| Einsam_Delphin said: That's purely subjective and not even a fault of the game. I've played such games for hours non-stop having loads of fun the whole way. Super Mario Galaxy has 97 on Metacritic lol. Those people you don't trust are the one who determine the score. Already explained this before, everyone considering buying the game is gonna take the update content into account, so reviewers have to aswell if they want their review to matter past the first couple days. You have a Crystal ball now? And I don't what would keep one from playing Mario Kart/Smash n Splatoon at the same time like how pretty much everyone already does that. |
Thing is, that's subjective alright, but neither of us can determine what the critics will say right now; we can only speculate. That's my view about it, hence the score I gave it.
Again, the people who I don't supposedly trust are the ones who will determine the score. That's right. Whether I agree or not with the score given doesn't mean I cannot speculate about the score that they will gave it. I say a 67, whether my reasoning clicks with theirs, or they find a different motive to give the game a 67, we will see. I don't necessarily have to agree with a critic to determine what kind of score he could eventually give. I absolutely loved Interstellar, but I could deduce that critics would be harsh on it, and I was kinda right guessing its Rottentomatoes score. Again, I don't agree with them, but that's the end result.
Splatoon is different because I actually don't own a WiiU, and I haven't been able to properly indagate about the game itself. So I was just running with some data here and there at the moment of giving my score. Unlike you, for example, I don't understand why the critics must take into consideration that the vanilla game will be updated later. A game lacking content is a game lacking content. You don't review a game basing on what *might* be on the future. Hence, again, with the example of New Vegas, it got heavily criticised and even when everything got fixed and content added, no one changed the reviews nor foreesee'd it. It's obviously that the devs will try and improve their game, but that shouldn't be a motive for the game to up its scores. As it stands, it's barebones. You could argue that even then, devs will love it and will have a huge meta. That's something I cannot disagree with, because devs can say whatever they feel like. I'll just say for now that devs will find its barebones content to be a con, not a virtue.
And I don't have a crystal ball. No one has, hence why we're all speculating. No one has the upper word until reviews start kicking in!
