Yeah, I remember ProJared's negative preview of Sonic Boom and people trying to rationalize it saying he was the outlier lol.
How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
Yeah, I remember ProJared's negative preview of Sonic Boom and people trying to rationalize it saying he was the outlier lol.
DOWN
Banned
This is like a nonsense budgeting answer. The publication who gave the original review has the same interest in providing an updated one. No "limited resource" concern fits here.
That's not what reviews are for. They are for customers, so if a game is bad, the review lets them know and the sales will suffer. If it's fixed later, the initial damage is done and the truth about the evolution of the game is available. I should find a 5/10 review for Driveclub saying there are online mode problems I won't find at all if I were really interested in buying today. It's suffered for the original problems, the original score can be noted, but when I Google reviews, I should see accurate info in them for any publication that followed the updates like Polygon does.
It's not defending. This didn't suddenly become a smart way to extend the life of the game because Nintendo came up with it.
Hero Prinny
Member
they should review whats there and honestly its not much for the price they want. the direct pretty much confirmed that i won't be buying it anytime soon, has far too little content for $60. $40 maybe, and thats a huge maybe, but $60?! lol, yea right.
Kurt Angle
Member
5 maps at 60$
only 12$ a map
thats only 10 cheese burgers guys
#value
only 12$ a map
thats only 10 cheese burgers guys
#value
GuessMyUserName
Member
Can someone please explain how this is bad? I still don't get it.
Who is this negatively impacting? How?
Who is this negatively impacting? How?
You could argue that Nintendo is trying to sell the game before it's complete. A lot of people don't like that idea and the argument does hold some water here. The people negatively impacted would be those who believe in Nintendo's promises and then are given something below expectations. Of course, we aren't at that point yet, nor does Nintendo have a history of this behavior.
To be fair, the CoD Ghosts demo had three maps, four multiplayer modes...day one. That's certainly in the ballpark...
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
It makes no sense because its the truth. Its 2 sides bruh dont be playing favoritism.
balladofwindfishes
Member
And TF2 launched with 6 maps and 3 game modes, 2 of which were just modified versions of each other, with the promise of more on the way, which came out far later than Splatoons content release schedule. For all we know, we could be getting a new map every week.
Also there's an entire single player element that apparently doesn't exist for people on this thread
Kurt Angle
Member
TF2 launched along with Half-Life 2 Episde 1 and Portal all for $60. Comparing Splatoon to The Orange Box just makes Splatoon look worse.
Orange box contained a license for HL2, HL2:e1, HL2:e2, Portal, and TF2. Not really the release I'd want to play the content measuring game with. I don't know what people are thinking, but I feel this whole thread is getting derailed.
Plus TF2 stand alone was $20.
EatinOlives
Member
People are making the most obtuse mental gymnastics to excuse Nintendo. "Launching an unfinished game is fine because the updates are free!" and "It's not unfinished because it's bug-free!" are the two most laughable excuses. The second, especially. So a game can be nothing but the main menu but because it's bug free then suddenly it's "feature complete". And "Look! I found a game that had XYZ amount of maps! Therefore who cares!", conveniently ignoring that said games are actually priced accordingly.
Had this been Activision, EA, or Ubi people would be fucking screeching. But over on this side of the gaming industry it's just another day of "It's OK When Nintendo Does It!!™"
It's hard to even comment on it because it happens so often. But yes, remember when Star Wars was rumored to launch with 8 maps and the world was going to end?
So this is really just the age-old question, for each individual, of "will I be an early adopter of this thing that I'm interested in to some degree", right?
The value proposition may well change favorably for the average consumer over time. So it just comes down to whether or not you'll feel like you're getting a reasonable value at launch or waiting for it to satisfy your personal valuation metrics over time. Right?
I don't see that an unfinished game is being released, here. And for those who do feel that way, well at least there is fair transparency about what is planned and what is on offer initially, right?
I'm still in day one, because it seems to be in line with what has been disclosed before this direct, and I had my pre-order in with amazon a while back. Because it looks like fun.
It looks to me like, even if I were to die the day before the August update happens, I would still most likely have been happy with the game and would have been playing it more than enough to have justified my day one purchase.
Other people can wait. At least let's see what reviewers have to say about the package that will actually be on offer day one, because I think it is rather difficult for any of us who have not had access to that package to guesstimate the actual value proposition in play here.
