Its not perfect, but I believe it to be better than your non-solution. When you have a problem, the answer isn't to do nothing because you can't find a perfect answer. You move towards the better option until you can find something that surpasses that.

I remember when users in here used to give developers a hard time for releasing "unfinished games". Bob Dylan was right; the times they are'a changin'.

Again, it wasn't considered a problem when the same thing happened to Driveclub. 

But what about glitches and other bugs ? Should you give to a game with a lot of glitches a great score anyway, because these glitches will surely be corrected by a future patch ? 

Theres a big difference between releasing a game that is broken at launch or sold to you in pieces and what Splatoon is doing. I'd say that Splatoon's approach is pretty unique for a console game.

As someone posted a while ago, a quote from Jim Sterling's review:

"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."

It sort of reminds me of when Obama got the Nobel's Peace Prize; on the grounds that we assumed he would promote peace based on his promises upon taking office and running his campaign.

I still think it's interesting to note how people respond to this, especially since online multiplayer games are a lot more dependent on content and variation to draw players, it would certainly make sense for any reviewer to say that one might want to hold off on buying the game at the very least, getting positive press that might help sales based on future promise is a bit strange from my perspective; you don't hand out medals to athletes before they win either, regardless of whether or not they are favorites for victory.

I say they should rather adjust the scores later; there are instance of games getting their scores adjusted after fixing major (or several minor) issues. If a game has a drawback; point it out, if that drawback is fixed in the near future; point it out when it's fixed. It would be dishonest to recommend people puchase products day one based on conditions that are not yet met.

I honestly don't understand why people are having such a hard time accepting these deductions, I'm pretty sure that any other publisher attempting the same stunt would get their fill, this is not "interesting" or unique to me; it's a clear cut case of immediate lack of content, the fact that they've stated that it will be added later for free does not change the terms "immediate" or "lack".
The argument "it will be there" does not change the product as it is right now, I don't buy games to play them three months from now; I buy games to play them today.

Again, I am struck by the feeling that if this were anyone besides Nintendo; the tone in this thread would be significantly different, free content or no. I know that many will argue that (for sure) but that is my view based on many, many years as a member in here and it's not about to change.

It was considered a problem in Driveclub...

Anyways, about glitches and bugs, I've said multiple times, this isn't about making value judgements. When talking about longevity of a game, the discussion is inherently how it will be over time. Because of that, these aren't exactly the same issue. Longevity discussions should take into consideration how a game will change over time, whereas glitch/bug discussions have an immediacy to them. I've said before that the reviews as they are do not benefit consumers, be they day one or future buyers, if they ignore future content when speaking about longevity. However, when speaking about glitches and bugs, the review remains relevant until a patch is released.

Once again, I would like to stress that I believe review scores create a lot of problems and should be done away with, however, I do believe it is worth noting that while there are similarities, these are two different issues and as such, require two different solutions. I don't know the solution to the glitch/bug issue and I believe that it is a more complicated issue. Changing review scores would obviously be ideal, but reviews get diminishing returns after initial release so it doesn't make business sense to re-review games.

I feel like I have already gone over a lot of your points, but I will make a few comments:

"I don't buy games to play them three months from now" - Well, theres your problem. Multiplayer games like this live or die based on their ability to keep players around for longer periods of time. It isn't a game about getting to the finish and being done with it. I have spoken numerous times about how this strategy can increase longevity (for both individuals and the community) as well as keep the community focused.

"It would be different if it weren't Nintendo" - Maybe, maybe not, however, I don't think that particularly matters. I don't think the validity of a point should be judged by their association to a fanbase, they should be judged on their own merit. Because of that, I think injecting accusatory language implying fanboyism seems to be doing nothing but lighting fires and derailing the thread.

PS: After 5AM now...why am I still awake? Oh well, more anime! wooo~ -.-

For you, perhaps.  The writer noting that the review is only for the content included on the disc and that the publisher has promised more free content is on the way is much more honest, consistent, and professional than making a guess based on content they've never seen.

