-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Animal Crossing: New Horizons E3 Nintendo Direct reveal trailer!
- Thread starter con-ca-te-nate
- Start date
I wish Nintendo would have an early access program. This would be perfect for it.
In Animal Crossing, progression is extremely slow anyway and takes days and weeks to really build up your town, so they could develope while we play completely normally. :D
In Animal Crossing, progression is extremely slow anyway and takes days and weeks to really build up your town, so they could develope while we play completely normally. :D
I wonder about that. I don't think there will be. You could maybe argue they would want to focus on he newer stuff for the showing, but I think it's just more likely the island is all there is and you have to build it from the ground up to be more like a standard AC town.
New developers interview on Gamekult.
Few new infos :
-there will be an Amiibo (figures and cards I suppose since they say there are so many of them) compatibility but they cannot give details yet.
-KK will be playing live every Saturday nights. There was actually one of his song playing on the radio during tree house gameplay.
-it seems were will be new characters (it's not very clear)
-no marriage but you can simulate one given you can arrange furnitures outside.
Few new infos :
-there will be an Amiibo (figures and cards I suppose since they say there are so many of them) compatibility but they cannot give details yet.
-KK will be playing live every Saturday nights. There was actually one of his song playing on the radio during tree house gameplay.
-it seems were will be new characters (it's not very clear)
-no marriage but you can simulate one given you can arrange furnitures outside.
I also thought about this but I hope it is not the only function of the airport
wow every time I see the trailer for New horizons or these comparisons I am amazed. It has had an enormous evolutionSaw this on Reddit and wanted to share:
This is a bummer if it ends up being the case in the final game. Especially with how customizable the town seems to be this time around, I was looking forward to having multiple very different islands. It's nice that you can share a town with someone like in the Gamecube game, but it seems like it comes at a pretty big cost for solo players.
Honestly, it's not even nice that you can share an island. My sisters share a switch and they were able to have a town each on AC NL, being forced to share a town is going to be a way worse experience for them.
I could see this being worse for a lot of people, for sure. If anything, I think the ideal solution would be for them to give players the option to have their own island per Switch profile, or choose to live in the same town as another player. Definitely doesn't seem like something that would be impossible, so it's unfortunate that they seem to have deconfirmed it. Maybe they'll backtrack like how Mario Maker 2 is going to patch in friend online play.
It would also be cool, now that we have simultaneous online multiplayer, to have the option to share a town with an online friend, or even just have a shared area, like a separate island, that the two of you can collaborate on building up.
How different the opinions can be in that case. Sharing one town was always the strongest part of the games for me and my partner.
The idea alone is super cool, that there is one active town and we both live in it, so if she plays she works on her house and contributes to the town, when I play later I can see what's new in the town and in her house and then work on my stuff.
It's specially useful because you have to wait a shit ton of time to progress certain stuff and when we both play in one town, we can get more done and the "world" feels more alive. That was always so great.
Now, with the Switch, it rather pisses me off that the cartridge doesn't have a save anymore, so we both have a Switch and now when we want to play like this, we can only do it on one Switch and on one of our accounts. That's a step back if you like to play like this.
But of course you should be able to have both options of course.
What on earth? This is a straight-up terrible decision. My younger siblings, who all share a Switch, are not going to want to share the same island. There's no good reason for island sharing to be mandatory, other than Nintendo trying to con some more sales out of folks by putting them in this state of duress.
Nintendo games always have one of these dumb restrictions that piss people off lol. Don't see why they can just give you the option of having a separate island or joining one. Maybe they don't want people to make dummy accounts to gift free shit to their real accounts?
The website I pulled it from was just pointing out the return of an acre system and split rivers.
There won't be any direct connectivity between the two of them (thankfully).
Heh, yeah it's probably for the best. I really wish AC mobile had come out alongside this game and been more of a companion app to somehow tend to daily chores and tasks in downtime during the day.
I think that idea was toyed with and IIRC even hinted at by Nintendo. But apparently Pocket Camp ended up going through a bit of development hell before its final concept and also I'm pretty sure I've read about some changes in the AC team at Nintendo, so plans probably ended up changing altogether.
