SwagaliciousJohnson If they're ready to announce games coming that far in advance they should be ready to announce GB coming to NSO. The fact that they didn't implies there's going to be some length of time, probably a significant one, where we have Stadium and not the GB games.

This is why they shouldn't have ported these until GB was added to NSO.

Anything big for 2023. 2nd half of 2022 has been so underwhelming, it's full of so many niche titles that I (and a lot of other Nintendo fans given their low sales) don't even care about to the point where it feels empty even though it's not. Nintendo really needs to get the fanbase excited for a big project again. A blowout on BotW2, a teaser for Odyssey 2 (although I see this as unlikely, Nintendo tends not to tease flagship Mario releases and plays their cards close to the vest on them), something for Prime 4 (although that feels more appropriate for E3 2023), something.

Also, what ever happened to DK? There was so much smoke there with rumors flying around about a DK game for the 40th anniversary last year and no fire... yet. I firmly believe Nintendo is working on some kind of DK game behind the scenes and it feels like we're overdue to see it. Besides BotW I think that's the most likely major new game they'd reveal tomorrow.

The trailer itself wasn't confusing. The only part I'm confused about was the part they didn't really show that well in the trailer, about Let's Go and Auto Battle mode. But I'm not even sure a trailer could do that justice, we need to see a live gameplay demo to really clear that up (why didn't they show that at PAX West again? They were there, and no SV demo).

I don't want WW period and TP I don't care for a re-release. I just want something new from Zelda at this point (we know BotW2 is coming... some time, but what's next for 2D Zelda again?).

None of them. I don't want them to just get a new coat of paint, if I wanted to replay them as is I would just get the originals on VC/NSO. I'd want to see a 3D reimagining of some of these games.

@BulbasaurusRex That's only your opinion that the best Saturday morning cartoon plots are better than the worst overarching plots. I can't stand Saturday morning cartoon plots, they're so dull and empty and they feel pointless.

Team Rocket trying to gain money and power to rule the world is so cliche and hollow. Almost every freaking villain wants to rule the world, what makes them so special? And no, there is no overarching plot in Team Rocket's events (with the sole exception of the Lake of Rage and Radio Tower events in GSCHGSS) and I've never really felt like the later events were "larger crimes". They all feel somewhat petty and localized, you never really get the feeling that they're a threat to the entire region in the same way as later evil teams. It all feels so random. Say what you want about the later evil teams and their supernatural apocalypses, at least their motivations and overall plans form a more coherent and interesting motive than Team Rocket.

Same with Blue. Wanting to be the best? Cliche. Empty. Every rival wants to be the best at their craft. You said it yourself, what rival wouldn't want to be the Champion, so what makes him stand out from any other rival? Silver's a little better because of what's going on beneath the surface, but they don't explicitly go into that until the Celebi event in HGSS, as far as you know for sure from GSC, he's just some arrogant jerk who hates weak people.

The characters need the more detailed motivations to stand out. Otherwise, how can you really be "entertained" by them? There's no real reason to engage with them other than them being the roadblock to the next area in the game.

@BulbasaurusRex Hard disagree that the Saturday morning plots are more entertaining, but that's subjective. And again, it's not just the Saturday morning cartoon plots that make those games so bad, but the almost complete lack of any kind of characterization or lore to those games. The characters don't feel like actual characters, they feel like soulless robots with no personality besides "Let's battle" or "Let's make small talk". Team Rocket doesn't really have any motivation to do the evil things they do, Blue doesn't have any reason why he wants to be Champion, Prof. Oak just exists to give you your starter and evaluate the Pokedex, the gym leaders just sit around in their gyms all day. There's no sense of life or depth to the characters, and when you combine that with the Saturday morning cartoon plots with no overarching narrative, it makes the whole story feel dull and practically nonexistent. You'd be hard pressed to call something so dull and empty "entertaining" by any stretch of the imagination. As bad as Gen 6 and 8's plots are, the characters actually feel like they fleshed out motivations and that all of the events in the game have a reason for occurring (even if that reason doesn't make much logical sense). Gens 1 and 2's (especially 1's) sheer lack of depth to any kind of plot or characterization breaks the immersion and betrays that these are video game characters meant to serve as roadblocks for you to overcome or hints to help you progress instead of living, breathing, characters.