A bad solution is worse than no solution.

Moreover, the conversation hasn't been about what I think would help the situation but instead the concept of scores based on promised content.

What users and what games did they give a hard time?

First of all, as I've stated, the purpose of a review is to serve as a buyer's guide. I believe my solution better fulfils that purpose.

Second, it is not a bad solution, it is an imperfect solution. And I strongly disagree with your sentiment. If something is broken, wrapping it in duct tape is a much better way forward than just saying "it will never be like new" and leaving it be.

Third, I think that you are taking this to some degrees of abstraction that I never supported. You often use vague terms to change the scenario, however, I understand that you are responding to my from the perspective of "a rule". I get that, however, I also think that we don't need a hard and fast rule and we don't need concrete when forming a "rule". I believe that future content should be factored in to longevity discussions, but that doesn't mean that reviewers can't have those discussions based on promises. It means that they should evaluate the future and make a longevity decision based on it.

If a game releases with nothing in the pipeline but vague "promises" and "eventually"s, that is a far different scenario than if a game is telling you what content is going to be released and a rough timeline on those releases...

Most of the board, have you missed the 8th and 7th generation so far? Unfinished games are everywhere and it's annoying, whether they are missing content or pure bugs, some titles just seem like they should have had more time before hitting the market. Destiny was heavily criticized (and rightly so) for lack of content, Evolve as well (again, rightly so), Dragon Age: Inquisition had a lot of content but a lot of it is very poor and repetetive and appears as filler, The Sims 4 (which added free content later on), Ryse: Son of Rome, Gran Turismo 5 and 6 (I was among those who made loud complaints about the lack of content in this case, this has been among my favorite series for two decades). There are others as well, the truth is that this is a fairly common complaint, especially in this day and age when production value and visuals are so far up on the list of priorities, content and variation often suffers as a result of this.

The whole point of a game review is to shed light on strengths and weaknesses of software for potential customers, and unlike "too much water", this is a perfectly reasonable complaint, and a common one at that. Stating that the complaint is invalid because the game will soon be complete is not reasonable.

sundin13; I know the point of online games, I play Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield 3 and 4 myself, and I know that you don't finish them in regular fashion. My point is that if there isn't enough varied content from the beginning; you may as well wait for more to release instead of buying the game right away. For comparison, BF 3 had 9 maps and 13 modes on release, all the modes were present from the beginning, same with BF 4, which has all 13 modes and 10 maps from release.
I don't want to pay full price today for a game that is "complete" tomorrow and I'm still failing to see how that is a mind-bending concept in any way.
DLC adds something extra to the core experience, while in the case of Splatoon, both by Nintendo and your own admission; it is parts of what was always intended as the core experience itself, that doesn't make it better than regular DLC, it sort of makes it worse.
Whether or not it is free is besides the point; the game was still not 100% upon release and the point deduction is completely justified, these maps, weapons and modes should have been included in the game from the beginning.

The mechanics in Splatoon appear to be really solid and the concept itself works great, but reviewers appear to simply want more meat on the bone, which is why I claim that it is entirely okay to recommend customers to either wait or state in reviews that content is lacking for now. It's not entirely unlike Early Access in some ways.
Stating that the future content is free does not change the fact that it is future and not current content, which is my whole point.

I see where you and some others are coming from, and not having the paywall is better for sure, but the complaint about immediate lack of content is valid right now no matter how one looks at it. The game is quite simply not complete as it is, lumping in the future free content by default kind of underlines that as well, it tells us that the game was always supposed to be more than it is, which makes the complaint about lack of content valid in a turn of paradoxal proportion (for those arguing against it).
They could have waited and added more content, perhaps released in the fall instead, it's not like it would make a huge difference for hardware sales and it would likely have yielded both better reviews and better software sales as a bonus.

PS: Evolve added free maps and modes as well, it was also deducted (heavily by some) for lack of content. Were these deductions wrong?