• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Does it really matter that Splatoon 2 is so similar to the original?

I've been seeing a lot of discussion threads and Youtube videos lately criticizing Splatoon 2 for not being a "Nintendo sequel". What people mean by this is that the sequel changed up very little from the original. People point out that even when Nintendo has heavily reused assets, for example in the N64 Zelda games, there are a lot of new elements to deserve the sequel treatment.

I think there are two arguments that can be used to debunk this side of the debate. The first is that not enough people experienced the original Splatoon to be turned off from a very similar sequel. Even though the only truly new mode in Splatoon 2 is Salmon Run, the frantic nature of Turf War and the ranked modes are new to all but a select few Wii U owners so the fresh feel is retained. The second point to debunk the people who criticize Splatoon 2 for being a rehash is that the base game is unlike anything on the market that it's alright to reuse several of the core ideas with a few tweaks. We saw the same with the Super Mario Galaxy games. Galaxy 2 retained the same acclaimed foundation of the original while only adding in a few new power-ups and Yoshi. Even though people called it a Galaxy 1.5 at the time, the gameplay of the Galaxy games was very unique so people gladly welcomed a sequel.

Splatoon 2's early sales success speaks for itself, but I nonetheless wanted to address the people who don't see it as a legitimate sequel. If you played the first Splatoon and weren't sure about the sequel, rest aside your worries. The gameplay is still as fresh as ever.

So where do you stand on this whole debate?
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Location
Louisiana, USA
I think the biggest problem with its lack of originality is that it isn't going to persuade anyone who passed on the original to try it out. I'm one of those people.

Perhaps it's just my aversion to the genre to begin with, but I just didn't put more than maybe five hours into the original before I found myself lacking in interest. I get that it's a fresh take on the 3rd person shooter genre, but I didn't find it so invigorating or addictive to the point where I was constantly playing competitive online with other people. The single player content was absolutely pathetic when I played as well, giving me little incentive to go back to it.

With Splatoon 2, I really don't see anything that will change my mind because it's functionally the exact same game. I don't dislike the series or anything, but there really isn't anything of interest in this sequel that would cause me to give the series another shot, let alone shell out the money for it (it would be like me buying the original all over again at full price).

I'm glad other people seem to enjoy it so much, but it offers little reason for people to consider trying it if the original wasn't their cup of tea.
 

el :BeoWolf:

When all else fails use fire
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Gender
Centaleon
A "nintendo sequel" is every sequel for any game. I feel it's the same as "Oh this game series is so repetive" Obviously it's the same thing that's the point. I don't play Madden and think "Gosh I sure wish they'd make a madden RPG FPS" I'm sure Splatoon 2 is different enough.
 
I got Splatoon 1 quite late and Splatoon 2 on day one so not much time at all has gone by between me playing both of them so i can see really clearly why people would view them as being too similar.

Thing is though Splatoon is an online shooter. The majority of the games in that genre dont tend to change much at all from game to game other than their setting.

They are similar games but that isnt a bad thing. More of the same isnt bad when a game is this good and unique. Splatoon 1 had a lot of content added afterwards. Splatoon 2 has already continued this model so by the end of the two years of support Splatoon 2 will recieve its possible that Splatoon 2 may end up feeling like that true sequel people wanted. Especially if they add playable octolings.

Splatoon 2 may be similar but there are a lot of improvements and we got a whole new single player campaign which is much better than the first game's single player mode with way more replayability being able to use 6 amiibo and any weapon type on a return journey on the hunt for collectables.

I really dont mind that Splatoon 2 is similar. I do think Splatoon 3 should bring more than Splatoon 2 has at launch, maybe a bigger hub world for a start. Make it feel more like a town than a plaza.

But as the OP said not many people played Splatoon 1 so for most of the user base playing Splatoon 2 its all new to them.

I'll let Splatoon 2s familiarity slide given its genre and how it doesnt evolve in other games either. And how the games were released only 2 years apart as opposed to other Nintendo franchises. And that the first game had such a small userbase that something too new and built too much on the original with too few people having played it would perhaps have alienated new players or made it a little too hard to grasp.

Splatoon 3, given when Splatoon 2 has released and the success of the Switch already within its first 6 months, will have no excuse not to change things up.
 
Last edited:

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
Yes it does. If they are so similar, then you paid for the same game twice.
 

Morbid Minish

Forum Volunteer
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Unfortunately, I haven't gotten to play Splatoon 2 yet since I don't have a Switch. I have watch some videos and kept up with new information about Splatoon 2 before it was released. I'm not really sure why people think it's too similar to the first game. If you change it up too much, it's not going to be what people loved it for in the first place.

Changes don't have to be drastic to make things feel different. I mean, there's new stages, new weapons, a whole new mode, the ranked battles were changed up a bit, new characters, etc. That's a lot of new stuff to make it different from the original. Not to mention the new strategies that will come into play since you have things like the roll with the Dualies, new subs/specials, and whatnot.

The only thing I could see that could be changed from the original to improve the game, without changing it too much, is to add some new types of ranked battles and maybe to add a ranked mode for turf war. But other than that, I don't anything needs to be drastically different.
 

SinkingBadges

The Quiet Man
I haven't played either the first or second one so I'll be speaking generally.

On principle, a good copy of a good game is still a good game. If Splatoon 2 doesn't ruin anything the previous game did, then it's not an problem of quality. What people seem to bring up here and I don't feel I can argue against is the value proposition, which comes on top of the fact Splatoon 1 came out late in the Wii U's lifespan. That seems like another sense in which Wii U owners apparently have to pay for the console's failure. You could say any console purchase comes with that kind of risk, doesn't mean people have to be fine with that.