You're seriously overrating the GB games' plot (really, I think nearly everything about them is overrated, the games have aged like milk, but this article is focused on plot). The characters have little to no personality or backstory and are either glorified punching bags for you to battle or generic NPCs. And we can barely call the sequence of events in the game a "plot". There's little to no sense of an overarching narrative in the game, Team Rocket's events are mainly disconnected Saturday morning cartoon tier fare that generally have nothing to do with each other. To rank these games as high as they are, especially Gen 1, feels downright criminal. You could even argue that they belong at the very bottom of the list, even below the poorly written dreck that's Gens 6 and 8. At least those games had a narrative to speak of.

>Free-to-play
>Good ideas

Pick one

@BartoxTharglod It's not just a matter of feeling different, it's also performing different action. You have different sets of platforming moves between the different 3D Mario games. With the weapons it all still boils down to just pressing the weapon button all the same. That's why the different weapons don't feel as different to me.

@HamKnight Sorry about that. Weird, I don't even remember replying to you in that Mario Kart post.

@BartoxTharglod And what's "not trivial"? This is starting to get into subjective territory, you call 3D Mario's changes "gimmicks" but they still make the game feel different to me.

@Ulysses No, being different genres does not mean they cannot be compared. There's certain generalities in gameplay mechanics that can be compared about for EVERY genre to compare them, such as what actions/abilities the player can use, what are the conditions for victory, etc. And the comparisons with Mario Kart fall flat for similar reasons. Mechanics such as tricking, gliding, and going underwater are new abilities. The new weapons and specials are new CATEGORIES of abilities. They're the same actions, using a weapon or special, but with different effects. At best maybe you could consider bikes as part of that, but for the most part Mario Kart does a much better job of expanding the range of actions you can take with Splatoon.

@Ulysses No, not quite. Some sequels change things up more than others. Good example is to compare some of the 3D Mario games. 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, and Odyssey are all similar playing games, but they're also very different from each other in terms of gameplay mechanics that they each feel unique. Compare that to 3D Land and 3D World, which feel like NSMB 3D and aren't really terribly different from each other aside from a few minor changes like powerups, extra characters (which don't really play that differently from Mario and Luigi), and level gimmicks and feels more like a level pack sequel that could've been DLC. Splatoon 2 and 3 feel like the 3D World to 1 and 2's 3D Land, I'm looking for the Sunshine/Galaxy/Odyssey to 1 and 2's 64.

Another good example of a more impactful sequel that's more multiplayer focused would be Mario Kart Double Dash, Wii, 7, and 8. The double racers, tricking and bikes, gliding and underwater, and antigrav were major game changers to Mario Kart's racing mechanics. I'm not really seeing the same scale of change with Splatoon as some of those entries.

@Ulysses Games like CoD and Madden get complaints about being too rehashy too, they're not exempt from the same criticisms. More of the same just isn't an enticing offer for a $60 game. If the next game is "been there done that", are you really getting $60 worth of enjoyment?

@Ulysses Just because it can be the exception doesn't mean it needs to be. I'm seriously questioning whether the DLC is making them more money or is creatively worthwhile over a new game. And really having a second Mario Kart game on the console would also be an exception anyway. The argument is more a matter of was this the right exception to make more than whether or not they would make one. They kind of had to make some kind of exception because they already made the unprecedented move in 2017 of having the first ever port of a past Mario Kart game.

@sanderev Honestly that kind of seems like backwards logic, if Mario Kart is more successful than Splatoon, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot with a $30 DLC than a full $60 game? Also, remember that Splatoon 2 got DLC as well, just much sooner than 5 years after release. They could've given MK8D DLC in 2018/2019 if they wanted but nope, they sat on the base MK8D for 5 years and then just gave us DLC instead of a new game. So Splatoon's actually gotten MORE than MK despite selling less, it's getting 2 full games with at least 2 DLC packs instead of 1 full game and 1 DLC pack.

Also creatively, I can think of many more improvements to justify a MK9 on the Switch than I can for a Splatoon 3 on the Switch. Mario Kart actually feels like it's hurting and being held back by waiting for next gen, Splatoon 3 could've waited.

Not really. The gameplay modes aren't different enough. 3 way Splatfests are... fine I guess, but they're probably not going to be a huge game changer. And recycling Salmon Run instead of coming up with something different also really hurts. In particular, I think they should start dabbling in larger, more open maps. Give us a Splattle Royale mode akin to Fortnite and/or a story mode with more open area maps instead of the same tired linear obstacle courses, that would be more along the lines of the kind of improvement that would justify a sequel.

Yeeeaaaahhhh, this Direct does almost nothing to address the concerns of "this looks too much like Splatoon 2". Everyone's waiting for new gameplay modes to shake up the game and they give us... pseudo-Tetris and 3 sided Splatfests. I mean, it could be worse, but that's not great. Skipping this for sure.