How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
They should stop with a coming practice because?
Starfish Hero
Member
There's still a difference between free DLC and an update. DLC implies that it is optional, while you're going to be forced to keep the game up to date to play onlie.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
When games have patches that affect offline modes, I always think that a reviewer should review the game as it launched, since there's no guarantee that a player will have an internet connection.
Regarding free content updates for online modes...well, I view reviews as a form of critical evaluation and advice for consumers. As a result, I think that the review should accurately reflect what the consumer is getting, so they can get make a sound purchasing decision. In this case, it seems that the single-player campaign is not getting new content (at this time). Any complaints about "this content should have been there in the beginning" then are directed at the online mode, which suggests these players have an online connection and be able to receive the updates. Thus, I believe it is fair to evaluate the game for what it has at launch (core gameplay, presentation, features) and then later update the section of the review (and if relevant, the score) that reflected the online mode.
Regarding free content updates for online modes...well, I view reviews as a form of critical evaluation and advice for consumers. As a result, I think that the review should accurately reflect what the consumer is getting, so they can get make a sound purchasing decision. In this case, it seems that the single-player campaign is not getting new content (at this time). Any complaints about "this content should have been there in the beginning" then are directed at the online mode, which suggests these players have an online connection and be able to receive the updates. Thus, I believe it is fair to evaluate the game for what it has at launch (core gameplay, presentation, features) and then later update the section of the review (and if relevant, the score) that reflected the online mode.
I bet the game will be finished in that it runs smooth and wont be broken at release. The patches will come with extra content, they wont fix the content that was there to begin with.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
Yep, Nintendo is gonna wreck that oh-so-precious Metacritic score.
ForsakenLotus
Member
Reviews exist to give players an accurate, informative opinion on a game when it launches. It's one thing to wait a few days to test online play in it's normal environment and with the stress of a games launch. It's unfair to consumers to wait until a game has launched all of its content before assigning a score. GTAV announced Heists as an important feature, but how many months until it was out?
Now, after Nintendo has launched the free content for Splatoon sites are free to change a review score or add an addendum, but Nintendo shouldn't get a pass for rolling out content after a game launches that should be in the game day one (I understand they are a few thing that at least make some sense to delay a little while).
Now, after Nintendo has launched the free content for Splatoon sites are free to change a review score or add an addendum, but Nintendo shouldn't get a pass for rolling out content after a game launches that should be in the game day one (I understand they are a few thing that at least make some sense to delay a little while).
Ah I see. In that case I'll wait a few months to see how good the added content is.
Well, review what's there. They pretty much laid out what was going to be available at launch. It isn't like they're hiding anything. Review what's on the disc and make a not on future updates. Don't make that note an important part of the review (the game should be able to stand on its own without the updates) but do make note of it for people reading the review.
I'm seriously not seeing the "incomplete game" narrative here other than people who already decided long ago not to enjoy this game. I'm getting exactly what I expected in a new IP based on multiplayer shooting. I had no problems with TF2's "lackluster" launch and really, 4 hours does go by FAST in these types of games anyways. Also, fuck you to those who say I have "Stockholm Syndrome". That's insulting in every which way.
I'm seriously not seeing the "incomplete game" narrative here other than people who already decided long ago not to enjoy this game. I'm getting exactly what I expected in a new IP based on multiplayer shooting. I had no problems with TF2's "lackluster" launch and really, 4 hours does go by FAST in these types of games anyways. Also, fuck you to those who say I have "Stockholm Syndrome". That's insulting in every which way.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Garden Warfare is great, but to be fair to Splatoon, Garden Warfare doesn't have a single player campaign.
I expected it to receive great reviews before the direct, now I don't. It's just so weird to me that the Direct so strongly deflated hype. Like everything it announced just lowered my expectations instead of raising them.
Triggerhappytel
Member
That's a good comparison. And Garden Warfare is a great game, but it didn't feel like a $60 (or £40) release.
Starfish Hero
Member
When most critics were gentle with AC: Unity and Halo: MCC, games that were broken at launch, I'll be a little annoyed if they tear into a (I'm assuming) completely playable game "on principle".
Now if Splatoon is also buggy and/or has server issues, that'd be disappointing.
"Unfinished" implies a buggy, incomplete release. "Relying on patches" implies that the game will be a glitched out mess at launch. I saw nothing that indicated either in the Direct. Of course, never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative, right?
Are you saying that this new practice of going back to update reviews should continue?
Reviews imo should be based on whatever is first handed to them. If its a buggy mess, then the score should reflect that. If they patch in a fix, there should be an impressions or news update but the score should remain the same.
What is the benefit of continuing the practice? I don't really see one. Other than telling developers "you have a second chance" every time.
