Honestly the mapping stuff in Etrian Odyssey was fun at first but at by 4 it was more of a nuisance. I don't think the game would change all that much without the touch screen.
+2
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Dragons Crown or Odin Sphere on Switch? Yes please. Muramasa too.
I forgot my wallet at home when i went to trade in a extra copy of xenoblade 2 and ended up putting a 29.70$ preorder deposit on Megaman Zero collection which is a 29.99$ game.
I hope the employee i pick it up from on the 25th finds it amusing.
I've put a couple hours into both Octopath and Alliance Alive HD this week and am very blah on both thus far. Do either introduce some mechanic or evolve in some way once you escape all the introductory bits that evolves or elevates stuff above where the start's been? My superficial checking indicates that the answer is no.
I've put a couple hours into both Octopath and Alliance Alive HD this week and am very blah on both thus far. Do either introduce some mechanic or evolve in some way once you escape all the introductory bits that evolves or elevates stuff above where the start's been? My superficial checking indicates that the answer is no.
Once you get a bit into Octopath your strategic options open up, first just for having more characters available on your team and also some of the more advanced skills. Then you gradually unlock classes for use as secondaries which further expands your options, you can mix and match into some pretty powerful combos. Toward endgame even more stuff gets added that can essentially break the game.
I've put a couple hours into both Octopath and Alliance Alive HD this week and am very blah on both thus far. Do either introduce some mechanic or evolve in some way once you escape all the introductory bits that evolves or elevates stuff above where the start's been? My superficial checking indicates that the answer is no.
Alliance Alive (AFAIK) is a Saga-esque game. So if it's not grabbing you now it probably won't be keeping your attention.
I've put a couple hours into both Octopath and Alliance Alive HD this week and am very blah on both thus far. Do either introduce some mechanic or evolve in some way once you escape all the introductory bits that evolves or elevates stuff above where the start's been? My superficial checking indicates that the answer is no.
Once you get a bit into Octopath your strategic options open up, first just for having more characters available on your team and also some of the more advanced skills. Then you gradually unlock classes for use as secondaries which further expands your options, you can mix and match into some pretty powerful combos. Toward endgame even more stuff gets added that can essentially break the game.
I've got my first four party members (Prim, Olberic, Tressa, and Alfyn), but the added dudes aren't really feeling like they've added much thus far. Healy boy especially, since healing has yet to be a problem at all. I think the thing that really left a bad taste was checking the menus, seeing that I had totally forgotten about unlocking new skills for the last like three areas, but that there was nothing that would have made an iota of difference. All the path action stuff is also rubbing me the wrong way. I don't like backtracking, or the retro "rub your face against every single nook and cranny" kind of design, in towns or in the dungeons, particularly not when it's giving me apparently up to 8 tools to rub on every NPC... yet also nothing in the dungeons going on but hiding paths behind foreground art.
I've put a couple hours into both Octopath and Alliance Alive HD this week and am very blah on both thus far. Do either introduce some mechanic or evolve in some way once you escape all the introductory bits that evolves or elevates stuff above where the start's been? My superficial checking indicates that the answer is no.
Alliance Alive (AFAIK) is a Saga-esque game. So if it's not grabbing you now it probably won't be keeping your attention.
Nah. I like SaGa games. Well, I want to like SaGa games. I have fond memories of SaGa Frontier 1/2 on the PSX, and played Romancing SaGa 3 before I understood Japanese back in the day, but fell off them in the PS2/3 era and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still slightly traumatized from playing release Last Remnant blind, which is essentially SaGa-But-Not. Alliance Alive is just so unwieldy though and the excessively zoomed-in battle interface makes just knowing the basic situation annoying, not to mention that it spent the first hour slamming me with tutorial screens, half of which were how to bring up a status screen filled with arcane nonsense. Every battle was a complete stomp without any strategy or thought needed, just mash attack, but then I get to the first boss and she one-shots everyone for more than their max HP, into just a chain of reviving them as you wear her down, and that can't be right. And in the next area, I'm back to curbstomping everything, so I feel confused and unchallenged, and yet still also unprepared and that I don't have even a basic grasp of what I should be doing differently. It's frustrating, and I deal with frustration poorly.