Right?
The value proposition may well change favorably for the average consumer over time. So it just comes down to whether or not you'll feel like you're getting a reasonable value at launch or waiting for it to satisfy your personal valuation metrics over time. Right?
I don't see that an unfinished game is being released, here. And for those who do feel that way, well at least there is fair transparency about what is planned and what is on offer initially, right?
I'm still in day one, because it seems to be in line with what has been disclosed before this direct, and I had my pre-order in with amazon a while back. Because it looks like fun.
It looks to me like, even if I were to die the day before the August update happens, I would still most likely have been happy with the game and would have been playing it more than enough to have justified my day one purchase.
Other people can wait. At least let's see what reviewers have to say about the package that will actually be on offer day one, because I think it is rather difficult for any of us who have not had access to that package to guesstimate the actual value proposition in play here.
Right?
EatinOlives
Member
Please don't tell me you're making comparisons with rumors that weren't even true. That would really take the cake.
plebegamer
Banned
How's this any different than Batman Arkham Knight with its $40 of DLC?
Why not look at it as a $20 game with a $40 DLC season pass if it helps you sleep better? Or just not by it until all the content is out?
As for me, I see it as an August pre-order that I get early access to.
How long do you think it would take to unlock the second game mode?
Why not look at it as a $20 game with a $40 DLC season pass if it helps you sleep better? Or just not by it until all the content is out?
As for me, I see it as an August pre-order that I get early access to.
How long do you think it would take to unlock the second game mode?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I don't think its "wrong" or a "bad thing to do" or anything though, but I do think its dumb. I do think its being rushed out, and I think its really depending on the online community lasting that long on the barebones offering
If you really can't comprehend the difference between "unfinished" and "not enough content for your liking" then kindly do me a favor and stop insulting everyone not on your side with such drooling glee. Unfinished means that the game was sold not as advertised at launch. Nintendo has not done that here. Everything that has appeared at launch has been known for months now. The argument here is whether or not the game, at base launch, is enough to justify its $60 price tag. Every update the game receives is not finishing an incomplete game, it's more content added to a complete game. It. is. complete.
I've said that in my very first post. I think that reviewers should judge it on its own merits. I have the apparently wrong opinion that the content we have is enough for $60 (and I swear to everything if you continue that "well you're just a shill" bullcrap you've been spouting...) but we have known the full product for months now. If you don't think that is enough for $60, then you don't think the finished product is worth $60. It does NOT mean the game is incomplete.
EatinOlives
Member
Considering you're the one who insisted that "to be patched later" somehow "implied" that a game "has bugs" earlier in the thread, I doubt you're being exactly impartial here. It's not like you haven't been re-appropriating words to your liking the whole thread.
Sure, you can call a game "complete" in your own pocket dimension if you want to feel better about Nintendo releasing a multiplayer game with five maps. That doesn't magically mean everyone has to adhere to your arbitrary standards of what constitutes a complete game. If I advertise a game as having 5 maps for $60 and you trip over yourself as you call it "transparent!" to buy a game that's on you, but don't go around trying to convince everyone else that it's the industry standard and that nobody has complained about that before.
I'd love to hear all these other "complete" games that have "now added the ability to choose your team with friend matches!" in the patch ones weeks after launch.
You really think a majority of people who like Nintendo games go over into other topics just to bitch about things? There are probably a few, but using that "it's ok when nintendo does it" to attack fans of nintendo games just cause they think something isn't all that bad is really shitty. I mean you can spend your time looking people up if you want, but you'd probably be surprised that there isn't all that much crossover between those who rampantly outrage about stuff like this in other game topics and then defend stuff in these topics.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm calling a double standard when I'm seeing it. Nobody would be defending this practice had it been any other major company in this same position, and frankly if we applied even half of the excuses people are applying here nobody would be "right" to be complaining about anything in any other game no matter how little content a game launched with.
"It's OK when Nintendo does it!" Isn't an attack on Nintendo fans, as I'm a Nintendo fan myself. It's an attack on bizarre mental gymnastics some people pull to excuse them of things that they shouldn't be excused about. No matter how backwards they do things there's always going to be a pocket of fans who will figure out a way to claim it's secretly an amazing feature. Back in the Wii days people gloated about the console's lack of title patch updates for games. "Nintendo doesn't NEED to rely on these patches! They get it right the first time!!!" Now it's adamant defending of them doing the complete opposite.
