By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Splatoon had been datamined- Rainmaker online mode complete details revealed, 33 more weapons to be released, 10 maps on disc, and more!

cycycychris said:

Here's rainmaker details


Whut? This sounds just like Tower Control, as both are basically capture the flag.



Around the Network
cycycychris said:
Superquagsire said:
cycycychris said:
Superquagsire said:
I'm really glad that the leaker is keeping secret about the details of the rainmaker mode. It shows that he is much more mature than other leakers out there. I'd rather be surprised when Nintendo announces it rather than it being leaked.

Well.... He kind of just leaked them.

At least he held it a secret for like 4 hours.

*Sigh* And the Internet strikes again -_-

But I wonder why is it called rain maker if it doesn't make rain? I expected it to make rain puddles of the opponents color of ink or something...

I guess its rain maker since it can make inkzooks shots. But I expected something totally different when I originally heard the name of this mode.

Exactly my thoughts. It at least sounds like fun ^.^



pokoko said:

I know, I remember that.

But if you've paid for the disc ... how is that content free?  Is it not already paid for?  Isn't that one of the primary arguments against on-disc DLC?  And, if you've paid for it, is it really okay for someone else to dictate when you can access it?  

It's kind of confusing to keep all the arguments straight, especially when some people change their arguments in an arbitrary fashion.  Not saying you've done that; as you've said, you had already approved of this before-hand.

However, it is very interesting to watch attitudes change.  Not so long ago, this would have been universally condemned. 


Developers have always dictated when you can first play a game, as they have to be made then released. From that point on however, it's all up to the player. In this specific case, if you want all of Splatoon's content available to you immediately, you can simply wait until it's all been released before buying the game. 



Great stuff, I would like to see a team Inkling vs Team F.l.u.d.d. One team has to create a mess whilst the others have to clean it up :)



I guess they didn't want to disappoint people by showing the wonderful stuff right away.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Lafiel said:

Those situations may seem similar, but are clearly not the same. Ofcourse many reviewers rate content laden games after playing a chunk they feel is representative of the whole instead of 100%ing it.

But they can choose how much they need to be certain themselves and can quickly confirm their impression of the quality of the "untouched content" in the days after the reviews as many continue to play (great) games after the review is published. And all modes of a game usually are tested aswell, which is not possible when they are not unlocked - different modes can lead to a very different game experience, you simply can't rate them off of your experience with other modes.

So your argument here feels quite a bit disingenuous to me.

The reviewers that explicitly deducted points for missing content at release should feel more obliged to update their reviews for their integrities sake, but it's not mandatory in my opinion, as readers themselves should be aware that their purchase decision is best made on the most up-to-date reviews.

In the case of the RPGs, it isn't uncommon that they don't finish the storyline. That's what I meant, not a 100% playthrough. And in the case of stories, there is more uncertainty involved than with game modes in a multiplayer game. A story can fail to tie things together to a consistent and reasonable ending and sour the entire experience while one bad game mode would still leave you with a satisfying experience in the rest of the game.

Most reviewers don't update their reviews, so how should readers find up to date reviews to begin with? Having to dig through a big pile of worthless reviews to find something of value isn't an enticing proposal. A competent launch review that points out the content release model for the game is a better way to go about it, because it means that the only reason why an update to the review would be needed is if the additional content is underwhelming. Less work for the reviewer and a better service to the readers.

Is there any evidence you base that on, especially the part of it being "not uncommon"? I personally don't consider something that doesn't even cover the whole main storyline a review and I wouldn't want practices like that to extend to further genres at all.

In my opinion it's much more sincere to rate the content that's available to you and do updates when readers demand them then artificially increase the score base on the promise of future content and then maybe go back to your review and update it ,if it fails to meet the expected quality. The later may be "more convenient", but as a reader I value sincerity over convenience.

Yes, it is rare for reviewers to do these updates, but the way I see it it's the readers that need to show there is demand.



"Bamboozler 14 Mk II"
^Definitely the best name of the bunch!



Loving this game more and more, the more I hear about it.



I'm surprised Rol is defending a game he doesn't even like!



That's a lot of locked content :/

But good to hear, nonetheless... except that the Skyscrapper map looks terrible



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]