it's got like 30 levels with bosses and stuff
I don't think we know exactly how substantial it is other than that
How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
it's got like 30 levels with bosses and stuff
I don't think we know exactly how substantial it is other than that
It seems the reviewer for IGN new about the issues at release before reviewing. Either that or they went back in and re-edited the review.
That's the big question. It supposedly has 28 (?) levels. We don't know how long they are, but from a walkthrough of three levels I saw, each one lasted about 5 minutes. That would make the single player maybe 2 1/2 or 3 hours (well, 2 1/4 hours but I added extra for dying more and whatnot) based on that limited info. But I would hope it's at least twice that long and there's just something I/we are missing.
Quadraphonic
Member
Updating review scores is paramount. Pretending that games at launch are static is a fool's errand.
Starfish Hero
Member
My point is that you can't both complain about an unfinished game and then say what's left on the cutting room floor for another game is insignificant, at least not without recognizing that your concept of "unfinished" is relative. Arguing from both sides seems pointless to me, as it simply comes down to what one considers "enough"; you can't really convince someone else that something is worth more or less than what they think it is simply off of your own valuation of the item.
GuessMyUserName
Member
People need to stop saying "Only 5 maps for $60?!"
It's straight out false, $60 gives you what's ready at launch as well as everything that comes out in the coming months after. Additional maps are included with that, 5+k > 5 for any k > 0.
It's straight out false, $60 gives you what's ready at launch as well as everything that comes out in the coming months after. Additional maps are included with that, 5+k > 5 for any k > 0.
Davey Cakes
Member
Review what's there. Not what's eventually expected to be there.
Similar to the reverse idea. I want a review to reflect the content available. If Mario Kart launched without a battle mode and Nintendo made it clear there wouldn't be a battle mode, then the reviewer shouldn't dock points because there is no battle mode.
BUT, since the battle mode is there and isn't particularly great, the reviewer has every right to reflect his or her opinions on that content in the review, so far as giving the game a lesser score if deemed necessary.
This is what asterisks are for.
They can always update the review (not necessarily the score) later on.
This is important because potentially the game could go from "not recommended" to "recommended."
Nintendo is being transparent at least.
Similar to the reverse idea. I want a review to reflect the content available. If Mario Kart launched without a battle mode and Nintendo made it clear there wouldn't be a battle mode, then the reviewer shouldn't dock points because there is no battle mode.
BUT, since the battle mode is there and isn't particularly great, the reviewer has every right to reflect his or her opinions on that content in the review, so far as giving the game a lesser score if deemed necessary.
This is what asterisks are for.
They can always update the review (not necessarily the score) later on.
This is important because potentially the game could go from "not recommended" to "recommended."
Nintendo is being transparent at least.
SolidSnakex
Member
The multiplayer content will likely play a big role in it. I think it'll come down to just how enjoyable those maps are. If they're a bunch of maps on par with something like Facility, then people may not even care about the specific number at launch.
From what we've seen it's a legitimate campaign with its own levels. It even has bosses. So it doesn't seem to be like some multiplayer shooters that just slap some bots into a map and call it a campaign.
All we know is its at least 28 levels/worlds of some unknown length, multiple boss encounters, and one special hidden collectible (ala Mario stars) per level.
You'd also imagine that levels that weren't right at the start of game as per what we've seen so far are actually longer.
Pancakes R Us
Member
This. Review the launch code. Nintendo should delay and include all of this 'free' 'extra' content for a more full game.
Vire
Member
I don't see how this is an acceptable practice.
If any other studio in the world released a half finished game at launch and then just said "well the rest is coming later for free so don't worry!", they'd be scrutinized to hell and back and put through the ringer.
Could you imagine if Call of Duty released with only 5 maps at launch and the rest at a later date? Holy shit... we'd never hear the end of it.
How about you finish the game, give me my $60 worth at day one and then we'll talk. People complain about day one patches that add features... but this is a whole new level of taking advantage of the consumer. The game clearly isn't ready.. it should be delayed.
