By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Splatoon Review Thread - MetaCritic 81% / GameRankings 81.46%

JNK on 27 May 2015
bunchanumbers said:
JNK said:


this would be ridicoulus scince captain toad features alot less content. it have just a 6 hrs campange and thats it. splatoon got it 6 hrs campaign + the online stuff. 

Scince the only big complainment about splatoon is missing content it wont make any sense to be honest. I think many review sites really lowerd the score to much because all the discussion about the low content in the past weeks.


Captain Toad may not have been super long, but it featured some of the best level design this generation. That was its strength, not its length.

Yeah i do own the game. But what ive seen from splatoon its campagne is on a similar level (didnt played splatoon yet, sure).



Around the Network
Faelco on 27 May 2015
RolStoppable said:
Zekkyou said:
Is anyone else getting the feeling that this is going to be a very long thread?

I am ready for it. I already sensed it in the time leading up to launch that some people will be looking for revenge.

 

So much hype for this game in the last few days, Nintendo fans won't accept a score like Captain Toad or Infamous Second Son... ^^



Gourmet on 27 May 2015

So local multiplayer is only that balloon pop thing? There's more coming right? I won't buy this otherwise.



Mr.Playstation on 27 May 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
Zekkyou said:

Do you expect them to rate the game based on hypothetical content that they don't have? The game is out now, thus naturally will be rated for what it is now. If you don't want to be criticized for a lack of content, you release it with more content (as Nintendo do with the majority of their other games). Reviewers have treated other titles (like Driveclub) in a similar fashion.

It would also probably help to not charge full price in your biggest market, while at the same time acknowledging it's not worth the full price in various other countries.

Again, no, I can´t understand how the "The most original and enjoyable online shooter of the generation" has a 7.  I really doiesn´t make sense, and is the trend of all the low scores, you read it, and then you look at the score is like what?

At the end of the day that is the score of a boring game. 

But hey, is what it is, it was a risk and this is the pay, but is still a good metascore, so Ok.

Cod and Battelfield are the best shooters of this gen. Doesn't mean much to beat these games in creativity and enjoyability.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Goodnightmoon on 27 May 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Again, no, I can´t understand how the "The most original and enjoyable online shooter of the generation" has a 7.  I really doiesn´t make sense, and is the trend of all the low scores, you read it, and then you look at the score is like what?

At the end of the day that is the score of a boring game. 

But hey, is what it is, it was a risk and this is the pay, but is still a good metascore, so Ok.

Honestly, if you think 7 = boring game than your standards are way too high. To me a 7 is still a good game.

7 is an "OK" game, not by my standars, but for theirs. Is the score of the "okish" games, not the score of  "The most original and enjoyable online shooter of the generation"

I just wish people read the reviews, but most of the people just see the number.

But is still a good number.



Around the Network
Mummelmann on 27 May 2015

Right where I expected it to be. Seems like a solid score, with as many reviews as we have now, I doubt it will rise or fall much at all. This is a very good result.



Lonely_Dolphin on 27 May 2015
Gourmet said:
So local multiplayer is only that balloon pop thing? There's more coming right? I won't buy this otherwise.


Looks like you're not buying then!



kitler53 on 27 May 2015
generic-user-1 said:
kitler53 said:
...

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."

Shigeru Miyamoto


loool... no reviewer is saying the game isnt great, they are complaining that they have to wait for more gamemodes, they cant get enough of the game.

i was just having a laugh because what goodnightmoon said was so opposite of what myamoto said.

i still think nintendo did the worst thing ever in releasing with 5 maps.  reviews matter more for new IP than for established IP and everyone knew that reviewers review what is availible at launch not what will be availible eventually.  driveclub got hammered.  destiny got hammered.  evolve got hammered.  titanfall got hammered.  this is not unexpected,.. it has happened with every game ever that had scheduled free content after launch but shy on content day 1.

 

these days a game can look drastically different after a year than day 1 but day 1 reviews last forever.



DerNebel on 27 May 2015
Zekkyou said:
Is anyone else getting the feeling that this is going to be a very long thread?

It's still missing that one score of 6 or lower to really get this thread going.



forest-spirit on 27 May 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
Metro GameCentral

70

"The most original and enjoyable online shooter of the generation, but the lack of content at launch means it may be months before it reaches its true potential."

This is the kind of things that the worst scores are telling about the game. Do they realize that the score is gonna be forever bad but the game nop?


What else can you do? Games get so many post-launch upgrades these days that reviews would have to be delayed for months and months if reviewers had to wait for the final version. It would be even worse for an online-centric game.

 

If "potential buyers" disregard this game forever because of the scores (because a 7/10 is such a devilishly bad score) then they probably weren't that interested to begin with as the actual review (the text part, you know, the part that actually matters) in most, if not all cases says that the game plays great, it's just that the amount of content at launch is disappointing. People that grasp the Principle of Reading and Understanding Words will then know whether it's a game to get a Day 1 (Game sounds great and I'm ok with the initial content/ok with waiting for more content), at a later point (Game sounds great but I need more content) or never (Game could be great but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea). Informing consumers is the whole point of reviews (well, that and clicks), that's what they're there for.