By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Splatoon Review Thread - MetaCritic 81% / GameRankings 81.46%

Hynad on 27 May 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:

It doesn't need to be out to prove what I said. If you review the game correctly a.k.a. with the knowledge in mind that more content will come which due to being free is part of the main package hence must be acknowledged, then you wouldn't be saying irrelevant junk like "5 maps not enough!" and instead saying if those 5 maps are enough to hold you over until the updates start coming.

Well good for those other games.


If I review the game correctly, I'll do my critique on the content that's playable when I get the game. I am not going to give points for content I can't even play just because it's supposed to come in the coming weeks. 

If the content released down the line changes the perception I had about the game, I will go back to the review and update it accordingly. That's the only way you can be fair to the game. 



Around the Network
tbone51 on 27 May 2015

Next game they need to expand that single player goodness. I mean it looks sooooo gooood :0

This is reminding me of the SSB for N64. Next game will greatly improve over this one :)



tbone51 on 27 May 2015
MoHasanie said:
Not bad but not great either. The game still looks like a lot of fun though but I'll get it when its cheaper.

People will be playing Splat2oon by then XD



forest-spirit on 27 May 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Hynad said:

The complaints about the lack of content for a full price game are totally legitimate right now. 


Except they're not, because no one is actually gonna be paying $60 for just the content currently being reviewed.


There could be 5000 free maps incoming and that still wouldn't matter because you can't review something that isn't available. Reviewers can't add points for content they have yet to try out. What if the new content is bad?



Lonely_Dolphin on 27 May 2015
Hynad said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

It doesn't need to be out to prove what I said. If you review the game correctly a.k.a. with the knowledge in mind that more content will come which due to being free is part of the main package hence must be acknowledged, then you wouldn't be saying irrelevant junk like "5 maps not enough!" and instead saying if those 5 maps are enough to hold you over until the updates start coming.

Well good for those other games.


If I review the game correctly, I'll do my critique on the content that's playable when I get the game. I am not going to give points for content I can't even play just because it's supposed to come in the coming weeks. 

If the content released down the line changes the perception I had about the game, I will go back to the review and update it accordingly. That's the only way you can be fair to the game. 


Repeating what you just said and ignoring my points does not make for good discussion. And by correctly I mean in a way that matters to the people who read it, since that's why they're written. It's great that you'd go back and change it, but I highly doubt most of these reviewers will which is why it's a problem that they didn't get it right the first time.



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 27 May 2015
JNK said:
Zekkyou said:

I think you missed my sarcasm. OlliOlli is significantly cheaper than Splatoon (and still a great game, even if it doesn't appeal to you). Even if it's held to the same general standards, it's going to be scored differently on that fact alone. You can't just linearly compare scores, they have a context that needs to be considered.


nah this still makes no sense.

Just similar to my example above.

Review of 2 PCs.

1. Made by Alienware, modern hardware, 1000€ -> "metascore" -> 81

2. Made by any unkown chinese company, crap hardware, 200€. "metascore"-> 82

 

Price have nothing to do with pure score.

In germany we have the term "Preis/Leistung". This means pretty much "Price/Greatness" so a additional indicator how good the score is compared to the low/high price. But the score itself shouldnt be influenced at all by the price.

People like to know if what they're buying is worth the money. Reviews have always followed the 'context + quality vs price' formula. You don't have to personally like it, but the majority seem happy enough with this system (and seeing as we're discussing generalized scores, the majority are the most relevant). Knowing if something is worth the entry price is just as important to me as knowing if it's actually any good.



KingdomHeartsFan on 27 May 2015

Like I said the game is getting critisized for its lack of content.  It was stupid to release it for $35 in Europe and $60 in NA.



Goodnightmoon on 27 May 2015

34 reviews, still 81.

There are 2 spanish new reviews that Meta is still not counting. Meristation: 83 Hobby Consolas: 90



Hynad on 27 May 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Hynad said:


If I review the game correctly, I'll do my critique on the content that's playable when I get the game. I am not going to give points for content I can't even play just because it's supposed to come in the coming weeks. 

If the content released down the line changes the perception I had about the game, I will go back to the review and update it accordingly. That's the only way you can be fair to the game. 


Repeating what you just said and ignoring my points does not make for good discussion. And by correctly I mean in a way that matters to the people who read it, since that's why they're written. It's great that you'd go back and change it, but I highly doubt most of these reviewers will which is why it's a problem that they didn't get it right the first time.


The problem lies in Nintendo not releasing the game with enough content in the first place. You are asking reviewers to review air and promises.





Mummelmann on 27 May 2015

Is anyone thinking; why didn't reviewers give the Lord of the Rings movies better scores based on the Extended version releases that came later? That seems really unfair.