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%

PwerlvlAmy on 27 May 2015



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 27 May 2015
Burek said:

Reviewers are reviewing exactly what customers are paying for, nothing more, nothing less.


Oh gods, gods help me!

Also, implying everyone buys games day one.



forest-spirit on 27 May 2015
AnthonyW86 said:

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


Because the game in its current state is good enough? It's a quality vs quantity thing really. The game fails quantitywise but the quality is high enough to somewhat make up for it, enough to give the game an overall good-great review at least.



Hynad on 27 May 2015
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

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.

Well, I did say that I agree with the dolphin, so that naturally means that my opinion is the opposite of yours.

If they score the game solely on what's available now instead of what people are paying for, then there's a very high chance to be wrong. If they do it the other way around, then there's only a low chance that they will have been wrong. That's why my suggestion is reasonable.


It's not reasonable because it's based on assumptions, not on what's been played by the reviewer.

I'm not sure I should be surprised by your stance or not, all things considered.



Roma on 27 May 2015

Great so far :D

hoping to get the game tomorrow



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 27 May 2015
Hynad said:

It's not reasonable because it's based on assumptions, not on what's been played by the reviewer.

I'm not sure I should be surprised by your stance or not, all things considered.


I'd be surprised, he rarely agrees with me, or rather he rarely admits that he agrees with me!



Darwinianevolution on 27 May 2015

Can we make comparaisons? How was the first Pikmin ranked?



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

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


Picture isn't showing up for me, just a white box. What is it supposed to be?

Edit: Nevermind, works now

yeah i had to edit it to get it to work lol



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

knubie2 on 27 May 2015

Ars Technica:

The Ugly:

Motion controls make quick responses impossible during combat and, thankfully, can be disabled entirely.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/nintendos-first-true-online-shooter-splatoon-is-a-hot-painted-mess/2/

This is why I don't bother with game reviews any more. First of all the statement is just objectively wrong. Motion controls make quick responses and accuracy more possible than dual analog alone, and anyone that's spent more than 30 minutes using them will agree. Second, the reviewer is docking points from the game for his inability to play it well. That's just stupid. That's like reviewing a bow and arrow set and giving it a bad score because you suck at using a bow and arrow and are better at using a gun. And finally, as was stated in the same review, they can be disabled entirely, so shouldn't that pro for the game? Player options and all that.

I'm also tired of reviewers docking points from a game because it didn't ship with the content/features they think it should have. That's like giving a movie a bad score because you thought it should have been 2 hours longer, or there should have been more characters. How about you just review the game as it is? Is it fun? Engaging? Responsive? Bug free?

I'm surprised by how few reviews mention the amazing original soundtrack.



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

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


Because the game in its current state is good enough? It's a quality vs quantity thing really. The game fails quantitywise but the quality is high enough to somewhat make up for it, enough to give the game an overall good-great review at least.

Yes good/great, but i'm talking 90+ scores, wich are nonsense since the game is incomplete. I think the Dutch IGN review says it best stating it's a fun game but this game was released to early, and combined with a singleplayer wich is fun but lacking of any challenge and with some online issues scored it a 7.3 out of ten. Score could be a liitle higher sure, but 9 or higher? Nope.