Other than that there's more matters that I think are important if you played Splatoon 1. Are there new maps? Are they good or consistent in quality with the ones from before? Are the new modes worth your wile? Is the single player at least more of what made the previous one good? What do the new weapons add? Does the more active player pool make matches more interesting? Is there a chance that Nintendo supports it post-release like they did with the previous one? Ask yourself things like that, then you'll have your own answer. Since Galaxy 2 was mentioned, that's an example of one time I immediately came to an answer as to whether it was worth it based on criteria like that. (spoiler: my answer was "yes")
 

funnier6

Courage~
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Location
the past
Gender
Voe
I don't think it matters, they already came with a brand new take on the genre, what were you expecting them to do next?

They probably would've ruined what made it great if they messed with the formula too much.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Location
Australia
Does it really matter that Splatoon 2 is so similar to the original??
Not at all. I owned a WiiU but never bought the first game. I did buy the game on the Switch though.

Even though Splatoon is officially a sequel, in reality it's more closer to a remake with the announcers being replaced with worse ones. Nintendo has officially stated all WiiU remakes on the Switch will have at least a little extra new content added. This was enough for Mario Kart 8 as the Switch version sold better than the WiiU version. So does it matter? Not at all. The sales are there. There is a lot of people out there owning a Switch who never played the original games. Also many who did, want to play these games again but on the go or on their new console.

Digital Foundary initially said many old games ported to the Switch will kill the console sales. Later on they totallt recanted on that view point. They didn't deny their earlier view point. They admitted they were previously wrong. I personally was also wrong. If you scatter in the ports inbetween the new content then it works out well. It is working out quite well now.
 

Nicolai

The beast that dwells within the Shoutbox
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Location
just your imagination
People point out that even when Nintendo has heavily reused assets, for example in the N64 Zelda games, there are a lot of new elements to deserve the sequeltreatment...

...We saw the same with the Super Mario Galaxy games. Galaxy 2 retained the same acclaimed foundation of the original while only adding in a few new power-ups and Yoshi. Even though people called it a Galaxy 1.5 at the time, the gameplay of the Galaxy games was very unique sopeople gladly welcomed a sequel.
It might be a bit unfair to compare Splatoon to these other franchises, because Zelda has always been a black sheep, completely reworking each new installment far beyond average. It also may be more fair to strictly compare Splatoon 2 to other online multiplayer sequels, rather than single player series like the Galaxy games; in my experience, game developers tend to rock the boat less with online multiplayer games, perhaps since every little change to the physics and balancing is held to a much higher scrutiny by the user base. People (removing myself from this generalization) tend to get angry when the inner workings of a game they've played hundreds of hours of is suddenly foreign to them, and the tension and anxiety of online random matches and brutally strict ranking systems only multiply those feelings of frustration.

Therefore, I think it would be wiser to compare Splatoon 2 to games like Smash 4 and Mario Kart 8, and let us compare:

Smash 4: new characters, new music, new stages, new physics, new graphics, heavy balancing, amiibo, Smash Run/Tour (rarely talked about), 8-player mode, improved resolution.

Mario Kart 8: new stages, new music, new characters, heavily improved spectator/replay mode, heavy balancing, anti-gravity levels, a few new power-ups, improved resolution.

Splatoon 2: new stages, new weapons, all new specials, all new music, new gear optimization mechanics, improved similar graphics, new co-op horde mode, new time-period with new location and newscasters, slight balancing, twist of rules in ranked modes, improved resolution.

It all seems pretty even across the board. I'm all for switching things up as much as possible, but I just think these franchises are better comparisons as far as justifying sequels.
 
Last edited:

Lozjam

A Cool, Cool Mountain
Joined
May 24, 2015
It's also very prudent to bring in to comparison that we are comparing Splatoon when it has had a complete year and a half of continuing support, to Splatoon 2, which just launched.

In regards to 2, we have at least an entire year of completely new weapons, maps, and possibly modes. Splatoon 2 right out of the box slightly exceeds the content of the original in everything except maps. On top of this, we are getting more and more stuff on top of this.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Location
Australia
Poor Arms. Only had a month to shine.
Yeah I know. I feel bad for ARMS in a way. Splatoon 2 is killing it, in terms of which game people want to play. We all know it would happen but I feel there was no way do avoid it.

Therefore, I think it would be wiser to compare Splatoon 2 to games like Smash 4 and Mario Kart 8, and let us compare:

Smash 4: new characters, new music, new stages, new physics, new graphics, heavy balancing, amiibo, Smash Run/Tour (rarely talked about), 8-player mode, improved resolution.

Mario Kart 8: new stages, new music, new characters, heavily improved spectator/replay mode, heavy balancing, anti-gravity levels, a few new power-ups, improved resolution.

Splatoon 2: new stages, new weapons, all new specials, all new music, new gear optimization mechanics, improved similar graphics, new co-op horde mode, new time-period with new location and newscasters, slight balancing, twist of rules in ranked modes, improved resolution.

It all seems pretty even across the board. I'm all for switching things up as much as possible, but I just think these franchises are better comparisons as far as justifying sequels.
Are you comparing Switch to WiiU versions here? If so the Smash Bros 4 comparison doesn't work as there is no SSB4 port for Switch yet. So can you explain please what you are comparing these to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom