Natureboy99
Banned
This. I don't care if they hand out scores day 1 or have a rolling score over time, so long as they are consistent for all games.
How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
This. I don't care if they hand out scores day 1 or have a rolling score over time, so long as they are consistent for all games.
LordBaztion
Member
It seems they decided to release an incomplete game, they should be reviewed like that.
Same here. Well, actually, there was one brush that seemed really unfinished in a screenshot (its ink trail didn't follow the brush correctly at all). But I can't imagine that since E3 year they've really only finished 4 more maps.
Damn, guess that settles that then. Hopefully it's available like the same weekend as launch or something.
What's hilarious is making the chart reminded me of that damn Watchdogs chart, something I'd never think of happening to a Nintendo game.
There's also the retailer exclusive Splatoon Smash Bros costumes, which also were a bit ambiguous as to if they'll be ready at Splatoon's launch or if they'll be finished in the summer.
well their transparency about everything is very Nintendo, the content rollout is very not-Nintendo
Stallion Dan
Member
Judge what you play, not what is promised.
Fiercedeity
Banned
Say it's an incomplete game, give it a low score and move on.
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
No exceptions! Titanfall and Driveclub got judged for their lack of online content in their reviews and Splatoon is no exception to this criticism.
2 game modes. The second one requires a certain number of players reach level 10 to unlock it though (and that you reach level 10 to play in that mode), so it will probably be available within 48 hours of launch.
Even if you could do Splat Zones as soon as you hit level 10, it wouldn't matter, because there'd be no one to play with at first.
OneEyeTwoHead
Banned
Splatoon doesn't deserve any special treatment, lol. It's like Nintendo fans are creating excuses for the review scores before it even comes out. I'm not saying you in particular, but in general you can sort of get that feeling already.
And hey, it isn't just Nintendo fans that do that--let us not forget the Uncharted 2 era.
And hey, it isn't just Nintendo fans that do that--let us not forget the Uncharted 2 era.
I don't think so.
This game launches with a complete 3D platformer single-player, local multi-mode, and a working (supposedly) multiplayer mode, sporting casual and ranked modes, with a lapse in overall raw map count and mode types.
That seems largely nominal for Nintendo, especially given their general approach to multiplayer.
What's the issue? Reviewers should review the game as it stands with the caveat that a large amount of post-release content is coming. Don't understand the difference between this and the majority of other titles that launch with known post-release content?
Please, like anyone needs to imagine. How many times have publishers released games in what could only be described as beta state in the last 18 months, with season passes and day one DLC on top? Hell, with Ubisoft it's almost assured that their AAA games are unfinished on day 1 lately.
At least in this game's case we can be reasonably confident that it will be released in a working state (being published by Nintendo), and the additional 8 maps and modes are free updates.
mnz said:
Please, like anyone needs to imagine. How many times have publishers released games in what could only be described as beta state in the last 18 months, with season passes and day one DLC on top? Hell, with Ubisoft it's almost assured that their AAA games are unfinished on day 1 lately.
At least in this game's case we can be reasonably confident that it will be released in a working state (being published by Nintendo), and the additional 8 maps and modes are free updates.
Just review it normally day 1. I don't think there's a significant number of potential buyers eagerly anticipating purchasing advice for this particular game, so unless reviews are abysmal the scores won't matter. I'm predicting a metascore of 75-85, and upset people everywhere for whatever reason, so basically the same as every other game.
SatoAilDarko
Member
Review what's on disc.
Though with how much content is getting added for free (more maps and modes than it debuts with) a second review layer this year would be warranted.
They really should have dropped the price to at least $50 if they are launching with 5 maps and two modes.
Though with how much content is getting added for free (more maps and modes than it debuts with) a second review layer this year would be warranted.
They really should have dropped the price to at least $50 if they are launching with 5 maps and two modes.
Alcoholikaust
Member
review game based on whats available when it comes out-end of story.
OneEyeTwoHead
Banned
The idea of buying the game, but then having to wait until August to play on the same team with friends is...man I dunno.
