Splatoon Datamined: Future Weapons, Maps, and Mode information leaked

Apr 22, 2014
3,750
0
340
London, England
So to summarize new weapons for squid folks:

Sploosh-o-matic is Splash-o-matic with wider spread and supposedly better close combat capabilities. (Doesn't this make it more similar to the Aerospray?)
Luna Blaster, a even close combat oriented version of the Blaster? Blaster is already quite short in range. Maybe it has better fire rate than the Blaster?
Range Blaster, longer range version of the Blaster.
Rapid Blaster Pro, longer range version of the Rapid Blaster.
H-3 Nozzlenose, higher damage output than L-3 Nozzlenose, maybe splatting foes in one round of shots rather than two. Has lower fire rate.
Carbon Roller, easier to handle than the standard rollers. I'm assuming it flickers faster, possibly covering slightly less ground in return.
Octobrush, inkbrush that spreads more ink with each swipe. I'm assuming it actually increases the damage output in return for higher ink consumption.
That would make it on-par with the Blaster than as the only Non-Charger weapon to OHK, right?

Maps are locked due to the rotation cycle anyway so release a number of finished ones at once. As opposed to stringing out the player base.
Gets them in the news weekly.
 
Jun 2, 2013
24,900
1
0
Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate provides an interesting compare/contrast, because like Splatoon it shipped with a large amount of weapons, armor, and endgame monsters walled behind timed unlocks. The primary differences to me are that a) MH4U already has a tremendous amount of content in the base game, where Splatoon is barebones and b) MH4U's unlock cycle is on the order of months, while Splatoon gets two or three equipment unlocks and one map unlock per week.

There was absolutely no faux-outrage over Capcom's handling of MH4U DLC, save for complaints that unique endgame content will be held back for up to six months after release. I think the only reason why people are up in arms about Splatoon instead of just being kind of discontent is how barebones the base shipped game was.
MH4U is kind of a weird comparison because it's actually the second editions of the game and both versions were sold at full price in Japan. 4 Ultimate's base game is full of content because a good portion of it was already sold to people once before.

I don't have an issue with that, to be clear. I just find it to be an odd comparison.
 
Oct 7, 2014
10,327
0
0
Germany
I actually like how things are rolled out.

It's perfect for scedueling your playing sessions, and also helps to make the Community discover every Weapon.

On top of that it's free (wich it should be, since it's disc-locked), so it's cool for me.


But thats my Opinion.
 
Jan 24, 2010
11,046
13
670
I think releasing one map per week is working for this game because of the way the maps are designed. Each new map is more advanced and relies on you being a better player than the 5 that launched with the game. There's more grates, obstacles, water hazards, un-paintable surfaces, and less direct routes across the map. The two that have yet to be released look to be continuing this trend. Learning each map is a very important part of the game too, the way they are doing it gives everyone a lot of time to really gain intimate knowledge of everything. By the start of next month (barely over a month after launch) we'll have all of the maps that were on disc anyways.

I don't find this to be some sort of terrible practice since it helps people actually get better at the game. I don't think everyone would have been prepared to fight on some of these maps without playing on the first few many times and learning the mechanics of the game. There's also the added benefit of keeping the community alive with something "new" to come back to every week.
 
Apr 26, 2014
5,240
0
0
LeBlanc Teahouse
I'm not happy to hear this, I suspected it was the case since there were no updates and the new maps still showed up.

I'm not a big fan of multiplayer games but I've played Halo for quite some time and having a ton of content and game modes available from the very beginning does not affect negatively the number of players when the game is actually good, paid DLC on the other hand, tend to split multiplayer games communities.
 
May 14, 2008
16,144
0
0
MH4U is kind of a weird comparison because it's actually the second editions of the game and both versions were sold at full price in Japan. 4 Ultimate's base game is full of content because a good portion of it was already sold to people once before.

I don't have an issue with that, to be clear. I just find it to be an odd comparison.
I'm only using it as an example since it's the latest MH game to come out and thus is fresh on people's minds. Pretty much every prior MH game had an identical time-locked DLC policy.
 
Feb 22, 2014
13,697
0
0
Maps are locked due to the rotation cycle anyway so release a number of finished ones at once. As opposed to stringing out the player base.
Dude, just give it a rest. You're making this out to be some big evil plot to keep content away from players when it's nothing nearly so diabolical. It's actually a very smart way to keep players coming back to your game, so that even players who didn't buy it on launch will have an online community to play with.

