Ha ha ha.

I love Jim Sterling thoughts about the lack of content:

"It’s an interesting approach, to say the least. For what it’s promising, Nintendo is coming closer to the idea of “games as a service” than most big budget publishers, who usually use that term to avoid saying they’ve created a glorified DLC hub. There are no microtransactions on the table and the upcoming content is all free, so it inspires a lot more confidence than many other so-called “AAA” games attempting to pull similar moves.

Of course, I can’t review any of that upcoming stuff because it isn’t there yet, so one has to ask – for a hefty MSRP of $59.99, is Splatoon worth purchasing immediately? Most of its value appears to lie in promise, with no guarantee that what’s coming will actually be good, and though updates are on the horizon every few weeks, we don’t know how long for. Nevertheless, it’s far more promise than Titanfall had – a great game in its own right, but one that got old after a week and provided very little reason to return (though free updates have come out for Titanfall, it wasn’t enough to keep me going, possibly because the core of it just wasn’t all that fresh to begin with).

What really matters is that, unlike so many other shooters, the core idea of Splatoon is unique and fun enough that I simply haven’t gotten bored of it, even after playing the same handful of maps for hours. The sheer chaos of the action and unpredictability of each match gives it far stronger legs than something like Evolve had, and the constant hunt for new equipment is rewarding enough to keep me returning. It’s an infectious game, one that may not provide initial value for money in terms of basic content, but is replayable enough to at least justify itself in terms of longevity.

I’m putting my money where my mouth is, too. The review copy of Splatoon is a special pre-launch version that, while identical to the retail release, is incompatible with the official game and will not work online after launch. This game has me hooked enough to where I’ll be stumping up the cash to buy the game despite having played so much of it already. I strongly believe the game does enough to be worth paying for, as I’ll be putting my money where my mouth is and I won’t regret it"


Thanks God for Jim Sterling

This isn't a vague "promise". We know of 9 additional maps, additional weapons, additional gear and two additional modes, one of which has been detailed. While exact dates of content release are not known, we do know that this new content will be released every few weeks, so that isn't exactly as vague as "eventually"

Again, I am not saying that the reviewers should make a value judgement on this content. I am saying that if the complaint is "there is not enough content to maintain my interest for months", that complaint is disingenuous due to the continuous release model. I believe a statement about how content will continue to be released for months should be factored into any assumptions about longevity, and I see that as a much more realistic assessment of the games ability to maintain interest.

Many review sites understand that the current method of reviewing games is flawed due to the change in how content is released. This is not a new issue and it is one that many sites are trying to understand how to deal with and accomodate for. As Eurogamer said when they changed their scoring system "Scores are failing us, they're failing you, and perhaps most importantly, they are failing to fairly represent the games themselves".

This discussion is largely a discussion about how to handle this large flaw of review scores...their static nature. Some feel the best way to handle it would be for the the reviewer to give what they feel is the most realistic assessment of the game's longevity. Others feel that the best way is to give a review in a vacuum, which is irrelevant to most buyers at release and becomes even more irrelevant as more time passes.

As reviews are essentially buyer's guides, I feel that a realistic assessment serves that purpose more than an isolated "in a vacuum" assessment.

The dolphin will ensure that we don't forget about Splatoon; expect a new thread about the game every other day.

My copy has already arrived!!!

Yeah! Splatoon all day :D

Oh, I fully know that review scores have become nearly meaningless, and I've probably been talking about this particular problem far longer than most Nintendo fans.  Months and months ago, when people were doing Metacritic list wars and brought up GT5, I pointed out that GT5 is nowhere near the game that was first reviewed, as it has added a colossal amount of free content over that time.  Someone looking at Metacritic now would not see this, thus Metacritic fails the people using it after a few months.  I assure you, that conversation did not begin with Splatoon.

However, the situation with Splatoon is not the same situation with GT5 or Mario Kart.  GT5 launched with a ton of content and I assume the newest Mario Kart did, as well.  Enough to say, "this game is on par with, or exceeds, the amount of content offered by its peers and it thus worth the asking price without any additional content being added."

The situation we're talking about here is where a publisher/developer is only shipping half the content with the core game, asking you to pay for all the content, then doling out that removed content over time, at their discretion, in order to keep people playing longer, which benefits the publisher/developer greatly.  That's a much different animal.  Now, if that's okay with you, if you don't mind a publisher/developer withholding content you paid for and telling you when you'll have a chance to play it, then more power to you.  However, the idea that reviewers should give some kind of score credit for this, that makes zero sense.  The distribution model should be noted in the text, absolutely, but it would be completely dishonest for a reviewer to give bonus points for content that is not there for the Day One consumer.  That should not happen.  Blind faith that the content they haven't played yet adds meaningful value to the game would be unprofessional.

Regardless of how you feel about what Nintendo is doing, or how you feel about review scores, writers partially basing a review score on content they have not played is not a solution.  What if the next Halo or Battlefield comes out and the reviewer says something like, "I only played a couple of the modes and maps that were on the disc but they were a lot of fun so I'm going to assume that they other 20 maps and modes are really good, so I give this game a 90"--would you be perfectly fine with that?  I would not.

Again, I am not asking any reviewer to make a value judgement on content they have not played. I am merely asking for reviewers to take the fact that the game will be constantly growing into consideration when making statements about longevity.

I disagree with a lot of the specific things you said, however, its 4AM (and I still plan on watching more anime) and this has already been discussed to death, so I will leave you with this example (which you may disagree with, but I would find that disagreement ridiculous):

Two Scenarios:

1. A game is released with a fairly low amount of content. The publisher says that no additional content is coming and the game will recieve no post launch support.

2. A game is released with a fairly low amount of content. The publisher says that there will be regular content updates including some major content updates and all of it will be free.

How could you justify giving both games the same score? It wouldn't be helpful for the consumer at any point in time to do so. Game two obviously will have greater longevity to it than game one... Saying otherwise (or scoring otherwise) would be a disservice to the consumer.

PS: I think you need to stop looking at things from the Publisher's perspective. You seem to be acting as if anything that benefits publishers should be thrown away, however Pro-Publisher does not mean anti-consumer, and from the consumer's perspective, I believe that assessing longevity as I suggested provides a more accurate (although not perfect) depiction of the game.

Can you already play online?