Nintendo Switch

I'd rather have a smaller number, but implemented well. Around 200 with interesting behaviors and interactions would be preferable to having 500 that just run in circles or pop out of holes.

NPD December 2020: Switch best selling console in both units and USD sales for both the month and year; Switch games in the top 20: Animal Crossing 6, Mario Kart 8 DX 7, Mario 3D All-Stars 10, Smash Ultimate 11, Age of Calamity 13, NSMBUDX 15, Mario Odyssey 16, Breath of the Wild 17, Super Mario Party 18, Ring Fit Adventure 19.

Various thoughts.

Pokémon Snap could plausibly start with, say, 200 'mon and add more over time, as was done with Mario Tennis Aces. Things like daily/weekly/monthly challenges and online interaction can drive longevity. The other key factor will be making it so that simply going out and taking photos is enjoyable in and of itself, regardless of what one thinks of the story. Kind of like how Style Boutique has progression and story but the point of the games is putting clothes on people, NPS will succeed as a game if the meat lies in the photography itself.

It looks like Animal Crossing may well have joined Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon in Nintendo's S tier.

Edited by VampireBuddha on Jan 15th 2021 at 9:37:20 AM

I really don't want longevity in Pokemon Snap if possible.

I don't like it in general in Switch games aside from stuff like Smash Bros, Mario Kart or tournaments in Pokemon games.

Weekly and daily challenges are obviously good for freemium or monthly paid games, but I think they honestly suck a lot of joy out of single player games. I want a game that I can buy and play over a few days to a week and be done with it.

Unless I want to go back and take pictures for fun, or for a replay.

There's nothing obligating you to go back for every single update to a game if you don't feel like it. Saying you'd rather there not be content updates because of that is silly. And, uh, kind of selfish?

Edited by Perseus on Jan 15th 2021 at 9:08:49 PM

I don't see how. With something like Pokemon Snap I'd rather have a complete game from the start.

Well all games should be complete from the start, but, ya know.

I'd vouch for having a complete game at the start and getting more stuff added to it later.

I mean... yeah. What said. No one wants an incomplete game on launch. The idea is extra stuff being added over time to what was already a satisfying package to begin with.

Edited by Perseus on Jan 15th 2021 at 10:04:46 PM

I agree with , but I've seen way too many arguments that the game not having all the content that will eventually end up in it at launch means that the game was not complete at launch, regardless of whether what the game had at launch was substantial or not.

In my opinion it all depends on when development of that so-called additional content starts. If it's post-launch or so close to launch that you can't actually complete that section in time, then I consider it additional content that's welcome even if I have to pay for it. If it's on-disc content or stuff that's purposefully locked away that's just wrong.

I find nothing wrong with cycled activities as a means of artificial longevity. Certainly worked with me and certain games. But I understand how people might end up feeling cheated if they're late adopters or that it's artificial to begin with.

Yeah, I'm down with the "the game will have a complete storyline of levels at launch, and then will offer additional levels and experiences with DLC" prediction. It makes the most sense for the kind of game they're working with.

Though I also wonder if there's going to be some kind of connection / gameplay mechanic that links this game and Pokemon Home, which might also give it more substance.

Right, but the thing is that's something of an old fashioned element of game design - arguably due to the fact that the period games were designed that way was also the period where arcades were still a thing, so people had more expectation for that sort of thing.

But time brought expectation for more out of the games people buy. Nowadays, games that are extremely replayable are either expected to be competitive, such that even when you're replaying them you still get differing challenges or experiences, or are expected to be random or radiant in nature with different presets (IE roguelikes/lites) which again offer different experiences despite being a short, repetitive loop.

One of the reasons rail shooters went out of vogue is because they don't do that. Every time you play a rail shooter it's the same thing, and replaying is for the sake of perfection. The other game genre that has that characteristic is platform games, and nowadays those kinds of games deal with it by adding lots and lots more content (rail shooters that come out these days tend to be anthologies with several games all together, which helps as well).