You could end up with a Titanfall situation where the community was segregated by map availability. Do you know how shitty that was?
 
Aug 30, 2012
17,950
0
0
Something I've mentioned in the past is I definitely feel like the map rotation is the bigger problem with Splatoon. The map cycle should, sooner or later, either add one map to the rotation or shorten the cycle. I really hope this happens sooner than later.

But other than that, with the aforementioned weapon skill barrier, the same goes for the maps and I can't begrudge Nintendo for approaching it with that mentality. Several maps like Bluefin Depot are already incredibly daunting to have to learn.

On one hand it's easy to say other developers would be crucified for this but on the other there's never really been a game that does what Splatoon tries to do, and even though it's clear now that the developers managed to squeeze in a whole bunch of stuff that serves as "acceptable launch" material and contrary to popular belief, didn't ship "unfinished", I don't blame them for wanting to let players take their time and ease into the experiences. I'm still learning shit and uncovering the meta in what's there and every new thing that gets added is incredibly exciting.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
Maps are locked due to the rotation cycle anyway so release a number of finished ones at once. As opposed to stringing out the player base.
The maps we got until now are more and more complex. As the community got more skilled they were released. It worked perfectly until now. We already see more and more complex strategies taken by players. Once a new map is launched it's in heavy rotation so all the players have a chance to learn it well. It worked perfectly until now.
 
Oct 19, 2004
32,841
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Oh, hey, a bunch of non-Splatoon players wringing their hands over something they don't care about anyway.

Nintendo has been completely up-front about this. If you have the game, you should already know they're on disc. The released maps were in single-player, for one. Two, you didn't have to download anything! So unless you thought you got the maps via magic, this isn't a surprise.

This setup has worked fabulously for the game. It lets the game stay fresh and create a community around it, focusing players on dissecting new weapons and maps one at a time.

What's funny is if Nintendo had simply not put this stuff on the disc and made people download it, people would say it was "dlc done right" or whatever. Who cares where it's located?
 
Mar 3, 2010
43,443
0
0
Dude, just give it a rest. You're making this out to be some big evil plot to keep content away from players when it's nothing nearly so diabolical. It's actually a very smart way to keep players coming back to your game, so that even players who didn't buy it on launch will have an online community to play with.

You could end up with a Titanfall situation where the community was segregated by map availability. Do you know how shitty that was?
I think it's a shitty practice and one I hope future games don't institute. Playing a low amount of maps gets boring. I don't think it's diabolical but, like a number of other design related choices done by Splatoon, find it unnecessary and hampering.

And another game's faults don't excuse your own.
 
Nov 17, 2011
4,152
0
0
Oh, hey, a bunch of non-Splatoon players wringing their hands over something they don't care about anyway.

Nintendo has been completely up-front about this. If you have the game, you should already know they're on disc. The released maps were in single-player, for one. Two, you didn't have to download anything! So unless you thought you got the maps via magic, this isn't a surprise.

This setup has worked fabulously for the game. It lets the game stay fresh and create a community around it, focusing players on dissecting new weapons and maps one at a time.

What's funny is if Nintendo had simply not put this stuff on the disc and made people download it, people would say it was "dlc done right" or whatever. Who cares where it's located?
Thank you for saving my time (my english sucks) :]
 

Papercuts

fired zero bullets in the orphanage.
Sep 1, 2007
30,407
0
1,015
Pennsylvania
www.neogaf.com
Dude, just give it a rest. You're making this out to be some big evil plot to keep content away from players when it's nothing nearly so diabolical. It's actually a very smart way to keep players coming back to your game, so that even players who didn't buy it on launch will have an online community to play with.

You could end up with a Titanfall situation where the community was segregated by map availability. Do you know how shitty that was?
I don't feel that's a fair comparison as Titanfall launched with 15 maps from the start, though I agree segregation is AWFUL and that shit needs to stop, this slow rollout when the number was already low is the issue. I also don't feel like the rotation even works that well, I very commonly play on the same map 4-5 times in a row.
 
May 15, 2010
15,838
0
0
I'm not happy to hear this, I suspected it was the case since there were no updates and the new maps still showed up.