Ah okay. I can 100% understand that. My suggestion is to put it down for a bit and try again later. I've noticed that sometimes I just get into a funk where a game can feel like a chore to play, even though I should be enjoying it. I usually give it 3 tries before I give it up.
Having one character dedicated to tanking in Alliance Alive is omega-important, especially for bosses. And iirc the game doesn't tell you that at all. The only time that character should ever be leaving block mode is during lower level trash farming.
Unless you have 2 people in your household with 2 Switches then you don't have to worry about cloudsaves or lack of cloudsaves.
People act like you can't just hold the systems close together for 5 seconds and transfer the save over.
Last I heard was that no, you can't.
Are you talking about AC specifically? Because I do it every day and there is not a single Switch game that I know of that lacks this capability.
AC specifically, yes. That's the crux of the complaint, AC is going out of its way not to use the standard Switch save management and profile features.
Yeah AC will be the first game that won't let you transfer your profile from one switch to another.
Won't let you transfer your profile/profile transfer doesn't matter. There's one save per switch, rather than saves per profile, so profiles don't matter. The save is tied to the switch (so reduced features for people who share a switch in the household).
No cloud saves. (maybe, they've said they're trying to figure out how to let you have a cloud save if and only if your switch breaks)
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
Unless you have 2 people in your household with 2 Switches then you don't have to worry about cloudsaves or lack of cloudsaves.
People act like you can't just hold the systems close together for 5 seconds and transfer the save over.
Last I heard was that no, you can't.
Are you talking about AC specifically? Because I do it every day and there is not a single Switch game that I know of that lacks this capability.
AC specifically, yes. That's the crux of the complaint, AC is going out of its way not to use the standard Switch save management and profile features.
Oh well... that sucks. I'm not a big AC fan though so /shrug.
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
I have no interest in AC either, but moves like this still frustrate me. Despite the game it's affecting, it's just illustrating either a lack of competence on Nintendo's part or that they're putting profits/cost-saving over what players would like better. It's likely a bit of both.
And even if most players won't be negatively impacted, it's a feature that could he made an option and not negatively impact any of their players. Why not do it?
Yeah AC will be the first game that won't let you transfer your profile from one switch to another.
Won't let you transfer your profile/profile transfer doesn't matter. There's one save per switch, rather than saves per profile, so profiles don't matter. The save is tied to the switch (so reduced features for people who share a switch in the household).
No cloud saves. (maybe, they've said they're trying to figure out how to let you have a cloud save if and only if your switch breaks)
Yeah I understand. I'm 100% okay if they do a backup if you can recover in the event of an accident or buying a new console.
I have no interest in AC either, but moves like this still frustrate me. Despite the game it's affecting, it's just illustrating either a lack of competence on Nintendo's part or that they're putting profits/cost-saving over what players would like better. It's likely a bit of both.
And even if most players won't be negatively impacted, it's a feature that could he made an option and not negatively impact any of their players. Why not do it?
Money. Greed. Lazieness.
Again, it's not new, every single Animal Crossing game has only allowed one town and the only way to have more was to pay for an additional memory card, cart, or console. I'm so angry at this whole narrative blowing up and acting like the Switch version is doing something new and different and evil because it means people like you who haven't paid any attention to Animal Crossing then come to completely incorrect conclusions.
Opty, I been playing Animal Crossing from the start. I’ve been paying attention. Needing a 59 block GameCube memory card for a second town is completely different than needing a second Switch. Those cards were like $15, right? People are upset about this because it’s an unnecessary restriction. Things were accepted in the past because of limitations at the time. There’s no reason for it now other than Nintendo Nintendoing it up.
Yeah I think he's been provided with a ton of valid reasons why people wants more control over their saves, he's just being obstinate. It doesn't matter what the history of the title is, looking backwards instead of forwards helps no-one especially Nintendo. Nintendo is an extremely timid company who took nearly a decade to even include proper online and HD content when their contemporaries have free cloud saves for literally every game
There's no good reason or excuse, wether it's an intentional design choice or something they've done forever, it's not something a lot of fans want to see going forward. Nintendo can and should do better, and they'll only know if people keep asking them to do it. They changed their tune on the Pokemon thing pretty quick and added them as DLC. Nintendo can easily charge for a Pokemon Home like service for Animal Crossing, if the cost is burdensome to them.
