What should they do next to avoid a "New Horizons situation"? Personally I think they should get wild, and political. A game in which the amount of neighbours can overwhelm the villager if you don't play, like weeds. And it calls them "migrants", where the player has the experience that by not playing for 1 month the village got overpopulated by a factor of 3 from the official "limit". It will say "36 villagers out of 12" and the player has no power to remove them, but complain to a town hall's elected mayor, and it's also the player's role to elect a villager as mayor 2 times per year, and it becomes part of the game's player economy to offload migrants to other players' villages, and it's the personal politics based on the animal's personality traits of the elected mayor, that determines whether they're allowed or rejected. A village can go bankrupt, get ran by Tom Nook's business empire or regulate his store by a socialist town hall, and all of this ebbs and flows as you're not playing the game, giving you a cozy experience of logging into you're Animal Crossing game, and seeing what happens :D
>What should they do next to avoid a "New Horizons situation"?Well, I think they should>Personally I think they should get wild, and political.Never mind, you're retarded.
>>750581619jewtendo will have to make a really good animal crossing game this time because not only are their prices outrageous, but i have already found a significantly better alternative
Without a shred of irony, just rip the control out of the hands of the players and go back to being part of the village again. Going with the flow of living in a strange new land was part of the appeal. Doing this won't work if they can't get interesting writing and the small, tiny details in environmental interaction back, so that's the second most needed thing is making the world interesting to pay attention to again.
Think of just how much trouble could have been avoided if the first “migrant” wave was turned back harshly.
Can't we just have Claude make ACNH good