| pokoko said: So, if I'm understanding this right, reviewers should not deduct points for content that isn't there day one, as long as the publisher promises it will come eventually? Instead, they should imagine what kind of score they would give the game if the content was there on day one? Hmmm. Very interesting. Now, as for the content they are imagining, should they imagine it as bad, good, or great? Obviously, all modes are not the same and you would hope the best modes were the ones shipped at release. Should you be like, "okay, the modes with it were great, so I'm going to imagine that the other modes are going to range from really good to pretty good?" And so, a complete game that is spread out over several months is the exact same as a game that is complete day one and thus should be scored the same, even if you've never played that additional content. Like, extrapolation? |
This isn't a vague "promise". We know of 9 additional maps, additional weapons, additional gear and two additional modes, one of which has been detailed. While exact dates of content release are not known, we do know that this new content will be released every few weeks, so that isn't exactly as vague as "eventually"
Again, I am not saying that the reviewers should make a value judgement on this content. I am saying that if the complaint is "there is not enough content to maintain my interest for months", that complaint is disingenuous due to the continuous release model. I believe a statement about how content will continue to be released for months should be factored into any assumptions about longevity, and I see that as a much more realistic assessment of the games ability to maintain interest.
Many review sites understand that the current method of reviewing games is flawed due to the change in how content is released. This is not a new issue and it is one that many sites are trying to understand how to deal with and accomodate for. As Eurogamer said when they changed their scoring system "Scores are failing us, they're failing you, and perhaps most importantly, they are failing to fairly represent the games themselves".
This discussion is largely a discussion about how to handle this large flaw of review scores...their static nature. Some feel the best way to handle it would be for the the reviewer to give what they feel is the most realistic assessment of the game's longevity. Others feel that the best way is to give a review in a vacuum, which is irrelevant to most buyers at release and becomes even more irrelevant as more time passes.
As reviews are essentially buyer's guides, I feel that a realistic assessment serves that purpose more than an isolated "in a vacuum" assessment.
@Mr. Playstation:
-As I said above, we know at least 9 stages are coming, multiple weapons, new gear and two modes and we know that updates will be released every few weeks. We also have images of I believe 5 of the 9 stages and gameplay footage from 1 of the 2 modes as well as gameplay footage of at least one of the new weapons.
-If the concern is that they already got bored, that is a fair criticism (although problematic because Nintendo is releasing new content to coincide with consumers, not reviewers timelines), however, most reviews seem to not be expressing this criticism. It is more a statement about quantity than any negative experience...