Seriously acting like "this is the status quo, why expect progress or change at all!" Is terrible logic. We want new Animal Crossing games with modern conveniences and mechanics that other titles released today enjoy. You can't live in 2004 forever.
Locking the save to the console is something they've done twice before (Wii, 3DS download) and news stories omitting that fact to try and make this time, the third time they've done it, look like it's the first time to try and sell a narrative is bullshit. If you want to make the argument that while this is how Animal Crossing has always worked that it should change with the times that's one thing, but getting up in arms like this is something new and Nintendo is changing how the game works is disingenuous.
It. Does not. Matter. How many times they've done it. The precedent isn't what bothers people. The restrictions themselves are what bother people. Just because something is consistently terrible doesn't mean it must remain terrible. AC even retired Resetti because they just don't care if people reset anymore. People want more control. Not less. Why bother with these arbitrary restrictions.
Locking the save to the console is something they've done twice before (Wii, 3DS download)
Actually, I played New Leaf all digital and I had no problem transferring my data from the older model 3DS to a New 3DS. It sounds like there’s no way to transfer this New Horizons data from one Switch to another. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding and it will be possible. They definitely need to be clearer about it. Nintendo has been too damned tight lipped about this game, so I don’t blame anyone for getting the facts wrong.
AC reduced how angry and in your face Resetti was due to pushback from angry parents calling in and complaining to them about how the mean mole man made their kids cry. The Switch version has retired Resetti because it's now impossible to reset since the game now auto-saves instead of requiring you to hard save. All restrictions in games are arbitrary, be it due to design decisions or technical restrictions. In this case Animal Crossing made the design decision from day one to only support one shared town through the game's interface and to leave creating other towns to the console's save management systems. If the option on the Switch was "global save so everyone is on the same island" vs "one island per person but no one can share" then it's obvious from how the game has worked since its inception that they were going to choose the first. If you want to make the argument that the latter would have been a better decision, then make that argument, but don't act like them making the first choice is unprecedented and an attack on your freedoms.
Like, an equivalent news story would be "you can't change your controls in <literally any first party Nintendo game>'s Switch version!" You never could before, but making it into a headlining news story like that makes it sound like you could and that something is being taken away from you. That's where my ire is: the bullshit modern tactics of clickbaiting by using disinformation designed to anger people, which then spreads the disinformation and makes things even worse. "Just like the Wii version, Animal Crossing Switch only allows one save per console" is a lot less disingenuous of a headline and engenders far less unnecessary vitriol, but probably doesn't get clicked on as much.
I think this case is particularly egregious because they way AC is handling saves is the kind of thing that would get 3rd party submissions rejected from certification. Their implementation of one island per console has made it 100% incompatible with ALL the existing save management systems and they didn't bother to develop any alternative. This isn't like Pokemon and Splatoon where they made cloud save support optional for all titles from the beginning, this is to my knowledge the only game that thinks it is OK to put save data in a place that isn't meant for save data and tell the customers to deal with the consequences, like not even transfers because they are just TDL.
Yeah I think he's been provided with a ton of valid reasons why people wants more control over their saves, he's just being obstinate. It doesn't matter what the history of the title is, looking backwards instead of forwards helps no-one especially Nintendo. Nintendo is an extremely timid company who took nearly a decade to even include proper online and HD content when their contemporaries have free cloud saves for literally every game
There's no good reason or excuse, wether it's an intentional design choice or something they've done forever, it's not something a lot of fans want to see going forward. Nintendo can and should do better, and they'll only know if people keep asking them to do it. They changed their tune on the Pokemon thing pretty quick and added them as DLC. Nintendo can easily charge for a Pokemon Home like service for Animal Crossing, if the cost is burdensome to them.
Game Freak, not Nintendo. Do not confuse one company's bad decision making with another company's also bad decision making.
AC reduced how angry and in your face Resetti was due to pushback from angry parents calling in and complaining to them about how the mean mole man made their kids cry. The Switch version has retired Resetti because it's now impossible to reset since the game now auto-saves instead of requiring you to hard save.
The 3DS version made Resetti something you specifically had to enable (and you had to pay Bells to do it), and that didn't have auto saving in it.
The switch is the first Nintendo console I've ever owned. I don't give a single shit how things used to work. Nintendo appear to be morons with no idea how games and systems are made.
