I've already explained on
two occasions why I hold
New Leaf in high regard, but I love writing about the game, and I do enjoy people talking about it, so let's boost this thread and further the discussion.
As stated previously, I first played the game long after its heyday, but I was curious about it when it was new.
New Leaf wasn't my first
Animal Crossing game, but it made me aware of the franchise's existence. The rest of my backstory is detailed in the two posts I linked above; feel free to read them at your leisure.
Since I've attributed a lot of admiration and praise towards
NL on this website, and since I don't want this post to be a Cliff Notes summary of "The Many Things I like, and The Few That I Dislike" about
NL, I'd rather just have a go at things I'm conflicted about.
I've seen the villagers in
NL being criticized quite a lot (especially here), for how "saccharine and nice" they've become. It's hard not to discuss this topic without generating a lot of heat out of it. I do think Snooties and Crankies should've been a bit closer to what they're described as (NOWHERE near the level of
PG!, though). Smugs should've been more arrogant and boastful, as well, and sometimes, older siblings, like Big Sisters, do have a tendency to mess with other people, so there should've been more of that with Uchis, too. On other hand, Peppies and Jocks are FAR better than their previous incarnations, so this "kinder" direction works for both of those personalities. Normals and Lazies haven't changed too much over the years, which is fine, because they're
supposed to be the friendliest characters in the first place. Villagers not blatantly lambasting you for petty and dumb reasons doesn't make them any shallower than they honestly were in the older games. Villagers were never more than one-dimensional summations of their respective archetype, and they couldn't even get
that right, sometimes. People miss the point about characterization and just assume that villagers have to be "
this" way, or else the game's dull and void of personality. It's an obnoxiously simplistic mindset to have because "funny and interesting" dialogue should be more than just brash insults and snark thrown at the player, but that doesn't make the other end of the extreme any better. I just wish there was more meaningful, accurate discourse about villager dialogue, rather than the constant "verbally-abusive villagers" circlejerk that we've had over the last decade or more. Some villagers
should be rude, but some of them
should be nice. And
all of them
should treat you based on how
you treated them over the many weeks, months, or even years you spent living with your neighbors. I've said this before, but there
has to be a balance, somewhere in these games, but there isn't. Rudeness has its place, but there's nothing inherently wrong with making characters nicer — in a series that wants to make you feel good.
- I agree 100% with @Drawdler in terms of City Folk's dialogue. It's the worst for the sole fact that game outright stripped any dialogue options the player could have, and the game only gave you those options under specific conditions, instead of it being standard, as it is across all the other games. CF's dialogue system is pretty crappy, and I've made a case for why it is before. Point is, NL fixed nearly everything wrong with the game, including the dialogue and the villagers (because villagers now had birthday parties and pictures, again), so people should cut the game some slack because it brought back some villager interactions missing in the previous installment.
Again, being the Mayor was a nice change of pace, but at times, I believe the role was left underutilized, because it wasn't much different from playing as a second character, or just playing the older games. Ordinance and PWPs were great, but there needed to be more... agency, or something to that effect. I don't understand why Nintendo decided the only way to give the Mayor requests was to have villagers ping them by random chance instead of using a bulletin as a source for ideas. Mayors should've also had a say in where houses could've been placed, too, so it's baffling why Nintendo didn't implement this idea until
New Horizons. Lastly, it was a missed opportunity that dialogue hardly ever changed based on what character you played as, because it could've provided for an interesting scenario in how differently villagers would've treated you if you didn't run the town.
- Speaking of which, PWPs were a fine addition to have, but I don't really much care for some of them being permanent, and not being able to move them. It wasn't really a "challenge", either; just a tedious restriction that limited your role as Mayor — there was just no good reason to not move them, other than maybe complications with the game's memory or something. I really can't get behind how certain PWPs can only be requested by villagers of certain personality types. That's just nonsense, and they did this again with reactions in NH...
I appreciate how
NL handles villagers moving. It isn't perfect, because increasing the time-frame from five to ten days with the update just wasn't enough, but at least villagers warned you ahead of time, and gave you an exact date — they weren't vague about it as they were
City Folk, and it was nice to see other residents informing you about said villager moving, as well. Not a lot of people like the idea of going back to games prior to
NH, and villagers just moving without permission — I see the word "punishment" get lumped into this mechanic a lot, and I just don't buy it at all.
Animal Crossing is a life-simulator that functions in real-time, rather or not the game is on. Flowers dying, weeds growing, and villagers moving were
a part of that simulation. The game isn't "punishing" you for taking a break or not logging on every day; it's emulating what happens in real-life, so labeling your favorite villager leaving your town as a "punishment" is just asinine. Villagers aren't your virtual pets or property; they're anthropomorphized animals that have the same sapience as people in the real world do, so they shouldn't need your damn permission to move on with their lives in the first place. It's sad and it hurts, and that's the point. It's what grounds this series, not because anyone finds the prospect of a goodbye letter "charming".
Animal Tracks. Still can't believe this...
ATROCITY of a mechanic was ever conceived in the first place. Though admittedly not nearly as bad as it was in
CF, it still had the same issue of not explicitly informing the player of said mechanic. That's what makes Animal Tracks as
wretched of a mechanic as it is, because Nintendo feels the need to let the players experience it themselves rather than just explaining how and why it happens. Why did it even return at all? People don't care about the idea of the game
tracking their movement, so why they thought "nerfing" it would make people less frustrated with this garbage is one of a million questions that'd never be answered when it comes to the design of these games.
Lastly, this game holds on to some quite archaic traditions, like:
- Being asked questions that determines what your character's sex and facial features — which you can't change. Can't believe they were still doing this crap in the early 2010s.
- Cryptic questions at Shampoodle's which will determine what hair style+color and eye color you'll receive, instead of... just giving the player a menu. Also, hairstyles are still gender-locked. Have fun spending 45000's worth of bells just for the other 16 hairstyles to be available.
- Clothes ALSO being gendered. A strange case, really, because Mabel in the older games didn't go, "oh, that shirt pattern's for boyzzz lolz". Sure, the game doesn't prevent you from wearing anything, but why bother gendering them in the first place? That's moronic, because it sorta goes against the message that all clothing is for everyone, not just specific categories of people, which is what the game portrayed by having villagers compliment what you were wearing, regardless of sex.
- Not being able to change skin tone, and getting a tan in order to change it. DEFINITELY archaic. Couldn't there at least be a tanning machine we could use, instead?
For the moment, that's pretty much everything I wanted to get off my chest. If it seems I dislike this game, it's mostly because a majority of what I loved about the game was already conveyed in my other posts, so I didn't want a repeat post. I still love the fact that the game doesn't prevent you from wearing certain clothing, even if I find them being gendered in the first place to be counteractive to that positive. I love Tortimer Island, regardless of any issues I have with it. I love the soundtrack — it's right up there with the original game in terms of having the best Hourly Themes. There's a bunch of QoL changes that I appreciate greatly because I played the first three games leading up to this title. Despite some things I find iffy about it, New Leaf is still peak
Animal Crossing. Enough said.