I'm not a big fan of multiplayer games but I've played Halo for quite some time and having a ton of content and game modes available from the very beginning does not affect negatively the number of players when the game is actually good, paid DLC on the other hand, tend to split multiplayer games communities.
It's not paid though
 

HawthorneKitty

Sgt. 2nd Class in the Creep Battalion, Waifu Wars
Feb 22, 2012
23,241
0
0
This setup has worked fabulously for the game. It lets the game stay fresh and create a community around it, focusing players on dissecting new weapons and maps one at a time.
Yuuuuuuup; I find it great that I can master the maps as they come out so I probably won't care what I fight on on the future. If all of them were there day 1, I probably would forget a lot of strategies.
 
Mar 5, 2014
4,991
0
0
Oh, hey, a bunch of non-Splatoon players wringing their hands over something they don't care about anyway.

Nintendo has been completely up-front about this. If you have the game, you should already know they're on disc. The released maps were in single-player, for one. Two, you didn't have to download anything! So unless you thought you got the maps via magic, this isn't a surprise.

This setup has worked fabulously for the game. It lets the game stay fresh and create a community around it, focusing players on dissecting new weapons and maps one at a time.

What's funny is if Nintendo had simply not put this stuff on the disc and made people download it, people would say it was "dlc done right" or whatever. Who cares where it's located?
I feel like if you changed the first sentence to this
"Oh, hey, a bunch of non-Nintendo fans wringing their hands over something they don't care about anyway."
...it could work for a multitude of Nintendo-centric topics.
:p
 
Oct 11, 2012
6,855
0
0
The game would have reviewed better and been more fun if all this was in at release. Would have been a huge amount of content. I feel it's a shame they didn't do that then worked on some paid dlc for the autumn/winter instead.

This should have been a 'holy shit' Nintendo release at launch and it would have been with all that content, instead it had a lack of content and many people with legit complaints.

I kind of wonder what's up with ranked mode once these other modes are released, it's pretty weird if only one mode has a ranked thing in it.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
Jul 7, 2004
14,828
0
0
Once again, I guess if Activision, Ubisoft or EA would be caught doing this, the reactions would be totally different.
This is a pretty shitty decision by Nintendo, who seem to like to dictate what their customers can or can't do.
I agree. If it's Nintendo then it's "how the designers intended the game to be experienced", if it's anyone else then it's a "despicable and disgusting anti-consumer practice". People are pretty hypocritical when it comes to Nintendo.

Keeping on disc content locked away for future DLC is scummy no matter what company it is that's doing it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
7,588
0
0
Orlando
I agree. I hate that you get nothing if you're knocked out. I already get my ranked lowered, why do I get no points for participating. Especially if the match lasts the whole round anyway.
It's a risk you're taking when playing Ranked. If you still wish to gain points and money when you lose, there is always Turf War. The thing about Ranked is that you have a lot more to gain when you win, so much that when you get to a high enough rank, a single win can cover like 3 losses.

It's a gamble (especially if you get into a bad team), but that's what makes it so interesting, in my opinion.
 
Jan 2, 2013
603
48
405
amugsblog.blogspot.com
I really don't understand what difference it makes as to whether the additional content is on the disc already or is rolled out digitally--Nintendo seemed to be very upfront that the game would be receiving numerous content updates over the summer. Does this excuse the relatively bare content on the game's release? Nah, I don't think so... but it was an intentional tactic to extend the game's longevity and maintain an active online community. Whether one agrees that this tactic is effective or not is obviously left up to the individual, but I certainly don't see how Nintendo's actions are deserving of some pretty vitriolic statements. I can understand how someone would think this move is senseless or inept or unproductive or whatever other similarly pejorative term you prefer, but to say it's a shitty business practice is completely lost on me.

I just see this method of content distribution as a means for Nintendo to incorporate the positives of DLC (prolonging a game's shelf life) w/o the bad (charging for content that's already been created). Obviously there are people who take issue w/ how the company has chosen to reconcile these 2 aspects, but, at its worst, I'd say the release method is somewhat of a failed experiment.
 
Apr 26, 2014
5,240
0
0
LeBlanc Teahouse
It's not paid though
I didn't say it was, all I'm trying to say here is that a solid game like Splatoon would not have any troubles if the whole content would've been released day one.

Then you could release a couple of DLC packs and you'd still have a lot of people going back o play it, not because the content is new, but because the game is so good, people would just want to keep playing it.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
I agree. If it's Nintendo then it's "how the designers intended the game to be experienced", if it's anyone else then it's a "despicable and disgusting anti-consumer practice". People are pretty hypocritical when it comes to Nintendo.

Keeping on disc content locked away for future DLC is scummy no matter what company it is that's doing it.
Don't buy the game then.