GuessMyUserName
Member
Screw that, some of us wanna play the game this May.
If you don't you can just wait until the game is complete. Everybody's happy.
If that happens it'll only be because of the lack of content.
Real talk, I really don't think that the absence of one or the other is going to factor into some huge detriment leveled at Splatoon and this worry in general is misplaced to me. If the reviews think that the current "lack of content" works against it in spite of the current quality being of general import, consider your evaluation of necessary quantity be the precedent of when you ought to be buying the game because you know that the content that is "lacking" will be on there for free sooner than later.
Splatoon has already received high praise from several publications during previews. The core foundation seems like it's still there, and what most reviewers will put to the test this time around is the longevity. I'm pretty sure that they'll be able to estimate that from their time with the current offerings.
At worst, expect Killer Instinct-esque reviews, which even that launched with less stuff than Splatoon is offering but was still positive, and nowadays is really coming around in a big way. Even though Nintendo's already promised free content post-launch the game seems like it's offering decent enough incentive to stand on it's own right for what's there to explore at this very moment.
People are more upset that it only has that much at launch for a 60 dollar release when you compare it to other shooters.
Even then you do have to wait for that additional free content and people might move on from the game by then.
GuessMyUserName
Member
That doesn't change the fact that $60 nets you the full experience no matter when you pay. If you think it's low at a given time then don't buy the game. Wait, and later on when the game has an acceptable price/content ratio you can jump in. Let other people have what they want though.
"People might move on"? No, the opposite in fact. Rolling out content gives people a reason to keep coming back to the game.
The only argument I see work is that this method may lead to lower sales because the game is gonna be judged more from the initial experience, and less sales leads to less of an online community. That's all possible, but we'll have to see how much of a problem that becomes and can't really say anything now when we have no idea what to expect from this game sales-wise.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Agreed. It would be one thing if they were charging $40 up front and then the post release content was part of a $20 season pass (or however you want to split that dollar amount between the two), but they're asking for the full $60 up front. Even that strategy would be a little messed up since the full featured version of friend match making isn't coming until later. That's a little closer to an Early Access strategy.
I could at least understand if people were concerned about the game dropping in price during the time it takes for new content to come out, but this is a high-profile first party Nintendo game. When's the last time anyone saw one of those go on sale within the first year of release, let alone the first couple months?
If you think it doesn't have $60 worth of content yet, just wait. If you think it does, go ahead and buy it and start playing early. What's the downside here?
balladofwindfishes
Member
TF2, a 100% multiplayer focuses game, launched with 3 modes (CTF, CP and TC) and 6 maps. And the promise that they weren't done yet... except they were for like 8 months. It was also pretty buggy.
It cost 20 dollars at launch, and was highly praised for its content and gameplay, won many awards and went on to be one of the most well known FPSs of all time.
Splatoon launches at 60 with roughly the same multiplayer content (2 modes, 5 maps), plus a full single player experience, and the promise of more within 4 months, probably won't be very buggy at all, and it's being ridiculed.
Honestly, between the light "soft launch," the free updates and promo cosmetics for an unrelated game, Splatoon might as well be made by Valve lol.
This the same model several incredibly popular PC games have taken in the past and they're still active (TF2, Killing Floor, CSGO, Dota 2).
Can't agree with this. Partially because Season passes are bullshit but partially because as an European consumer who is getting the game for a lower MSRP, the solution here is just lower the standard retail price in the US. Pre-launch season passes are bull and doesn't encourage anyone but the most faithful to return rather than those with passing interest.
The fact that we're getting free content is a good thing and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. Just lower the price in the US.
The game should be reviewed for what it has until lauch.
But for people saying it should be delayed until August, why don't you just buy it in August yourself?
- The game would be completely done by August whether it released now or not. So that wouldn't change.
- You'll be able to find it easily for less than $60 by August so that won't be an issue.
