Support NeoGAF

[thefro]

From the Direct today, we know that at launch:
- There will only be 5 maps
- 1 mode will be available (Turf War), with Splat Zones unlocking very shortly after launch once there's enough Level 10+ players
- The game will be updated throughout the Summer with several more maps, 2 more MP modes, more clothes and weapons, various events etc.
- You can join matches with friends at launch, but teams are randomized. Matchmaking with friends where you can have a specific Team A v.s. Team B, and pick a specific mode/map won't be out until the August update.

I'm assuming the Treehouse will let them demo Splat Zones with their review copies, but we still don't know how the network, etc is going to hold up once the game launches.

The gaming press should be able to review the single player campaign adequately pre-launch but it's hard for me to see how they can give the game a definitive score when so much rests on the online mode of this game. The lack of content there at launch should be addressed by August if Nintendo lives up to what they promised in the direct.

 

[Massa]

They should play what's available and give their thoughts accordingly.

 

[phanphare]

review what's available at launch and be done with it

no updated review scores or any of those shenanigans

 

[bigkrev]

The same way every game with DLC maps is handled?

 

[Starfish Hero]

What did they do with GTA Online? It's similar to that if I'm not mistaken.

 

[cheesekao]

Same as they always have. If the base game gets its score docked because of the lack of content then nobody but Nintendo is at fault.

 

[dragonflys545]

5 Maps only when it launches?

 

[backlot]

Live score updates every hour on the hour.

 

[Ferr986]

- 1 mode will be available (Turf War), with Splat Zones unlocking very shortly after launch once there's another Level 10+ players

huh? whats the reasoning behind this?

 

[James Scott]

I wonder if they'll get to play Turf war. They were able to play them during previews.
It would suck for consumers if they score it less for lack of content when more content is being added soon, but we'll see. Maybe a review in progress.

 

[LegalEagleMike]

wait how much does this game cost?

 

[Crayolan]

They judge the base game, and maybe if they're feeling generous, they do an update in August. There's not much more they can do.

wait how much does this game cost?

$60.

Slightly less in Europe though.

 

[DaBoss]

Review what they can. They're free to update their reviews if they wish to, but they aren't obligated to.

Live score updates every 4 hours on the hour.

FTFY

 

[jamesinclair]

If they're charging full price at launch and missing half the features they deserve to be roasted.

The review is supposed to help you make a decision on purchase. OP makes it sound like the best decision is to wait for the bargain bin.

I'm sad Nintendo has turned into this

 

[Zombie James]

Sounds like they're launching an unfinished game to me.

 

[JoeM86]

huh? whats the reasoning behind this?

So players don't get steamrolled straight out

 

[gigantor21]

They should review it as it is from the day Nintendo puts it on sale.

If they think it's worth buying in such a state, then that's the state it should be judged.

Presumably they review what's there when it comes out and if they want to do another article about the game's evolution over time, they will, but presumably that will be very few sites.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[evilromero]

Review what is on the disc. Simple.

 

[HUELEN10]

wait how much does this game cost?

1/3rd more in the Americas than it does in Europe.

Expect this to reflect in reviews.

 

[Nirolak]

The people who go in late on service games are less likely to need reviews since they are presumably following updates in the first place, and reviews get very little traffic after the first week.

Presumably they review what's there when it comes out and if they want to do another article about the game's evolution over time, they will, but presumably that will be very few sites.

 

[Starfish Hero]

huh? whats the reasoning behind this?

Ranked battles have a level limit, so there won't be enough people right at launch to fill a game lobby reliably. It doesn't sound like the turnaround time for the unlock will be that long (ie like a day or so)

 

[NotLiquid]

Review what's there. There's enough content to go by for now with a pretty large single player portion, a wealth of customization options and five multiplayer maps, the quantity of those which isn't necessarily the boon of a multiplayer game as much as the dynamic. If the base game is fun to them, they can make an estimation on whether the free content will change their opinion of the game being enjoyable, but for the most of the part I don't think that any of the additions are going to change the base impressions people will have of the game on a surface level.

Chances are since the review codes are special copies, they probably have Splat Zones/ranked modes unlocked by default (and most of the press got to play these regardless at events).

 

[SuomiDude]

$60.

Slightly less in Europe though.

I think it's round 40€ here, with the lowest price being 37€, the Amiibo bundle for 47€ for example.

 

[Myggen]

They should play what's available and give their thoughts accordingly.

Yup.

 

[Ferr986]

Ranked battles have a level limit, so there won't be enough people right at launch to fill a game lobby reliably. It doesn't sound like the turnaround time for the unlock will be that long (ie like a day or so)

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[Vena]

Review what's on the disc: the mechanics, the single-player, and the multi-player.