It's been nearly two decades since the first Animal Crossing game hit N64. A game they designed in 2001 should not dictate the save features and restrictions of modern devices. Pocket Camp on mobile phones you can have infinite Camps across many accounts. Nintendo has already broken its own "rules" about how Animal Crossing's system or whatever you wanna call it.
If you want to make the argument that the latter would have been a better decision, then make that argument, but don't act like them making the first choice is unprecedented and an attack on your freedoms.
Like, an equivalent news story would be "you can't change your controls in <literally any first party Nintendo game>'s Switch version!" You never could before, but making it into a headlining news story like that makes it sound like you could and that something is being taken away from you. That's where my ire is: the bullshit modern tactics of clickbaiting by using disinformation designed to anger people, which then spreads the disinformation and makes things even worse. "Just like the Wii version, Animal Crossing Switch only allows one save per console" is a lot less disingenuous of a headline and engenders far less unnecessary vitriol, but probably doesn't get clicked on as much.
Who here is doing this? Who here is unfamiliar with the history of AC? You said before the only people who care are enthusiasts, and yet you're also making broad generalized statements about who is saying what. Who cares what the clickbait articles are saying! I'm a human, and I'm saying to you, it bothers me they adhere to archaic systems because of Nintendo logic reasons. It bothered me back in the day, it bothers me now, it bothered a lot of people before the articles were written. You seem to think the only people critical of something are also uneducated or misinformed but no one here is. We all have the same understanding of the franchise as you, and it's still unacceptable they decide to play these games.
I mean, this is 2020. every one else is in 2020. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, iOS, Android... They've evolved a TON since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. Hell, even the 3DS was far behind the competition in the online-ownership-multiple systems-user accounts issues.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
I have no interest in AC either, but moves like this still frustrate me. Despite the game it's affecting, it's just illustrating either a lack of competence on Nintendo's part or that they're putting profits/cost-saving over what players would like better. It's likely a bit of both.
And even if most players won't be negatively impacted, it's a feature that could he made an option and not negatively impact any of their players. Why not do it?
Money. Greed. Lazieness.
Again, it's not new, every single Animal Crossing game has only allowed one town and the only way to have more was to pay for an additional memory card, cart, or console. I'm so angry at this whole narrative blowing up and acting like the Switch version is doing something new and different and evil because it means people like you who haven't paid any attention to Animal Crossing then come to completely incorrect conclusions.
I've paid attention to the series, I've owned the game in the past, and I never once said the Switch version is doing something new.
Because they've been restrictive in the past is not justification for being restrictive forever. Offering the option now in no way inconveniences you or changes your enjoyment. It would only be a net improvement on the game.
There is no false narrative. The game is being judged as a game released in the year 2020.
They should not cling to their mistakes simply because they spent such a long time making them.
I mean, this is 2020. every one else is in 2020. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, iOS, Android... They've evolved a TON since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. Hell, even the 3DS was far behind the competition in the online-ownership-multiple systems-user accounts issues.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
That's it. It's pretty simple. Quite sensible.
I mean, there's also the fact that we barely know anything and are going off a translated german DLC code? Maybe we should let Nintendo actually present info on what it is before we bust out the torches and pitchforks?
Someone else said something that I thought was quite interesting. What if they implement 1 island per household, but it's a massive island that a bunch of people can populate their own section of it and work together to build bigger things? Hell that might actually get me interested in AC! It could be something like that! All I'm saying is let's let them actually speak before we jump down their throats?
I mean, this is 2020. every one else is in 2020. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, iOS, Android... They've evolved a TON since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. Hell, even the 3DS was far behind the competition in the online-ownership-multiple systems-user accounts issues.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
That's it. It's pretty simple. Quite sensible.
I mean, there's also the fact that we barely know anything and are going off a translated german DLC code? Maybe we should let Nintendo actually present info on what it is before we bust out the torches and pitchforks?
Someone else said something that I thought was quite interesting. What if they implement 1 island per household, but it's a massive island that a bunch of people can populate their own section of it and work together to build bigger things? Hell that might actually get me interested in AC! It could be something like that! All I'm saying is let's let them actually speak before we jump down their throats?
I’d say a big part of the problem is how silent Nintendo has been about the game. They’d stop a lot of the speculation by just having a direct and addressing some of these things. It’s not like it’s an unreasonable thing to expect when the game is so close to release.