EatinOlives
Member
What does this have to do with anything? Tourney Mode is one feature, not half of an online mode. If Smash had launched with 5 stages and no picking who you were with in Team Battles you bet your ass people would be pissed. Smash 4 was still feature complete despite a few details, you're comparing apples and oranges. Same goes for the Dota 2 comparison.
And it's not like I'm not "allowed" to make the remark because I didn't make it earlier. This is the first Nintendo game in recent memory that launches flat out unfinished, and it's pretty obvious it's unfinished.
Eh, it's a bit different. Both promised more content for free post-launch. But none of Halo MCC worked well at launch, wheareas at least what little there is of Splatoon at launch will most likely work.
Plus Halo got reviewed really well despite having jack shit working well at launch.
Except it's not. It's "unfinished" only in the sense that there will be continuous updates that add more modes. You know, like most multiplayer shooters. Or are you telling me that TF2 is still "incomplete" because we still get new weapons, modes, and maps every few months? They pretty much gave us the launch exactly as promised. We can argue whether or not it is worth $60 (I do but clearly I'm in the minority) but to say its unfinished because more content is on the way is to ignore every mutliplayer game out there.
Ah yes, I remember some of the Halo MCC reviews, "Singleplayer is good; Multiplayer will probably also be good when it works; 9/10."
EatinOlives
Member
Lol, that's just flat out false. Neither unfinished nor "to be patched later" implies that the game is buggy or unreleased. It can also very well mean the game isn't feature complete at launch, which is a legit criticism of the game. Titanfall didn't launch buggy and was still criticized for being bare-bones. You're applying completely arbitrary interpretations of words just so they mean what you want them to mean.
Of course, never let truth get in the way of a good "it's ok when Nintendo does it!" narrative.
If a reviewer wants to re-review a product based on post-launch updates, I don't see the problem with that. The original review already serviced its purpose for the people at launch.
But I do have a problem with people demanding reviewers to continually update their reviews of old games. That's absurd. Bloodborne released with long loading times, reviewers shouldn't have to rewrite their review because now the loading times are tolerable.
Starfish Hero
Member
This is arbitrary. Smash is getting a pass in this case because it has "enough", but I know more than a few people have complained about the lack of tourney mode, as well as limited 8 player stages (which is still be updated) and the lack of single player modes (which might not ever be amended).
Well, there's only 5 maps because the online is being gradually rolled out.
SolidSnakex
Member
The previews of it have all been extremely positive. So critics seem to love how it plays. The content is what may be an issue. The numbers for its on disc features are just low across the board.
I can see where he's coming from. It's a game with a multiplayer portion that's launching with five maps and two modes. That's small. Like ridiculously small for a game in which most of its marketing focus has been on its multiplayer portion. They should certainly be applauded for delivering free maps. But it should almost be expected when there's only five at launch.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Sure; updating a game with new content is great, and very welcome. But that doesn't excuse releasing it with a lack of content in the first place.
GuitarAtomik
Member
No. Multiplayer did work when they reviewed it (which I believe was a review event). That's why it didn't affect review scores.
This is quite the opposite of new, I have gaming magazines from the Xbox360 era which did this. Consider updating the review if the product made changes which warrants the update, positively or negatively. Thats it.
That's fine I suppose if its the reviewer themselves that wants to update it. But I can't help but feel that there would be pressure on these game media sites by publishers to "please update the review or no more X or Y perks for you".
Had no idea what you meant with "coming practice" in your original post, thought you meant upcoming but it still didn't make sense.
Has there ever been a game update that has resulted in a lesser score than the original? I honestly want to know.
EatinOlives
Member
What a facile and flat out disingenuous interpretation of "updates". No, Nintendo doesn't get to hide behind a "bu- bu- but it's a multilayer game!!" excuse when releasing an unfinished game. Nobody's saying that Splatoon is unfinished solely because it's getting updates. They're saying that because the multilayer is undeniably feature incomplete.
I mean, it'll probably get props for its single player, but I have a feeling that it'll get criticized for its lacking multiplayer features at launch. Fortunately, most love the actual game, so I think it'll get away with a 7/10 assuming nothing goes wrong before launch.
OK, since you are clearly the word expert, please explain what "complete" means. I already said that this game seemed "complete" to me, but clearly I have a "narrative" and as such am too stupid to do anything but praise Nintendo so please enlightened me oh intelligent one.
Because we already knew what was going on at launch for months now. It's only now with the announcement of future updates that the narrative of "barebones imcomplete" launch is now being taunted out.
jts
...hate me...
Everything from the Mario Kart 8 DLC strategy to Nintendo's statement regarding the next FY seems to point out that regularly released content, free or otherwise, will be a thing to keep the communities and games going steadily instead of the usual drop post-launch.
