AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
There's a surprising amount of folks in this thread ready to criticise the lack of chat in Splatoon, yet haven't actually played it and obviously show no interest in playing it.
The lack of chat doesn't impact the game anywhere near as much as it might in a CoD or a Battlefield or a TF2, which Splatoon is being compared to. The objectives, pace, number of players, and size of the levels simply don't encourage the same kind of tactics and communication required in those games. It's Pac-Man meets Vanquish on crack, and less of an ordeal of attempting to coordinate positions.
Of course, if sharing the highs and lows of the game with fellow players in realtime is something you need, then you're going to be left in the cold by Nintendo's decision, but criticising the lack of chat from a gameplay perspective shows poor understanding of the kind of game Splatoon is.
So you must have played the game to understand the decision?
Whet?
It time to stop the excuses. There's indie games which are smaller that have voice chat. There is no poor understanding to how the game is played. Sure it's fun, and small in scope but having a team to win something and being able to communicate is human nature. Kids play with each other in groups. It's literally an activity you learn in preschool when your teacher puts you on a team to create something together.
You don't need to play that game to understand communication, can be optional to operate in a more fun manner especially for a game like this which is basically paint domination and relys heavily on a team win, not like COD killstreak BS and being the lone wolf.
It's also insulting, otherwise, to try people's intelligence just because it's a "fun" game. The decision is inept period. If thats the case, then the game should have never had a online multiplayer part. It should of just been local and that would of saved this whole argument, like most of their other games that don't.