- You'll get the full experience.
- Those who want to play in May can still do it.
- Everyone wins
But for people saying it should be delayed until August, why don't you just buy it in August yourself?
- The game would be completely done by August whether it released now or not. So that wouldn't change.
- You'll be able to find it easily for less than $60 by August so that won't be an issue.
- You'll get the full experience.
- Those who want to play in May can still do it.
- Everyone wins
Vire
Member
Buying the game in this state at launch is telling publishers that you are okay with paying full price for half finished releases. I can just see it now. Warner Brothers releasing the next Batman game... and you get a cliff hanger halfway through the game "find out what happens in the free expansion in December!".
No thanks Nintendo. I was interested in this game because the gameplay looks great, but this news really is disappointing.
$40 dollars would be digestible. $60 and in other countries $70+ is an easy pass considering the content.
The amiibos as a pack of 3 cost $40 Canadian which is also pretty ridiculous to me. $15 seperate.
Could be wrong but, everything that is included for $60 at launch is the same stuff that has been mentioned/previewed for months.
Today they announced some other stuff will be released after launch, and somehow this makes the game (now) incomplete? Were maps cut?
Maybe it was the expectations. Expecting more maps, expecting a lower price...but guess my expectations are the same as before. Not feel the game is unfinished, lacks content; it has the exact same stuff that was known before the Direct.
Today they announced some other stuff will be released after launch, and somehow this makes the game (now) incomplete? Were maps cut?
Maybe it was the expectations. Expecting more maps, expecting a lower price...but guess my expectations are the same as before. Not feel the game is unfinished, lacks content; it has the exact same stuff that was known before the Direct.
Didn't the game you have an avatar of only launch with 7 maps?
Beelzebufo
Banned
So what's the reasoning for the 10+ mode? That one just seems a little condescending lol
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
And as the thread proves the initial value of the game (on launch) for $60 doesn't seem worth it and to top it off players in the US are paying and extra $15 compare to the 40 (45.08 US Dollars) players in the EUR are paying for the exact same content on launch so I expect this to come up.
PC audience is different from console audience though.
Hell Killzone Shadowfall did this and the multiplayer community for the game is shit.
The game is not half finished. The game is launching as has been advertised for months, and they've now added two additional modes down the line. Go read the EDGE interview on this from this months issue, that was written a month ago and had this exact same information in it. More modes were also promised in said EDGE article post-launch, with Turf and Splat on launch.
The game is launching as advertised. You seem to have no concept of what is an actual half-finished game, for that I suggest Steam Early Access.
Its the competitive mode, wouldn't make much sense for it to be unlocked with no one at or above level 10.
GuitarAtomik
Member
The only difference between a season pass strategy as I laid it out, and what they're actually doing is that you're forced to pay all the money up front instead of paying for what you're getting and then seeing if the extra content is worth the extra money.
Free content is great, but do you really think they didn't always intend to include the "free" content in the base game?
jts
...hate me...
Probably didn't help that the game is not good.
I think this comes from Nintendo's data regarding the MK8 community.
Spacejaws
Member
I say do a review on day one as it stands. Mention further content but don't let it cloud the review.
Then later have a shorter article about the enchancements and what they do for the game but don't give it a review. Unfortunately without a number most people won't even read it
Then later have a shorter article about the enchancements and what they do for the game but don't give it a review. Unfortunately without a number most people won't even read it
Why are you comparing online content to what I suppose would be single-player story content?
Besides, it's kinda funny, since that example is exactly how episodic games work. I mean, they literally work like that, cliffhanger and all included. I guess you hate them too?
Then WB would have to announce before the game came out that they will be patching in the second half in December.
Also its not the same, because the modes that is there at launch will be complete. There is no cliffhanger.
Vire
Member
The Last of Us is a story driven shooter whose campaign takes over 15 hours to complete.