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jan 15th 2021 at 4:27:41 AM

I don't mind additional longevity content as long as it isn't Lost Forever if you don't get it. Adding additional Pokemon to Snap after launch to give the game more longevity is fine. Going "make sure you play this weekend for one-time chance to see [insert popular legendary here]!" is BS.

Ugh lost forever is the worst.

Yeah, I still remember the rush to get Mew.

Actually, that's Temporary Online Content. Much worse than Lost Forever.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. I couldn't remember what the trope name was.

But yeah, any of the "available for a limited time only!" dlc can piss right off. At least back in the day of the original Pokemon those sorts of limited events were the only real way to do that, but nowadays there's no excuse.

Yeah I'd be fine with a full game and then course DLC later, either paid or free.

I just don't want constant events and limited Pokemon that force you to keep playing for months to get everything.

That's one thing I'm very happy about Game Freak in the past few years, with the introduction of permanent methods to acquire Mythical Pokemon like Celebi, Keldeo and Deoxys.

I don't mind if you need to buy spin offs, ports or DLC to get them, but its so much better to be able to get them later if you want to fill the dex out. Or if you just really like the Pokemon and want to use it on a team.

Having a "live service element" or expansions past release does not necessitate a lacking base/shell experience. However a lot of modern game design do unfortunately use the live service model and/or expansion packs as a crutch to sell a game first and promise content later.

Best example is Sims 2 vs Sims 4. With Sims 2 you could have a perfectly fine, fulfilling and complete experience on it's own, with the quite hefty expansion packs only adding MORE fulfilling content but not necessary to get the most out of your game. Compare Sims 4 which was barren on release and has piecemeal expansions that make the shell game only slightly less barren - with many expansions only having a fraction of the new content the previous expansions had.

Animal Crossing is somewhat in the middle. While it was serviceable at launch, it was still rather lacking in content compared to previous installments. However, all the DLC thusfar has been free and so it doesn't bother me. If they were paying for it, it would be offensively scummy - but as it is it's more just kinda scummy. SWSH's DLC is waaaay more scummy than what AC is doing, which I think is a pretty good model overall though I would like the launch experience to be meatier

When I mentioned events, I was thinking more like Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's Spirit Board events, where all the Spirits are there but every once in a while one slot is reserved for the subset which the event is focusing on. For New Pokémon Snap, this could be done by having certain Pokémon occasionally appear outside of their normal habitats, which allows for unique photos.

It helps that a lot of Animal Crossing's content has always been based real time anyway; so unless you go out of your way to abuse the calendar system it doesn't make a difference for most people whether stuff like the Christmas events were in the game at launch or not as long as they're in there by the time the actual event rolls around.

I feel like this whole "add to the game post-release" is like a legit psychological tactic, though I don't quite know what the name of it is.

Example: A game comes out that is 30 hours worth of content at launch. Nothing more gets added after that, and quickly people lose interest after a set amount of time like what happens with any game.

In the other case, a game has at launch 20 hours worth of content, but then adds a DLC/free update that is 10 hours worth of content later. Factually, this would hold over more players in the long run. In fact, mostly if it's free, it might even be praised for it, even if it was content that could have easily been in the vanilla game.

Edited by Makir on Jan 16th 2021 at 7:32:21 PM

The only game where that even applies to me is Smash Bros, and even then I eventually get bored and play other games, usually going back when a new fighter is revealed.

But yeah I don’t really like a lot modern gaming trends. But again I’m still a person that likes to replay favorite games a lot and understands the value of replays.

That’s my retro games fan speaking.

To me, it matters whether it's content that should have been in the base game, or content that they genuinely thought up later/ didn't have time for. The thing is, you often just don't know which of those it actually is. Animal Crossingly slightly splits the difference here, since its mostly seasonal events.

I do genuinelly apreciate games that keep updating for ages. Terraria, for example.

I think I'm in the camp where I'm just fine with post-launch content to keep a game alive and bring new fans in the process. I rarely ever replay games I beat, too, I don't have much motivation to play much games at all, I just prefer talking about them.