I mean, this is 2020. every one else is in 2020. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, iOS, Android... They've evolved a TON since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. Hell, even the 3DS was far behind the competition in the online-ownership-multiple systems-user accounts issues.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
That's it. It's pretty simple. Quite sensible.
I mean, there's also the fact that we barely know anything and are going off a translated german DLC code? Maybe we should let Nintendo actually present info on what it is before we bust out the torches and pitchforks?
Someone else said something that I thought was quite interesting. What if they implement 1 island per household, but it's a massive island that a bunch of people can populate their own section of it and work together to build bigger things? Hell that might actually get me interested in AC! It could be something like that! All I'm saying is let's let them actually speak before we jump down their throats?
I’d say a big part of the problem is how silent Nintendo has been about the game. They’d stop a lot of the speculation by just having a direct and addressing some of these things. It’s not like it’s an unreasonable thing to expect when the game is so close to release.
Who is to say they won't though? I get that we are coming up on the release date but there is still plenty of time for them to do a direct on it.
I mean, this is 2020. every one else is in 2020. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, iOS, Android... They've evolved a TON since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. Hell, even the 3DS was far behind the competition in the online-ownership-multiple systems-user accounts issues.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
That's it. It's pretty simple. Quite sensible.
I mean, there's also the fact that we barely know anything and are going off a translated german DLC code? Maybe we should let Nintendo actually present info on what it is before we bust out the torches and pitchforks?
Someone else said something that I thought was quite interesting. What if they implement 1 island per household, but it's a massive island that a bunch of people can populate their own section of it and work together to build bigger things? Hell that might actually get me interested in AC! It could be something like that! All I'm saying is let's let them actually speak before we jump down their throats?
I’d say a big part of the problem is how silent Nintendo has been about the game. They’d stop a lot of the speculation by just having a direct and addressing some of these things. It’s not like it’s an unreasonable thing to expect when the game is so close to release.
Who is to say they won't though? I get that we are coming up on the release date but there is still plenty of time for them to do a direct on it.
I’m sure they’re going to. But this is what’s going to happen until they do. Silence is just going to lead people to believe that they’re not talking because it’s all bad news. This game should have been talked about a long time ago.
This has gotten really heated, does it need to be this heated?
I feel like discussions like this have happened dozens of times in these threads, and every time the game comes out and nobody cares. The super upset people won't play it and won't say another word, and the people who don't care will play it and love it and essentially be unaffected by whatever the controversy is.
Ultimately most people are going to buy Animal Crossing for themselves and play it on their own and most likely will never need to transfer it to another Switch, or by the time they do Nintendo will have rolled out whatever method they have to do so.
I know several people personally in my own life who were already planning on buying separate Switches for their wives because they knew they would be monopolizing the Switch with Animal Crossing and didn't want to have to fight over it. This was like a year ago before finding out anything about any save weirdness. And now they just shrug and say "all the more reason."
All restrictions in games are arbitrary, be it due to design decisions or technical restrictions. In this case Animal Crossing made the design decision from day one to only support one shared town through the game's interface and to leave creating other towns to the console's save management systems. If the option on the Switch was "global save so everyone is on the same island" vs "one island per person but no one can share" then it's obvious from how the game has worked since its inception that they were going to choose the first. If you want to make the argument that the latter would have been a better decision, then make that argument, but don't act like them making the first choice is unprecedented and an attack on your freedoms.
In my opinion the ideal setup would be a separate island for each player.
If you want other people on the same console to be able to come to your island and mess around when you're not there, you go to Booker and Copper at your town gate and you turn on "allow other users on this console to visit."
If you want to play simultaneously together, when someone else picks up a controller they choose which character profile to load, and that player shows up in the current island (i.e. player 1's island) carrying whatever they had on them when they last saved. Collectively as a group, you can all go to the gate together and travel to someone else's island who is currently playing or enabled the above permission option.
Seems like the only "heated discussion" is on people complaining about people complaining? The actual complaints about the game seem pretty measured....
Remember when permadeath was the rule of the land in Fire Emblem, but people who didn't want to lose a unit would just save scum the game?