Can't say I don't like it.
Can't say I don't like it.
Wowfunhappy
Member
I don't really think Splatoon is all that lacking in launch content. Five maps + a couple modes + a (seemingly fleshed-out and well-done) campaign seems fine.
Not to directly compare the two because I realize they're very different experiences, but doesn't freaking League of Legends have just one map in the whole game?
Not to directly compare the two because I realize they're very different experiences, but doesn't freaking League of Legends have just one map in the whole game?
Junahu
Member
Review the game that's available, the mechanics, aesthetics, progression systems, and play incentives. Add the caveat that Nintendo have pledged massive (free) post-release support for the online mode.
Later, do whatever everyone did with Mario Kart 8's DLC. Review it at your leisure and keep the consumer updated on the game's value as a product.
Nintendo's transparancy with the game is nothing short of admirable. It's hard to be pissed at a low number of multiplayer stages or modes; by the time we're bored of them, there'll be more... for free. As it's an online mode, having online updates over time isn't a huge crime.
It's the single player mode that should be under more scrutiny. We're not getting any updates for that, so what's there at launch will be all that we'll get.
Later, do whatever everyone did with Mario Kart 8's DLC. Review it at your leisure and keep the consumer updated on the game's value as a product.
Nintendo's transparancy with the game is nothing short of admirable. It's hard to be pissed at a low number of multiplayer stages or modes; by the time we're bored of them, there'll be more... for free. As it's an online mode, having online updates over time isn't a huge crime.
It's the single player mode that should be under more scrutiny. We're not getting any updates for that, so what's there at launch will be all that we'll get.
5 maps and one mode at launch? 2 modes if you stretch it?
And people are complaining about Battlefront? And said Evolve and Titanfall were short on content for $60?
I hope this game doesn't get a free pass on the criticism just because it is from the Big N.
Even PvZ Garden Warfare blows this out of the water.
It should be renewed the same as every other game.
And people are complaining about Battlefront? And said Evolve and Titanfall were short on content for $60?
I hope this game doesn't get a free pass on the criticism just because it is from the Big N.
Even PvZ Garden Warfare blows this out of the water.
It should be renewed the same as every other game.
EatinOlives
Member
Sure, you can call Smash "unfinished" at launch if that's what floats your boat, but that doesn't make Splatoon's multiplayer not unifinished at launch.
Okay, there's concern and then there's feeding your own narrative with made up conclusions.
We have no indication one way or the other on "what little there is", we only know that there is a single player mode, a multiplayer mode with ranked and unranked gameplay of two modes and five maps, a local co-op mode, and various mini-game activities. Two game modes and five maps aren't actually some enormous wealth of content but you frame them as some sort of messiah that the game should be delayed for in anticipation of their addition.
The reviews will be a review of what is there if there is really "what little there is" in the entire game then they will review that, and two modes + some maps won't substantially impact such a conclusion as they aren't actually adding that much (they are more an addition of variety). They will review the mechanics and gameplay, they will review the single-player, and they will review the multiplayer (online and local). That is what a review should be and shouldn't have to wait around for nebulous content promises but it should be noted as "on the horizon". The bigger concern is probably not content, its probably online functionality. The ability to form parties is great, the ability to not be able to do team-based matchmaking till August is a lot less so.
The game is launching as advertised and should be reviewed as such. They aren't launching the game then, at launch, telling us they forgot some modes until later.
I'm worried single player will be short. Considering the recent Kirby was so short, that the game is the same price as that was in Europe, that single player wasn't even announced when the game was announced, that we only know of 28 levels and one of them is only about 2 minutes long, and that the multiplayer is also surprisingly low on content, I think there's more than enough reason to be worried that it could only be a 3 or 4 hour long single player.
I agree that its a valid criticism, but I still think one is way worse than the other. Patching in features later is more excusable than shipping something that doesnt work and fixing it later.
Well that was kind of the point.
Based on the assumption that the online will work and will be well populated.
Any respectable review process would apply the same rules to all games consistently.
jts
...hate me...
New maps released every couple of weeks for free if I got it right.
You can just wait for the releases to cease and then buy the game for the same $60.
Titanfall lacks a proper singleplayer campaign and has a 86 % average score. I think it did fine review-wise.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Hard to know for sure, but definitely WAAAAAAY more substantial than Titanfall.
From what I've seen, I personally am expecting a fairly fleshed out campaign.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm not a "word expert", I'm just not applying bizarre modifiers to existing words just to excuse Nintendo for doing something everyone else is getting criticized about these days. When a game launches with a visible dearth of content, whether they be maps, modes, etc., and the rest comes out shortly after, people call it "incomplete". They have for years. Don't pretend I'm the only one using that definition.