| Wright said:
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! |
Because it's purely subjective is why they shouldn't bother saying whether or not they could play it for hours, rather they should say what the game does to try and keep you playing, in Splatoon's case I briefly explained how it does so.
Uhm, okay? The campaign wont be used as a reason against the game is my point there. Whether you agree with reviewers is irrelevant to the score they give, which is what this thread's about, predicting what score they give. From just 3 hours with the game I'd already give it an 80 personally, but I know some reviewers will be trolls and latch onto the lack of content misconception and make a big deal out of no voice chat giving it 60s knocking down the average, hence why I'm predicting a 78 meta, which is still good.
I just explained why, because people buying the game are taking that content into account. A reviewer complaining about a lack content is only wasting everyone's time, because day one buyers will be getting more content frequently, and late adopters will already have all that content. What they should be saying on the matter, is whether or not the gameplay is good enough to make that content meaningful and whether or not what's on the disc is enough to hold you over until the updates start coming.
Some of us have better reasonings though! 
