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%

PenguinZ on 27 May 2015
Hynad said:

But that's the game they are playing right now. They can't score the content that isn't there. 

You are saying they should review games and score them according to the improvements that might come down the line, not review the game that they get. 

The fault is not on the reviewers. It's on Nintendo and its strange release "strategy" for the game. 


Ultimately, I don't think Nintendo's strategy will bode well of the longevity of the game. It's a massive mistake on their part. And it's not just the small content that will hurt it... It's the fact that they have a system to further restrict the small content that's already there... Map rotations.



Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC

Around the Network
Curmudgeon on 27 May 2015
Mummelmann said:
Is anyone thinking; why didn't reviewers give the Lord of the Rings movies better scores based on the Extended version releases that came later? That seems really unfair.

Why didn't they give the Fellowship of the Ring or the Two Towers a lower score? The story wasn't finished yet. We had to wait a year for the next part..twice!

Just kidding.

81 is a pretty good score. Points are substracted for a lack of content. This means that the coming weeks, at least until August the game will get only get better!

Maybe some reviewers will update their review in August to reflect on the increased content (that would be best) but if they don't, oh well. We know it's a good game, reviews have again confirmed this today. Does it affect your personal enjoyment if it has a 81 or a 88 metacritic? I don't think so.



Spending warm summer days indoors   

Writing frightening verse

To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, WiiU, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS, Mega Drive, Game Gear, PS1, PS2, PSP, XBOX 360, Atari Lynx

forest-spirit on 27 May 2015

Seriously, the game is getting plenty of positives. Gameplay and the content that's there seems to be getting a lot of praise, it's just that the amount of content at the moment is too small to ignore. Reviewers are not telling people to cancel their pre-orders and stay the hell away from the game, they're simply saying that the available content may not be enough for everyone. If you feel like there's enough game in there to justify a Day 1 purchase then that's fine. I have the game pre-ordered and I don't feel like I'm getting robbed or anything.
But it's beyond silly to complain about reviewers not taking into account future DLC that they have zero experience with, just like it's silly to focus only on the lack of content and ignore everything else that has been said in order to label the game as some kind of act of thievery.



Burek on 27 May 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
Skullwaker said:
How is an 8/10 not considered a great score? Am I missing something?

Honestly, all the debate is because 1 single user.

I´m ok with the score, I don´t agree with it, but is good enough and the reviews says really nice things about the game, even the worse ones, so I think we are all ok with that.

Your post is the best one so far. 



tbone51 on 27 May 2015
AnthonyW86 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
forest-spirit said:

 

Don't really see how they could score it that high with the limited amount of content.


Quantity=/=Quality. Its not like the game has absolutely no replay value in it, People can replay just that 1 online mode vs something that has 10 different modes for example.

Look at SSBU, has a ton of modes nobody touches, most only play either No Items and 2/3 stock lives (and very limited stages like 5-7 out of 40) or casual fun with items on (stock most of the time).



Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 27 May 2015
AnthonyW86 said:

There is no way to know if the maps are any good though, so they can't take them into account. Seems like it's going to stay above 80%, but only because they are quite a lot of 90 scores. Don't really see how they could score it that high with the limited amount of content.


Firstly they're complaining about a lack of content a.k.a. quanity, simply unfounded because we know there's more and is a part of our $60 investment. Also how do you objectively determine how good or not a map is? Seems like a purely subjective thing, so what matters more is the amount of variety in the overall map selection. Lastly how good any content is depends mostly on the gameplay. A game with shitty gameplay will still be shit even with a million levels afterall, and Splatoon's gameplay is 100% intact day 1.



Miyamotoo on 27 May 2015

8/10 is pretty good, especially because lack of content has huge impact on score, and Nintendo announced more content is on the way.

I think this is a good start for next big Nintendo IP.



Skullwaker on 27 May 2015

Goodnightmoon said:

Honestly, all the debate now is because 1 single user.


I´m ok with the score, I don´t agree with it, but is good enough and the reviews says really nice things about the game, even the worse ones, so I think we are all ok with that.

I agree 100%.

In my own review scale (which can be found in my sig), an 8 is literally "Great." I think that as consumers, we've come to expect so much from scores. It's like every game has to be considered 9 or 10 to be considered really good, and that's a shame.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Hynad on 27 May 2015
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

The problem lies in Nintendo not releasing the game with enough content in the first place. You are asking reviewers to review air and promises.

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.



bunchanumbers on 27 May 2015
daredevil.shark said:
Zekkyou said:

If it's gamespot that give it a 6 i'm running to the nearest nuclear bunker. Hopefully they give it an 8+, that seems to be about the point that an opinion becomes valid.


Gamespot and classicgameroom review have been most trusted reviews for a long time. No matter how people bash them their review matters. And they are harsh critic.


Their reviews have been really off when it comes to Nintendo. I think their alliance with Giantbomb really muddled their reviewers.