Guessing here a bit. Wonder if they wanted to roll it out piecemeal to allow them time to learn how to manage this type of online game? This is not the usual Nintendo type of game and maybe they perhaps want to make sure things are solid before they bring in all the pieces. Though I wish they would say that.
At least the content is not extra money and they are telling you that is part of your purchase. I get the negative but Nintendo has been good with the Mario Cart DLC.
More importantly the game play, though original, is not really making me want to play. The squid thing, while very Japanese (though they eat them), it is not a type of character I would like to play with inking the world. But we'll see...demo is downloading...
At least the content is not extra money and they are telling you that is part of your purchase. I get the negative but Nintendo has been good with the Mario Cart DLC.
More importantly the game play, though original, is not really making me want to play. The squid thing, while very Japanese (though they eat them), it is not a type of character I would like to play with inking the world. But we'll see...demo is downloading...
I think they normally would but the Wii U being the Wii U kind of forces Nintendo's hand on these things
I keep bringing up Smash for Wii U but I honestly think that game would have been delayed on a console that was actually selling well. since it was a Wii U game they absolutely had to hit that November date which left them to leave stuff out to be patched in later.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
Am I the only one who kinda likes the way they're rolling this game out? Slowly releasing free new maps and modes over time will give people a reason to keep coming back so the community doesn't die out quickly. I know I usually play games for a week or two then put them down. This will probably get me to play it for longer.
GuessMyUserName
Member
I'm confused, are people wanting the game to be delayed? I'm glad I get to play it sooner, I can't wait. The coming maps are all free so I have no issues at all, if you don't think the current product is worth it yet you can still wait and pick it up later with the same price.
The only "problem" is that reviewers don't care about games after they release, so the game will be eternally judged by its initial package... but that doesn't mean anything for me as a player who keeps up to date on the news myself.
Yup I'm with you. Of course, the key being that it's still all free. Releasing an unfinished game and charging for the rest is despicable, but rolling out content as they're being made? Cool beans, that's how countless MMOs work, and you're right it does breath new life back into old games.
The only "problem" is that reviewers don't care about games after they release, so the game will be eternally judged by its initial package... but that doesn't mean anything for me as a player who keeps up to date on the news myself.
Yup I'm with you. Of course, the key being that it's still all free. Releasing an unfinished game and charging for the rest is despicable, but rolling out content as they're being made? Cool beans, that's how countless MMOs work, and you're right it does breath new life back into old games.
Ah, well that still seems very odd. If review sites did post day one reviews, I would also expect there to be a "final" review score attached below the initial review once all the extras are added in, provided they are free with purchase of the main game.
Hey, it worked for TF2.
Fbh
Member
Reviews the content that's available at the time of them writing the review. It's that simple.
Nintendo fans will find a way to justify it but if Nintendo wants to released an unfinished game then it's their choice and they shouldn't get special treatment. I'm sure EA wouldn't get a pass if they decided to release Battlefront with 5 maps and one game mode with the promise of content updates during the next few months
If sites later find that the extra content has a big impact on the quality of the game then they are allways free to update their reviews, make a new review of the extra content or just write an article to about it.
TF2 was $50 as part of pack including other games.
And $30-$20 (don't remember) as a standalone title
Nintendo fans will find a way to justify it but if Nintendo wants to released an unfinished game then it's their choice and they shouldn't get special treatment. I'm sure EA wouldn't get a pass if they decided to release Battlefront with 5 maps and one game mode with the promise of content updates during the next few months
If sites later find that the extra content has a big impact on the quality of the game then they are allways free to update their reviews, make a new review of the extra content or just write an article to about it.
TF2 was $50 as part of pack including other games.
And $30-$20 (don't remember) as a standalone title
No one would buy said hypothetical game.
Said hypothetical game does not exist, however.
They're rolling it out like a badly run F2P game and charging people $60 for it. You'd need to have Nintendo Stockholm Syndrome to actually like it.
Splatoon has a full single-player campaign, you don't think that makes it a smidge different than games that are wholly dependent on their online functionality?
5 maps, two modes, one ~30 level single player campaign with bosses/unlockable secrets, a couple of minigames, droves of customization options and weapons and the promise of a regular free content on a bi-weekly average basis with at least one major update providing bigger content.
