Splatoon had been datamined- Rainmaker online mode complete details revealed, 33 more weapons to be released, 10 maps on disc, and more!

[Lafiel]

RolStoppable said:

Lafiel said:

Those situations may seem similar, but are clearly not the same. Ofcourse many reviewers rate content laden games after playing a chunk they feel is representative of the whole instead of 100%ing it.

But they can choose how much they need to be certain themselves and can quickly confirm their impression of the quality of the "untouched content" in the days after the reviews as many continue to play (great) games after the review is published. And all modes of a game usually are tested aswell, which is not possible when they are not unlocked - different modes can lead to a very different game experience, you simply can't rate them off of your experience with other modes.

So your argument here feels quite a bit disingenuous to me.

The reviewers that explicitly deducted points for missing content at release should feel more obliged to update their reviews for their integrities sake, but it's not mandatory in my opinion, as readers themselves should be aware that their purchase decision is best made on the most up-to-date reviews.

In the case of the RPGs, it isn't uncommon that they don't finish the storyline. That's what I meant, not a 100% playthrough. And in the case of stories, there is more uncertainty involved than with game modes in a multiplayer game. A story can fail to tie things together to a consistent and reasonable ending and sour the entire experience while one bad game mode would still leave you with a satisfying experience in the rest of the game.

Most reviewers don't update their reviews, so how should readers find up to date reviews to begin with? Having to dig through a big pile of worthless reviews to find something of value isn't an enticing proposal. A competent launch review that points out the content release model for the game is a better way to go about it, because it means that the only reason why an update to the review would be needed is if the additional content is underwhelming. Less work for the reviewer and a better service to the readers.

Is there any evidence you base that on, especially the part of it being "not uncommon"? I personally don't consider something that doesn't even cover the whole main storyline a review and I wouldn't want practices like that to extend to further genres at all.

In my opinion it's much more sincere to rate the content that's available to you and do updates when readers demand them then artificially increase the score base on the promise of future content and then maybe go back to your review and update it ,if it fails to meet the expected quality. The later may be "more convenient", but as a reader I value sincerity over convenience.

Yes, it is rare for reviewers to do these updates, but the way I see it it's the readers that need to show there is demand.