And how, instead of doubling down and finding a way to keep you from reviving units, they just found a way to work it into the game so that if you liked permadeath, you could play that way, and if you didn't, you had a separate mode so you didn't have to keep resetting the game?
Good times...
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Posts
I hope the employee i pick it up from on the 25th finds it amusing.
Once you get a bit into Octopath your strategic options open up, first just for having more characters available on your team and also some of the more advanced skills. Then you gradually unlock classes for use as secondaries which further expands your options, you can mix and match into some pretty powerful combos. Toward endgame even more stuff gets added that can essentially break the game.
Alliance Alive (AFAIK) is a Saga-esque game. So if it's not grabbing you now it probably won't be keeping your attention.
I've got my first four party members (Prim, Olberic, Tressa, and Alfyn), but the added dudes aren't really feeling like they've added much thus far. Healy boy especially, since healing has yet to be a problem at all. I think the thing that really left a bad taste was checking the menus, seeing that I had totally forgotten about unlocking new skills for the last like three areas, but that there was nothing that would have made an iota of difference. All the path action stuff is also rubbing me the wrong way. I don't like backtracking, or the retro "rub your face against every single nook and cranny" kind of design, in towns or in the dungeons, particularly not when it's giving me apparently up to 8 tools to rub on every NPC... yet also nothing in the dungeons going on but hiding paths behind foreground art.
Nah. I like SaGa games. Well, I want to like SaGa games. I have fond memories of SaGa Frontier 1/2 on the PSX, and played Romancing SaGa 3 before I understood Japanese back in the day, but fell off them in the PS2/3 era and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still slightly traumatized from playing release Last Remnant blind, which is essentially SaGa-But-Not. Alliance Alive is just so unwieldy though and the excessively zoomed-in battle interface makes just knowing the basic situation annoying, not to mention that it spent the first hour slamming me with tutorial screens, half of which were how to bring up a status screen filled with arcane nonsense. Every battle was a complete stomp without any strategy or thought needed, just mash attack, but then I get to the first boss and she one-shots everyone for more than their max HP, into just a chain of reviving them as you wear her down, and that can't be right. And in the next area, I'm back to curbstomping everything, so I feel confused and unchallenged, and yet still also unprepared and that I don't have even a basic grasp of what I should be doing differently. It's frustrating, and I deal with frustration poorly.
Last I heard was that no, you can't.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Are you talking about AC specifically? Because I do it every day and there is not a single Switch game that I know of that lacks this capability.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
AC specifically, yes. That's the crux of the complaint, AC is going out of its way not to use the standard Switch save management and profile features.
Won't let you transfer your profile/profile transfer doesn't matter. There's one save per switch, rather than saves per profile, so profiles don't matter. The save is tied to the switch (so reduced features for people who share a switch in the household).
No cloud saves. (maybe, they've said they're trying to figure out how to let you have a cloud save if and only if your switch breaks)
Oh well... that sucks. I'm not a big AC fan though so /shrug.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
And even if most players won't be negatively impacted, it's a feature that could he made an option and not negatively impact any of their players. Why not do it?
Money. Greed. Lazieness.
Yeah I understand. I'm 100% okay if they do a backup if you can recover in the event of an accident or buying a new console.
Again, it's not new, every single Animal Crossing game has only allowed one town and the only way to have more was to pay for an additional memory card, cart, or console. I'm so angry at this whole narrative blowing up and acting like the Switch version is doing something new and different and evil because it means people like you who haven't paid any attention to Animal Crossing then come to completely incorrect conclusions.
There's no good reason or excuse, wether it's an intentional design choice or something they've done forever, it's not something a lot of fans want to see going forward. Nintendo can and should do better, and they'll only know if people keep asking them to do it. They changed their tune on the Pokemon thing pretty quick and added them as DLC. Nintendo can easily charge for a Pokemon Home like service for Animal Crossing, if the cost is burdensome to them.
Actually, I played New Leaf all digital and I had no problem transferring my data from the older model 3DS to a New 3DS. It sounds like there’s no way to transfer this New Horizons data from one Switch to another. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding and it will be possible. They definitely need to be clearer about it. Nintendo has been too damned tight lipped about this game, so I don’t blame anyone for getting the facts wrong.