There is different value propositions involved obviously. If most of the promotional material for that game had exclusively shown the multiplayer for the game, I would have expected it to be a significant part of the game. They didn't though, they continually showed the single player narrative all throughout pre-release and didn't even announce multiplayer until the 11th hour. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.
With Splatoon, the multiplayer is obviously the clear attraction to the game because it doesn't rely on heavily scripted cinematics or story driven gameplay. The very first thing that they showed for Splatoon was chaotic multiplayer gaming, so there's a level of expectation there that the competitive aspect is a huge focal point to the game. I also highly doubt the single player will be 15 hours in length.
AcademicSaucer
Member
The people saying "beta" are talking like the single player campaign doesnt exist
Maybe we should wait for the game to release first before making those claims.
Never updated reviews almost kept me from buying a few games like Might & Magic X because the reviews were so low (like 50s). Edit: Most of these were Steam user reviews, but my point remains.
It's a lot to ask reviewers to remember to update their reviews, but it's helpful to the consumer when reviews aren't based on outdated info.
Splatoon is an extreme example, but you can only review what is there (or what they let you play). Have a sentence in the last paragraph mentioning future free DLC or something.
Well to be fair, single player campaigns in shooters are generally nothing to write home about and the levels don't look too long in the previews. That being said, I wonder how many people calling this a "beta" and "unfinished game" have kept up with Splatoon outside of this thread
Well people might only be interested in the mutiplayer competent and that's how a lot of people who are into shooters feel.
And it really depends how the single player is.
That example has nothing to do with Splatoon, so I'll just ignore it. Anyway, I still don't see what the problem is. Just wait until the free DLC is released before you buy it if you're that concerned about the game feeling barren without it.
GuessMyUserName
Member
Yeah... I don't have a single problem with your hypothetical scenario? So long as everything is transparent and you know what you're getting when.
Like with Splatoon, wait until the package is desirable to you. This practice is more suitable to some games than others, sure, but no matter what they all work out the same. A $60 game that currently offers 1 chapter of let's say... Uncharted, would not be an enticing package. This would lead many people to just skip it. Later on the game grows, some people start to really want to play it and they jump on the wagon. By the time the game is complete there are countless impressions for people to base their purchase on if they want it or not.
The only person this practice "hurts" is the people producing the game. Sending a game out there costs money, and shipping an undesirable package is to be avoided. Nintendo is still making the full game no matter how many people purchase it, all the costs to Nintendo are the same.
Just curious, is this 'single player mode' more than just match after match against AI bots on the same 5 maps? Maybe with a sprinkling of half-assed story spliced in between?
I mean, This is a multiplayer arena shooter. What kind of campaign is there. I'd expect it to be similar to Ttanfall's 'campaign'.
Vire
Member
Say what?
With episodic gaming, you are getting charged usually a discounted price of $15-$20 a piece for each episode... not an upfront full price of $60 on day one with nothing to show for it.
It's not comparable at all.
Shipment cycles can't permit for a game to be in development forever. Putting out a few maps during June as a free post-launch content is not a big deal and is not worth delaying a game for at least a month to do (during the summer period death wish no less), which is to say nothing about having to integrate the remainder of the "major updates" that would put the game back at least as far as Fall, which is far from the most optimal release schedule in terms of a business perspective.
The only thing buying this at launch is telling publishers is that it's okay to buy into a game that has a fruitful (free!) post-release schedule and is dependent on a thriving community. Just like TF2. It's not an excuse to cut out critical game missing features, even if omitting private friend lobbies at launch is a dumb thing to do (although this would be something that only Nintendo would be dumb enough to omit). Your Batman analogy is flawed.
It is literally a platforming campaign with gimmicks akin to Galaxy and the Sunshine bonus levels, as well as full-scaled bosses that have puzzle elements to them.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
This is another prime example of why static magazine-era reviews of constantly updated games need to die. Do a "launch impressions" piece, then more separate writeups as content is added. The website gets more clicks, the readers are more informed. Win-win.