Okay, so - I know this game isn't too bad - it's still fun and probably beats Wild World by a long shot, but doesn't it seem really odd how neglectful they were of obvious priorities? Honestly now - you can argue all day with a core Animal Crossing zealot about how awful this game is and you will not win - but this topic is unavoidably truthful.
They either rejected obvious duties, or completely forget to attend to them. I'm not saying in complete seriousness that there's some conspiracy going on, it doesn't make sense. What DOES make sense is this, however. They tried to make the game JUST as fun as the last one - without making it a big whoop. Casual gamers, this game's primary focus, would find it great. After all, this game is addicting; I feel the need to play even when there's nothing to do it on - it's almost obligatory.
What if the designers actually TRIED to avoid making the game as great as it could be? They didn't even offer OPTIONS. Every fan who is ANY fan realizes that the first game's music, for example, is better - but not even an auditory option?
The town can - apparently - only fit 10 villagers. This is the WII - the Gamecube's version could fit 15 - why can't this fit more than a measley 10? You started with 6 to gain only 4? They could have done better.The game is, practically, a port. Great online retouches, but they had YEARS to compile a better game than this.
The MAIN point is - since the game is addicting, but at the same time, not much different from the predecessors, it will DRAW the audience to expect more, and therefore WANT more. They will WANT to EXPECT more, and therefore will BUY the next game in an effort to improve this experience. The disappointment is not enough in general, for this game to fail or have failed, but it is enough to draw people closer. This, perhaps, turned those core gamers even more core, as they now realize what they want in this game as a whole. I think it's another midway point. It's not, after all, very impressive for its weight as a Wii game.
They either rejected obvious duties, or completely forget to attend to them. I'm not saying in complete seriousness that there's some conspiracy going on, it doesn't make sense. What DOES make sense is this, however. They tried to make the game JUST as fun as the last one - without making it a big whoop. Casual gamers, this game's primary focus, would find it great. After all, this game is addicting; I feel the need to play even when there's nothing to do it on - it's almost obligatory.
What if the designers actually TRIED to avoid making the game as great as it could be? They didn't even offer OPTIONS. Every fan who is ANY fan realizes that the first game's music, for example, is better - but not even an auditory option?
The town can - apparently - only fit 10 villagers. This is the WII - the Gamecube's version could fit 15 - why can't this fit more than a measley 10? You started with 6 to gain only 4? They could have done better.The game is, practically, a port. Great online retouches, but they had YEARS to compile a better game than this.
The MAIN point is - since the game is addicting, but at the same time, not much different from the predecessors, it will DRAW the audience to expect more, and therefore WANT more. They will WANT to EXPECT more, and therefore will BUY the next game in an effort to improve this experience. The disappointment is not enough in general, for this game to fail or have failed, but it is enough to draw people closer. This, perhaps, turned those core gamers even more core, as they now realize what they want in this game as a whole. I think it's another midway point. It's not, after all, very impressive for its weight as a Wii game.