There is no actual missing gameplay element, more modes and maps will be added as well as team-based matchmaking.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Call it an "unfinished game" or something and not recommend a purchase until more modes are out? Or really long RIPs.

 

[adamantypants]

Games should always be reviewed based on their content on release day. Never updated.

 

[Felix Lighter]

At first I was under the impression that this was a case of Nintendo trying to control online multiplayer of their game far too much but the matchmaking exclusions make it seem like the game just isn't done yet. Seems like a disastrous way to introduce a new IP.

 

[SummitAve]

It doesn't really matter. It would take a serious long term test to properly review any new online multiplayer game/mode so I just take that into account.

 

[Welfare]

If that is what's out at launch, I hope they do review it full so people know a portion of the multiplayer won't be there at launch.

 

[Vena]

If that is what's out at launch, I hope they do review it full so people know a portion of the multiplayer won't be there at launch.

Most of the multiplayer is on the disc.

 

[The End]

I'd imagine we'll see something like what polygon does

Give it a 7.5 at launch for having really limited online play

Update it to an 8.5/9 or whatever in august when it's actually done

makes it easy for me, i'll wait til the game is finished

 

[NateDrake]

Review the core game offered on the disc. The option to mention what is to come in the August update could be done.

 

[HUELEN10]

I am surprised that so many people will buy this solely for online play. Truthfully, I don't know much about the review scene for online centric titles.

 

[Hatchtag]

Most of the multiplayer is on the disc.

With no way of playing it until a later date. If the game feels content light at launch, then it feels content light at launch.

 

[SmithnCo]

Review what's there at launch. That's what people will be buying.

 

[enzo_gt]

Like every other game, reviews should be updated when significant changes are made. I mean, a review that is valuable for only the day of release isn't value in a day and age where games are treated as services, and where multiplayer is constantly in flux because it's impossible to evaluate accurately beforehand or at all until weeks out (and this isn't a recent thing, it's always been that way).

The strong feelings towards never updating reviews has always been puzzling for me, like it's completely divorced from the context and most of all the idea of the review actually doing its job.

 

[El Odio]

Damn. I had no idea so much was being held back in this game. Makes me a bit happy I haven't preordered yet.

 

[pinkurocket]

Review the game and how well the mechanics and gameplay work for what's available, and keep in mind the upcoming modes when forming the conclusion and end-score. I guess.

 

[Jonneh3003]

Review the core gameplay and how fun it is, as you should any game.

 

[Circinus]

Review what's available to consumers at launch and update the review over time as the game gets content updates.

(no they don't need to change the score after an update, the most important thing it the actual content; the text; the words that describe the reviewer's experience with the game. I think updating the review is important, because the review should be reflective for how the game's in its most current state, not how it was at launch. It isn't like people consult reviews just at the launch of a game and only purchase games on launch day)

 

[GustyGardens]

If that is what's out at launch, I hope they do review it full so people know a portion of the multiplayer won't be there at launch.

The same could be said for any game in the market, though. Dragon Age got a multiplayer update this week. Should the reviews have scored it lower because it wasn't there at launch? What about Batman Arkham Knight? That game has a full line up of DLC and the game is still a year from releasing.

The base game of Splatoon is there, we assumed a lot about what should be included, but should reviews reflect our assumptions? Not really. Reviews should always reflect the product as it is shipped to consumers. DLC shouldn't be a factor. That being said, I don't mind if a reviewer were to point out the lack of friend matches at launch.

 

[Somnid]

It's a good question. The one and done review model simply does not work for service games and Splatoon is hardly the only example. I think a suitable idea is reviews as a service, scores don't make sense but it's not hard to append to and alter a piece of text.

 

[RoboPlato]

It seems odd that they would release it like this instead of just delaying it until the rest of the content is ready. Half the maps and most of the modes not being available at launch seems very different to me than simply a couple maps added here and there.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

You play what's available and review it, like always.

 

[Nirolak]

It seems odd that they would release it like this instead of just delaying it until the rest of the content is ready. Half the maps and most of the modes not being available at launch seems very different to me than simply a couple maps added here and there.

I'm guessing they want to slip in before the Fall shooter window and waiting would push their release to September.

 

[Daffy Duck]

That seems like a poor launch feature set.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The gaming press should be able to review the single player campaign adequately pre-launch but it's hard for me to see how they can give the game a definitive score when so much rests on the online mode of this game. The lack of content there at launch should be addressed by August if Nintendo lives up to what they promised in the direct.

The score isn't the only part of the review. The reviewer also has to write words and stuff and that shouldn't have this giant [WIP] next to it until some arbitrary date passes post-launch where you wave a wand and say 'ok NOW the game is reviewable.'

 

[spekkeh]

Give impressions and do the review in August.