Looks like cloud saving is disabled to avoid "manipulating time." Was expecting this but still sucks.
Edit:didn't see this info posted so sorry if it was discussed already somewhere else.
Edit:didn't see this info posted so sorry if it was discussed already somewhere else.
Agreed. There is no reason this shouldn't be optional. It's 2019.
Edit: it'll actually be 2020....
While I completely understand the backlash towards the "1 town per Switch" notion - I also find it kind of hilarious because the "intent" from the beginning was to move to a town and have your friends/family join you there, hence the four homes in every game before New Leaf. I realize that someone could argue the series has evolved since then, but honestly, with every AC that's come out up until now - I've never lived with someone who would want to be in a town with me. Live with my fiancee now and we both love Animal Crossing, and I couldn't be more stoked that we're about to share and build and island together!
Like I said, I totally get why folks are upset about this, just wanted to express my view in the other direction for the sake of positivity I guess.
Like I said, I totally get why folks are upset about this, just wanted to express my view in the other direction for the sake of positivity I guess.
I've always loved the Animal Crossing games, even though I haven't played my 3DS one is ages (although i don't play my 3DS at all these days). Really looking forward to this one. It looks super charming and cute, as always.
I would love to know what was planned for the New Leaf/Pocket Camp integration that obviously fell through.
Is this where the actual fans are? I think it's very important that they prevent hacking, time travelling, duping for as long as possible. An animal crossing with stable economy for even a few months seems almost too good to be true. That being said, they really need to invest in solution for cloud saves that only works in the event of a lost or broken switch. It's not like a solution is impossible...
I don't know where it is offhand right now, but I know a lot of that was actually datamined if you do some Googling. For example, the OK Motors guys in Pocket Camp are in the New Leaf update code.
I completely agree.
As far as I know, online play hacking is pretty locked down on the Switch right now still due to fairly trigger happy banning by Nintendo when you connect to their servers. So assuming they fix and plug any saving duplication glitches this time around, we might actually get a real economy for a few months at least.
What economy? The only economy in Animal Crossing is the one that you want to make. If you want to play the stalk market every week and travel to towns where turnips are selling for 450ish bells each you can do that legitimately, you don't need to save scum to do that. There won't be any hacking effecting your game since you need the current firmware and NSO online to interact online, no one's going to waste their money and get banned just to drop rare items in people's towns. Other people doing that stuff has zero way to effect you as a player unless you actively allow it to by inviting people to your town and accepting anything they give you. Unless they added a bunch of market house stuff, which I highly doubt, there's no defensible reason not to allow cloud saves.
This mindset goes completely against the philosophy of Animal Crossing for me, it's all about playing in whatever way makes you happy and you shouldn't feel compelled to compete in the rat race or feel left behind by what another player chooses to do. If that was my attitude towards the game, I never would have played New Leaf since the Japanese players already did everything before I could even start. People will still do that without cloud saves, so it's not like removing them really solves anything anyway. It just means that when your Switch breaks you're going to go through that same needless tragedy that Animal Crossing players have been going through for years now
I hope they make it so that Joan only buys turnips if you are a resident of that town to prevent online stalk marketing.
The amount of exploit money in the marketplace drives prices up. Sure you can play the game without interacting in trading, but I personally find it more fun to engage in trading, without the stalk market invalidating most of the money making schemes in the game. I remember playing the GCN game and having fun fishing for hours on end to pay off debt--this was before I was aware of the built in codes. Fishing was more fun when it was profitable relative to other options.
Also, I never said that this is worth removing cloud saves altogether. I'm just pointing out that just because there is a rationale behind a decision that is ultimately bad doesn't mean the rationale itself is unimportant. In Splatoon 1, it was very important for the health of the game that people do not save scum their ranks, but it was very easy to do so. In Splatoon 2, they got rid of save manipulation to prevent this, along with gear save scum, making it difficult outside of going full-hacker. However, preventing cloud saves because of this was a terrible compromise; The preferable solution was to store ranks server side. Now that doesn't mean that the reason behind the change wasn't important; the integrity of the ranking system is as important as ever for match making.
