Those are really good reviews, it's a great game. Much like DriveClub (but minus the giant multiplayer fuck ups), the game will get even better with time, as Nintendo handles DLC pretty well. I hope it can find a large enough audience to gain the support it deserves. Kudos to Nintendo for thinking outside the box, software wise.

Basically the game is great, and will improve once more content hits.

Like Rol said, your comparisons are extremely flawed.

First of all, your restaurant example should be ammended to be closer to a multicourse meal (because a game lasts weeks where a meal lasts an hour tops). You first get your appetizer, then your main course, then your dessert (or after meal course). If the restaurant brought out all the food simultaneously, it would make the eating experience worse for the customer and the restaurant would get a lot of complaints. The experience would be less cohesive as a whole. This is the same philosophy Splatoon is operating under. Giving players the full amount of content over a larger span of time helps to focus the experience as well as guide the player through things such as starting with the easier, more accessible Turf War (and more straightforward maps) and moving to the more complex game modes and more complex modes after they get used to the game.

As for your episodic games comparison, there are two reasons why it is flawed:

1. Episodic Games are largely single player: In my eyes, the primary flaw of episodic games is that they, by nature, break the pacing. They don't give you enough time to get fully invested in the game or the break off the game and force you to wait to finish it. This presents problems with mastering gameplay and actually remembering the story. They accomodate for this by typically being light on demanding gameplay and offering a story that at least to some extent, has arcs which can be wrapped up at the end of each episode (think of the difference between typical TV episodes vs. Pausing a movie every 30 minutes).

Multiplayer games such as Splatoon are inherently different than single player games because content is designed to be replayed. Because of this, the content being released in bunches has inherent longevity past the first playthrough. This is the same with most multiplayer games. The unique experience comes from the people you play with as well as your personal improvements. Because of this, the pacing issues are virtually non-existant if the content is released at ideal intervals (see the restaurant example above for an example of how this could actually improve pacing).

2. The idea is not to score the future content, but instead to not penalize the current content: Imagine a review of Life is Strange episode 1, which has statements saying that the game is too short and there are too many loose ends and the story isn't wrapped up nicely. That would be pretty ridiculous because it is only episode 1. Its the same way with Splatoon. I don't believe anyone is asking for reviewers to increase a score due to future content being there, just to not subtract points due to "lack of content".

i can predict gamespots/igns scores :O

Maybe Nintendo should have been pro-choice and given the whole game at ounce. If players felt like they weren't ready for more complex stuff then they should stick with the easier stuff to hone their skills and advanced players who easily catch on should and would be able to play on more advanced stuff. There is no reason to accept this type of content hiding scheming, none at all and reviewers have every right to lower their score since they are paying $60 now and not next week, they can update the review score later but a bunch of promises by Nintendo that they'll update the game shouldn't stop reviewers from lowering the game's score right now.

So, if I'm understanding this right, reviewers should not deduct points for content that isn't there day one, as long as the publisher promises it will come eventually?  Instead, they should imagine what kind of score they would give the game if the content was there on day one?  Hmmm.  Very interesting.  Now, as for the content they are imagining, should they imagine it as bad, good, or great?  Obviously, all modes are not the same and you would hope the best modes were the ones shipped at release.  Should you be like, "okay, the modes with it were great, so I'm going to imagine that the other modes are going to range from really good to pretty good?"

And so, a complete game that is spread out over several months is the exact same as a game that is complete day one and thus should be scored the same, even if you've never played that additional content.  Like, extrapolation?

We're changing the rules as we go, people!

I have a question, though.  If you play the game for a month before you get bored, does that mean you get a refund for the content you never got to play while you were interested?  Or is that just your own fault for not spreading out your enthusiasm to match the spread out content?

Now that this is accepted practice, I see a lot of publishers climbing aboard.

Don't worry, they will be added as soon as MetaCritic updates.

I just don't want add anything that hasn't officially been put in.

Many online games suffer from divided communities or strict adherence to a single mode. A large install base isn't guaranteed, so giving a lot of modes off the bat could make it more difficult to find a game. Additionally, in most online games, the majority of players tend to find a mode they like and stick with it. This strategy gets all players to play all of the modes, which could increase longevity of the game for players and help them to get more out of it.

As I've said before, this is a strategy to increase the game's longevity and keep the community focused, both of which are good things for all players of the game, whether they choose to buy it now or several months down the line. If you personally feel like the game doesn't have enough content to keep you interested despite frequent content updates, then you are free to wait until August when there is more content out, however, if you buy now, you will still get all of that content.

 I personally disagree with your point of view, because games like this aren't meant to last a week, they are meant to last for months. Criticizing a game for implementing a model which could improve longevity just doesnt make any sense to me.

As always when discussing reviews, I try to emphasize that I do not like review scores in general because of issues like this which are extremely subjective. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss these issues in the review, I just do not believe they should be given as much weight as they are because of how subjective they are.

I guessed 82%. I might have overestimated this game.

They said they'll udate with some free stages, nothing is set in stone. If Splatoon falls flat on it's face due to sales while they'll probab;y give out those free stages they won't do anything else. Anyways they haven't even stated what this stages will be, it could literally be a room or a long corridor and their respnse on twitter would be #It'sastage #Weneverpromisedabigstage. Adding more content will keep players more intrested for a long time, if not longer than the method Nintedno is implementing right now. It's a well known fact that a gamer will never be more into a game unlike the first week or two ( or until they finish the game, whichever coes first ) he/she buys it. Sure a new map may peek a gamers interest in a game to launch levels but this won't last long and it would die down soon enough. 

@Bolded: The reviewers also feel as if the game doesn't have enough content but unfortunaley they are playing the game now and Nintendo is releasing the game so they'll deducted the score because the game isn't providing enough.

P.S: I can assure you that if Splatoon sells 500K FW ( That's what most people are expecting in terms of sales ) that no matter how much maps Nintendo have planned to release, everyone will be able to find a game easily.