Sheikah

Not going to be able? Why do you think that? I would expect Sony to match it too. Since the PS5 will be backwards compatible, gamers who have a PS4 version of a game will still be able to play it on the PS5. For that reason I think it'll be a hard sell to get people to drop another £50 on a fancier PS5 version seeing as their PS4 game still runs on the PS5. I'm also slightly dubious of what is being offered here - I think it's more likely companies who developed PS4/X1 games will release a patch to make it run better on PS5/Series X consoles rather than release a whole new game. That way you're basically still buying a last gen game, but with a patch to make it run a bit better on the new consoles (similar to what we saw with PS4 Pro/X1X titles). Maybe they will release the updated version of the game as a standalone PS5/Series X game but at that point it's splitting hairs, as it's basically the same thing. I'd also be mesmerized if the Series X was £800, it would be a niche product and I'm tempted to say almost dead on arrival if priced that high.

I've bought the digital version of this off ShopTo. As someone who already very much likes Animal Crossing, is the new trailer/footage worth checking out?

It's a shame that there was anything to comment on to begin with [mention=4353]Ronnie[/mention], not that I "started it up". As I say, I have a pretty good reason to have been away the past week (you ignored me saying this previously, I noticed). Touching on what you said, you mentioned you "couldn't understand" a particular point of view of Nicktendo. That might be crucial - because if you don't understand another person's point of view, you're probably not going to have a very good discussion. Nicktendo no doubt understands your point of view - that despite the lack of clarity on some features, you'll still buy it because it'll probably turn out to be a pretty good game. I don't think it's too much to ask you to try to understand his point of view - that those features/details matter to him, and that he'd rather not buy the game based on how it has been handled so far. If you had that understanding to begin with I don't think this argument would have occurred in the first place.

Thanks for this. I really do agree with the breakdown of the language being used. @Ronnie I mean this in the nicest way, but reading Julius's post could give you an insight into how you come across with how you use language. I don't know if this is just a forum issue with the way you type, but the way you use words seems often incendiary, perhaps unconsciously at this point. I would have mad levels of respect if you had a read through Julius's post and took on board some of the feedback moving forward.

If you don't like people commenting on your behaviour, the best way is to conduct yourself respectfully in the first place.

It's a forum, people post stuff, people read stuff later and add to the conversation. I had a pretty good reason for not being very active the past week or so, but I've now read this discussion and given my thoughts. You literally did say that, but you literally said a lot more over several posts which fully support my original post. To each their own, eh.

It's somebody else's point of view. He's not questioning why you will buy it so why badger him for boycotting based on some reasons? You can really make topics toxic - much easier to let people do what they want than try to defend Nintendo all the time.

My favourite game of all time. Enjoy.

Resident Evil 2 was recently remade and you could save whenever, and it still felt very much Resident Evil. In fact, it was better.

Yep, it's a problem for anyone with multiple users on their Switch who play disproportionate amounts. Which I imagine is most users, since it's rare two people ever play the same amount. My wife isn't going to vandalise anything but I know she likes to play these sorts of games a lot. It wouldn't leave very much for me to work towards or unlock. A large part of Animal Crossing is working to unlock new town buildings, finish museum collections, upgrade shops and build up your villager relationships (or purposefully destroy them). Having someone else on who is ticking those objectives off means you're not playing a large part of the game. And if they're playing more than you, you potentially miss out on a lot! I don't see how anyone can argue that this enforced system is better than having the choice between their system and having separate towns. Heck, they could make it so that you can have separate towns but visit each others town at whim via the train station. That way, if you do end up buying separate Switch consoles at some point down the line you are not fused on one account, so should be able to play with each other at the same time.