"Why would anyone buy that"?
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
Let's face it the only reason this topic came up was because we known that the reviews are to going to burn it for the lack of online content on top of being unable to communicate with others players,make custom parties (something they already voiced displeasure toeards) and asking $60 dollars for it instead of matching the EU price.
Give War A Chance
Member
Review what they ship to the reviewers to review... and that's it.
No real reason for all these re-reviews and stuff. For the people that are going to buy it down the line, they've got Twitch, gamer reviewers, etc, etc. to help decide their purchases with. They don't need a review that has been re-reviewed at a later date. At launch, all you've got is the videos you've seen, interviews, and reviews.
No real reason for all these re-reviews and stuff. For the people that are going to buy it down the line, they've got Twitch, gamer reviewers, etc, etc. to help decide their purchases with. They don't need a review that has been re-reviewed at a later date. At launch, all you've got is the videos you've seen, interviews, and reviews.
Nintendo is launching an incredibly barebones game, and that's unfortunate. I love the idea of free post-launch content, a'la Driveclub, but it's not necessarily an excuse if the base game doesn't have much content at all. Press needs to review the game as it is at launch. I am all for them updating reviews as more content rolls out, though.
Review the game on merit, not potential. Nothing says you're a mouthpiece for marketing like laying out their DLC strategy like this morning's Nintendo Direct in a review for a shipping game. Nintendo's already held at least two press events this year... think one was the other day ... With all the paintball guns and cupcakes, they want to convince the press that it's good.
I donno. One of my worries is that we still have no idea how long or how replayable the campaign is. We know there's things to look for in each level, and that there are at least 28 levels-but we don't know how long those levels are or anything.
It could be only a couple of hours, but that'd be ridiculous. Then again, I thought launching a $60 shooter in 2015 with less than 10 maps would also be ridiculous.
I'm buying this game for the single player to be honest. looks like an extension of the Mario Galaxy games.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
$60 for a full single player campaign, 5 maps, 2 online modes, and it essentially comes with a free season pass that other companies would've charged $30 or more for.
Your post is like buying a season of an episodic game and then complaining that you only got the first episode right off the bat.
Postpone the review until all which is intended as playable in the standard game is available for play.
These are video game reviews. They demand a protracted and nuanced approach so that the critiques and opinions stated in them are fully substantiated. The alternative of reviewing the game with what's only playable at launch turns the work into a rushed product of its own and serves little purpose beyond a glorified advertisement with a veneer of objectivity on the surface, and who really wants that?
These are video game reviews. They demand a protracted and nuanced approach so that the critiques and opinions stated in them are fully substantiated. The alternative of reviewing the game with what's only playable at launch turns the work into a rushed product of its own and serves little purpose beyond a glorified advertisement with a veneer of objectivity on the surface, and who really wants that?
MisterR
Member
I think you're the only one. That would be a fine strategy if it wasn't so bare bones in multiplayer at release.
I think every shooter should have a separate multiplayer and singleplayer review, because those often feels like entirely different games and are even sometimes handled by different developers.
Seems fairer to me. A fantastic multiplayer shoudnt be scored lower because of a crap campaign and the other way around.
Seems fairer to me. A fantastic multiplayer shoudnt be scored lower because of a crap campaign and the other way around.
People conveniently leave out the single player campaign when they complain about this coming out with out the extra online stuff
As usual, 1st post is right.
And frankly, waiting months to launch basic features like groups and private lobbies is a dumb strategy. Not to even mention the modes locked behind fucking amiibos, making it the worst day one DLC scheme ever.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It reminds me of PC releases actually, and it works there. Valve does this stuff with like, every multiplayer release they've ever put out. 2 years since release, and Dota 2 still doesn't have all the heroes, for example. TF2 launched with 3 modes and 6 maps and the promise of more later. Even hats in an entirely unrelated game for pre-ordering is right up Valve's alley lol.
I guess people have been burned by incomplete, buggy, rushed console releases too many times that they have seething anger for a system that's worked fine for PC games to make them last way past their expected life.