Like, an equivalent news story would be "you can't change your controls in <literally any first party Nintendo game>'s Switch version!" You never could before, but making it into a headlining news story like that makes it sound like you could and that something is being taken away from you. That's where my ire is: the bullshit modern tactics of clickbaiting by using disinformation designed to anger people, which then spreads the disinformation and makes things even worse. "Just like the Wii version, Animal Crossing Switch only allows one save per console" is a lot less disingenuous of a headline and engenders far less unnecessary vitriol, but probably doesn't get clicked on as much.
Game Freak, not Nintendo. Do not confuse one company's bad decision making with another company's also bad decision making.
The 3DS version made Resetti something you specifically had to enable (and you had to pay Bells to do it), and that didn't have auto saving in it.
Who here is doing this? Who here is unfamiliar with the history of AC? You said before the only people who care are enthusiasts, and yet you're also making broad generalized statements about who is saying what. Who cares what the clickbait articles are saying! I'm a human, and I'm saying to you, it bothers me they adhere to archaic systems because of Nintendo logic reasons. It bothered me back in the day, it bothers me now, it bothered a lot of people before the articles were written. You seem to think the only people critical of something are also uneducated or misinformed but no one here is. We all have the same understanding of the franchise as you, and it's still unacceptable they decide to play these games.
That's why we are reasonably upset. Not raging or weaving narratives. It's been time for nintendo to get on with the program for ages, and AC just reminds us how far back they are.
AC is a game that's all about years of playing a bit every day (and binging sometimes, of course). Saves and transfers and individual ownership are very important. Nintendo is making it very hard for people to deal with those things.
That's it. It's pretty simple. Quite sensible.
I've paid attention to the series, I've owned the game in the past, and I never once said the Switch version is doing something new.
Because they've been restrictive in the past is not justification for being restrictive forever. Offering the option now in no way inconveniences you or changes your enjoyment. It would only be a net improvement on the game.
There is no false narrative. The game is being judged as a game released in the year 2020.
They should not cling to their mistakes simply because they spent such a long time making them.
I mean, there's also the fact that we barely know anything and are going off a translated german DLC code? Maybe we should let Nintendo actually present info on what it is before we bust out the torches and pitchforks?
Someone else said something that I thought was quite interesting. What if they implement 1 island per household, but it's a massive island that a bunch of people can populate their own section of it and work together to build bigger things? Hell that might actually get me interested in AC! It could be something like that! All I'm saying is let's let them actually speak before we jump down their throats?
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I’d say a big part of the problem is how silent Nintendo has been about the game. They’d stop a lot of the speculation by just having a direct and addressing some of these things. It’s not like it’s an unreasonable thing to expect when the game is so close to release.
Who is to say they won't though? I get that we are coming up on the release date but there is still plenty of time for them to do a direct on it.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I’m sure they’re going to. But this is what’s going to happen until they do. Silence is just going to lead people to believe that they’re not talking because it’s all bad news. This game should have been talked about a long time ago.
I feel like discussions like this have happened dozens of times in these threads, and every time the game comes out and nobody cares. The super upset people won't play it and won't say another word, and the people who don't care will play it and love it and essentially be unaffected by whatever the controversy is.
Ultimately most people are going to buy Animal Crossing for themselves and play it on their own and most likely will never need to transfer it to another Switch, or by the time they do Nintendo will have rolled out whatever method they have to do so.
I know several people personally in my own life who were already planning on buying separate Switches for their wives because they knew they would be monopolizing the Switch with Animal Crossing and didn't want to have to fight over it. This was like a year ago before finding out anything about any save weirdness. And now they just shrug and say "all the more reason."
I think it'll be fine for most people.
In my opinion the ideal setup would be a separate island for each player.
If you want other people on the same console to be able to come to your island and mess around when you're not there, you go to Booker and Copper at your town gate and you turn on "allow other users on this console to visit."
If you want to play simultaneously together, when someone else picks up a controller they choose which character profile to load, and that player shows up in the current island (i.e. player 1's island) carrying whatever they had on them when they last saved. Collectively as a group, you can all go to the gate together and travel to someone else's island who is currently playing or enabled the above permission option.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
And how, instead of doubling down and finding a way to keep you from reviving units, they just found a way to work it into the game so that if you liked permadeath, you could play that way, and if you didn't, you had a separate mode so you didn't have to keep resetting the game?
Good times...
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!