Ok, but my argument is that this should not be how it works. Whether or not this is how it has always been as a defensive counter isn't really the point - if things must always be the way they have always been, there would never be change. Shared towns should be an option for people that want it, but some people want to play through the content themselves. I never actually felt the effects of this game design choice before because of my own personal circumstances, but now I certainly will. And let me tell you, this is the kind of game that my wife would play the shit out of. You don't want to see her Stardew Valley save. I am certain that I will be unlocking very little by myself - and all because of a design choice that makes no sense. Also, doing things like messaging your friends or other people on your system should be entirely possible even without a shared town. It doesn't need a shared town to do that.

That doesn't have anything to do with multiple users though - they can still make it one save per user and have things in the world change based on time of year and the passing of time. You can surely still delete your save and start over so I don't see why they're being so strict here, other than that they want people to go out and buy another Switch. For a game where much of the progression milestones can only happen in a town once, it completely baffles that each user is forced to share the same island/town. Some people might want it, but I see it as someone else playing through my game and unlocking the content. Not for me!

There's shops and town upgrades that would happen for everyone though, right. And villagers can leave depending on what you do. So you could log off and come back, and someone else would have played/advanced your game save, pretty much.

This problem exists because they created it though. If they had let you have individual saves for each Switch user then this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s frankly ridiculous that multiple users on one Switch can’t have their completely own save. I’ve no idea why Nintendo would even want to reduce save/item duplication and so on anyway. This is in no way a competitive game with no proper market/trade economy.

Backwards Nintendo again. This is really dumb, my wife would like to have her own island but now can't. What on Earth is the reasoning behind this?

That’s disappointing, no design on the joycons. It’s not like you ever look at the dock much. They did much better with the AC edition 3DS.

Even the guy on the box art is doing that classic anime "embarrassed" gesture...

So you can currently pre-order this digitally at CDKeys for £38.99 at the moment (link). I'm not one to pre-order, but Nintendo have a good track record with AC and I played the hell out of the 3DS one. It's the kind of game that really suits digital. Don't forget 5% off with topcashback (new customer). Not sure, but there's often a 5% off code for CDKeys knocking about somewhere too. Edit: just seen that Hero posted this ages ago.

I think the concept of this game is amazing and will definitely be buying it. I have quite a lot of games I want to finish first though!

I forgot about that, but yeah you are dead right. I remember Ronnie arguing that folders were needed, then people saying they weren't necessary because it shows the most recent played titles which is enough for the vast majority of people. Now Ronnie you are arguing the exact same defence, curiously when Nintendo are doing it.

Well that's fair enough, but I can't help but think you're exaggerating the situation about the PS4 UI being slow. On PS4 if I'm in a game and I press the PS button to open the main menu it loads up near instantly. If I hold the PS button to bring up the mini menu, again, it loads up near instantly. I would be interested in you sharing a video of you doing these actions on your system because it almost sounds like there is something up with your PS4/HDD. I think you also need to consider with the Switch, it's doing almost nothing. You can't message friends, set up party chat, view trophies, or do many things people have come to expect from a modern game console OS. As such, I have no reason to open up the Switch menu while in game - meaning the Switch could have the slowest OS and it wouldn't matter, so it's almost an empty boast by saying the Switch UI is fast. If the Switch OS is marginally faster (which even I'm not sure about), I wouldn't say it's anywhere near worth the tradeoff of not having basic features.

Well, many would argue it is. If you have hundreds of games on Switch, that's a lot to cycle through in a straight line to find the one you want. I personally have no care for folders but you must be able to see why having the option for them is better than no option at all. Being able to reduce the amount of game icons on screen would surely speed up the UI even more, if that's what you're worried about.

Surely if folders are such a basic, day 1 feature that reduce clutter, your words, then Switch is a flawed OS for not having them and therefore prone to bloat? It's also interesting because I remember how you would constantly go in topics to complain about the PS4 not having them, despite you seemingly not really caring about them once they came. I also remember people telling you that folders really aren't that big a deal when you were complaining about them too.

Ah, good old holding people to account. [emoji14]

I get this as well, must be a bug.