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?
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?