From your response, I notice 2 things on which I probably disagree with you.
1.I believe that players don't have the complete freedom to enjoy the game in they way they prefer when things are unbalanced. The expected values of various decisions actively shape how one feels about making said decisions. If removing an option (such as time traveling) can lift the temptation and pressure of unequal playing ground and make the experience more enjoyable to more people, as I believe it will, then it is a good change.
2. I also believe that players often times don't know how to make the game maximally enjoyable to them. It's the developer's job to steer them. When given too much leeway, players often follow the path of least resistance to an unfavorable end (and I mean unfavorable with respect to the player's own sensibilities). I believe this because many times in my gaming career, I've been forced to endure a 'bad' mechanic long enough to completely change my mind.
I suppose so in terms of balance, but the thing is that you have to go so out of your way to do any of that and mess with that balance and while you're doing it you know that it's "wrong". That's essentially what Resetti was for, to warn you that the developers don't think you're playing in the intended way. He didn't stop you but he gave you a strong nudge to cut it out. In an ideal world Resetti would be berating you for downloading a cloud save after the first time and that would be that. You would still be able to do it but you would know that it was wrong and the game would go out of its way to tell you that it's wrong. That alone, with a long unskippable Pearl/Marina style message (maybe even something where Resetti would just force you to wait out a timer before you could play again), would annoy people enough that they wouldn't do it often, if at all. (Admittedly I don't know if the Switch OS has the capability to do something like that as is, essentially making a log of when the player's save data is retrieved from the cloud, but surely it's something that could be patched in to support it if need be). Nuking cloud saves is simply the worst way imaginable of "solving" that problem and it isn't a reasonable justification for my money
I agree that the lack of cloud saves is an unacceptable solution. That can be true without downplaying the effect the devs are trying the achieve. I can also see why the devs have kept unskippable Inkopolis News for so long even though the cons far outweigh the pros.
I keep watching the trailer over and over again. Simply stunning! It looks like they are going to deliver on all my hopes and more. I just hope I can place the museum among the cedars like it has been in all my towns.
Can someone make a thread requesting Nintendo to add it before it's too late? My thread privileges got revoked
I dunno but I wanna bring it up before release because for Three Houses' gay issues people said "making threads after release is too late"
iirc there aren't gender options at all
so technically everyone will be nonbinary
edit:
note that while the writers suggest that these choices are regardless of "your character's gender," the director doesn't seem to refer to a gender option at all
Well, the first 4 games all do set up your gender at the start of the game.
with all of the drastic departures from the formula they've taken, you really think that talking to rover the cat on your fucking seaplane or whatever is the one thing that can't change
The fact that we saw distinct gender options that are the same look as from older games in the trailer and "regardless of gender" kind of say there will still be a set gender option.
first off, thanks for giving me an excuse to watch that fantastic trailer again.
but second, I don't see what you're talking about in the trailer. the quote from director kyogoku is "All the facial parts or hairstyles are gender-free." clothes have been gender neutral since new leaf. I don't see "distinct gender options" in that trailer, and the quote leads me to believe that there is no gender choice in the game.
edit: used and instead of or erroneously. P-Tux7 you reading this?
I think they got revoked for a reason i get you have legitimate concerns but making a thread over and over that the devs will never see will not help you would have better luck mentioning it on their social media posts and page. As someone will actually see that and who knows it could be to late anyways considering depending on how things are coded it would be impossible to make such a thing work as it could add a considerable workload as editing text and adding these things can take dozens of man hours.
Ideally they won't have a gender select option... even something like the latest pokemon instead asking you "what's your style" was quite nice if still slightly limiting (you can't change 'your style' mid game for example). That said, being able to wear male and female clothes regardless was a big step in New Leaf, and I hope horizons pushes it further.
You could wear alternate gender clothes as far back as City Folk.
I wasn't aware of that, mostly because I gave up on City Folk fairly early after how similar it was to WW.
