RolStoppable said:
As much as it hurts me to say this, but I have to agree with the dolphin here. The closest example to Splatoon I can think of are the Professor Layton games which always offered free DLC for the duration of 6-12 months after release. While you can't review said DLC due to the lack of availability, you already have a good idea of what it's going to be and when it is going to release, and the base game serves as a fair indication for the quality you can expect; plus everyone who buys the game will have the chance to access said additional content for free, so why shouldn't that factor into the decision if the game is worth buying? After all, that's the one thing that reviews are all about. So the most reasonable course of action is to include the upcoming DLC in the score for the game and explicitly state what the content release plans for the game are. Should the developer fail to maintain the quality of the base game with their DLC, then you can go back to the review and change it, as well as not give said developer the benefit of the doubt for future releases anymore. |
You're basically saying they should do the opposite of what I'm saying. Which is come back to the review and adjust it accordingly.
In your case, you say that they should inflate the score based on what the belief that what will come will be good, instead of scoring it based on what they factually have in front of them. I don't see how that's reasonable. It comes off to me as giving preferencial status to the game based on hype, not facts.
