How did the weather change anything except fancier graphics? That's a gamechanger now? Call me oldschool, but I don't buy that crap.

The best thing about a racing game should be the racing, not the weather. Lol.

Driveclub deserves the score it got because its gameplay isn't all that great or fresh. And the online didn't work.

The market is crowded with racing games and Driveclub doesn't offer anything new. Splatoon does. That's why it will be a better game, regardless of the score it gets.

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.

Well you have a very personal taste, and that´s fine. But you have 0 skills to predict metacritic scores, no offense

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!

We will see. Wouldn't be the first time that everyone gets surprised for a metacritic score no one saw coming!

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!

85, if the game was to launch in August I would say 95.

Yeah, good job, so you've now made a comparison in quality betwen Driveclub and Splatoon, because that was totally the point of the user that brought up Driveclub and isn't completely irrelevant.

The point of the user was that Driveclub got "bad" reviews because it lacked content. It got "bad" reviews because it was nothing special and its online didn't work.

You seem adamant in seeing a path for the critic to follow when reviewing Splatoon. Just because something is purely subjective doesn't mean the reviewer can't bring it up or not. You don't know if the campaign won't be used as a reason (I don't see why, if the campaign turns out to be bad, shouldn't be brought up as an issue on the review). I think the reviewers will simply see a good game in Splatoon and give it 6 and 7, which are good scores. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing outstanding. There's no "lack of content misconception", it all depends on the reviewer perception. Some people won't even bring up the no voice chat thing; would you say that's better than someone who complains about it? At the end of the day, critics will be giving their scores based on their empirical experience with the game. Whether you want to consider 6 as a trollish review that lowers the average, that's up to you.

How that empirical experience goes on neither you or me know, and again, for the third time, we can only speculate. No one buying the game is taking anything into account. There's people that will purchase the game regardless of the score given, and there's people who would like to see how the game fares before making a choice. You can't just generalize saying "A reviewer complaining about a lack content is only wasting everyone's time", because precisely that could be the difference between people purchasing it now and purchasing it later, or simply not purchasing it at all. (Which, if it is the case, doesn't speak well on the game's behalf).

"What they should be saying on the matter" feels more like "What I'd like them to say on the matter" in this case. Reviewers should be saying whatever they feel like saying, as long as is it honest and tries to achieve certain degree of objectiveness. If they want to criticise story, music, sound, replay value, connectivity, voice chat, gameplay, and how long the credit sequence is, they should go for it.