I agree with the other person it is a bad way of breaking things down, but for different reasons. Breaking Pokémon down into generations makes complete sense and if you don’t do so you come off as a moron. But that’s because the way Pokémon games are made and released is highly unique. Animal Crossing games are just sequels. Breaking them down into generations doesn’t make sense and contextualizes them in a strange way. For the same reason that breaking Mario platformers down into generations is dumb, or Kirby, or Zelda.
Unless what they really meant was “era?”
I mean this is a translation of a Spanish interview with a Japanese dev… So it’s entirely possible they meant era.
If you look at it from design philosophy, there are definitely generations for Zelda and Mario. The design of a 2D Mario or Zelda is vastly different from that of their 3D releases.
That being said, this same kind of design overhaul hadn’t really occurred with Animal Crossing as far as I can tell. The games have been by and large the same concept, sightly modified. Maybe I’m just missing something though.
It’s actually not unlike Pokemon in that regard. The previous games have all had several different versions and spin-offs based on the first in that series.
e.g. there are four different versions of the original game, Wild World and City Folk are effectively the same game (and distinctly different from what came before), New Leaf had an expansion pack and some spin-offs directly based on it. Each generation places certain characters into different roles which are kept consistent throughout that gen but not others etc.
The only odd part is why they would consider New Horizons to be the “third gen” instead of fourth.
I can see it, since every two games are normally expansions of the prior
Animal Crossing N64 and GCN are essentially the same game.
Wild World and City Folk are both the games that really incorporated online and multiple new facilities.
New Leaf and New Horizons are the games that incorporated vast town/island customization and is the focus of both games.
Honestly, I’ve actually always looked at Animal Crossing having generations, just didn’t actually realize it until this. I’ve always paired two games with each other since two games tend to have the same focuses. I think it’s just more jarring with New Leaf and New Horizons because that’s the biggest change we’ve seen in a generation, since the last time really saw something like that, City Folk was basically and expansion to Wild World.
The problem is, they’re saying New Horizons is the start of a new generation, which makes absolutely no sense. New Leaf has far more in common with New Horizons than City Folk, and Wild World has more in common with City Folk than GCN, since City Folk is really just an enhanced port of Wild World.
Im going to assume that the next series of games/products will be heavily influenced and built upon new horizons. Think Happy Home Designer, Pocket camp, and Amiibo Party; I guess I would consider these in the “last” generation (like we even need to?)
feels like it cheapens the experience if they just churn out AC games quickly instead of properly improving on the last
Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora Ora!!!!
I’m a little confused. For starters, in the interview
he she says City Folk introduced online capabilities and that’s just incorrect. Wild World came first and it had online play.
I realize I’m just some random asshole and
he’s she’s the game’s director, but I disagree with how he’s she’s choosing to break up the games. Obviously yes, the first game is it’s own thing, and then WW makes all kinds of changes warranting being considered a new “generation” with CF falling into the same label since it’s in many ways practically the same game as WW, and then NL and things like Happy Home Designer and Pocket Camp would be another grouping.
By my reckoning, if they don’t see NH as the same “generation” as NL (I’d agree they aren’t, but there’s probably an argument to be made that a lot of NH is just building on what NL, HHD, and PC did and putting it all in a single game), then we should be on the fourth “generation” if anything.
The console games are being seen as the major releases I guess. Makes sense if you ignore the sales of handheld versions.
This is exactly how I felt when reading the headline. I never even bought City Folk as I rented it at the time and it looked like it was 90% the same game as Wild World.
Maybe you could argue that the first game to City Folk was one generation, but Wild World added enough to be considered a 2nd generation.
So where does Amiibo Festival fall into?
She, not he. Aya is a female name..
just use “they” for someone whose gender you don’t know and be on your way.
I think he mentioned City Folk because Wild World and City Folk were literally the exact same game made for different platforms. You could actually transfer your town between the two
I’m somewhat surprised there isn’t more outrage about still no cloud restoring method yet if someone’s switch gets upgraded/stolen/lost/broken. There’s no guarantee if you send in your switch you’ll get it back without the data being wiped. I do believe people’s time invested in the game can be worth more than the cost of replacing the switch. I only say somewhat surprised though because I feel like there’s a lot of people like me waited anxiously for this game to come out only to get bored an stop playing as much as they thought they would a couple of months later. I was so set on creating the perfect island but now only really play to get my money rock and tree after a tiring day of work to feel relaxed. On my days off I don’t even bother playing anymore because I’m not stressed out on my days off.