?_?
I mean, by all technicalities, this game wouldn't need patches to actually work come launch as far as we're aware. It would be missing some down-the-road options, but its shipping with everything as advertised. If you don't think that justifies 60$ or 40Euro, or if you think the game was rushed to completion, then that's your prerogative as a consumer to say "No", but no one is shipping you an incomplete "Not as Advertised" game.
In fact no game that they have launched in as of so far has actually needed patching to function as advertised as far as I am aware.
The only person in need of joining the Olympics is you, really.
I mean, not really unless they believe that the re-review is going to generate enough traffic for their site to justify the opportunity cost of not having a reviewer cover something else new (or something else entirely, like Gamescom or Pax Prime which are both taking place in August).
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Free support is excellent irrespective of arguments, but games should be reviewed and scored on what they have, not what they don't, as that is how you measure value. If value is subjectively low at launch, then so be it.
How do you know that though? I'm sure you might find one or 2 people in this topic defending that have double standards, but many of us actually wouldn't have a problem with it no matter the company. For me I want to see how meaty and fun the gameplay looks for the Single Player before I start making judgement on the games content being worth the asking price. Sure they only have 6 maps right now at launch, but they do plan to expand later, it's really short and lacking for a multiplayer mode, but many forget that this game has a single player mode, and what they showed looked to be an actual game and not just some random mutliplayer match against bots like some other games have done. It's just that we truly don't know if this game is worth the price or not til we know more about the single player. It's a shame they've pretty much focused all the marketing on the multiplayer, cause the time they did show the single player looked great.
EDGE had some nice words on it being like Galaxy, but the question is more about how much of it there is...
No one has really stepped forth and said: "The game has X levels and they will take Y hours!"
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WITH THE CONDESCENDING "I'M SUPERIOR TO YOU" ATTITUDE AND GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE!
We are talking about the worth of a video game at launch. Now, it may come to you as a shock but people have different values of what they will pay for an individual product than others. It's basic economics. There is no universal standard for an individual person. A person who wouldn't even look at a certain game that costs $60 might possibly by a game at around $50. Conversely, a person might have been willing to spend more than $90 for the same product. This number this "potential revenue" varies from specific person to specific game. For instance, I bought TF2 at launch despite its barebones launch because I thought it was worth it. Conversely I have yet to buy the Arkham games because they don't appeal to me despite the dearth of content each game in that series has. But, now matter what we think of the quality of the launch, the game is finished at launch. It is ready to be sold in stores according to the whims of developers. That, by the very definition, is a finished product.
The difference between you and me isn't that I'm some dull brained idiot who will suck the cock out of Iwata any day while you are such a beautiful specimen that God himself would not block your path but rather that you and I have a different opinion on what this game is worth. I think the game is worth at launch the full price. I think that everything described is designed to guarantee that randoms will always be ready at launch. I think the Single Player stuff we saw at the beginning already fully justifies the $60 price tag. You apparently don't think the game is worth the mud on the soles of your feet. And that's perfectly fine. You aren't entitled to get the game. You're not entitled to like the game. The fact that you act like anyone who does want the game at launch is somehow mentally handicapped IS more insulting and is what I take the most offense from. Not the fact that you don't want this game.
And as for you going on about "other games", you're once again assuming "what I think isn't worth my time isn't worth anybody's time and fuck all that think otherwise". Some people thought that Arkham Knight's $40 Season Pass was completely worth it. Some people clearly thought otherwise. Some people think Killer Instict at launch was worth it. Others don't. People have different opinions on what price they should pay for a game. That doesn't suddenly demean the people who would buy it at the more expensive price.
Honestly I really like the constant flow of content that just comes like that. Driveclub Season Pass has been pretty damn great, as well as the Mario Kart 8 pass and Mario Gold 3DS pass (tons of new courses), Killer Instict was decent as well. I mean yeah it's obvious much of the reason here for Splatoon is due to the game needing to get out, but they have been transparent at least on everything we are still going to get. I do wish they add more social options eventually though, as well as more game modes. But it's not like the game is just the multiplayer, which still makes me think that Nintendo should be showing it off more and advertising it more, cause for many it just doesn't seem like it exists.
Nintendo has a great track record for delivering value so people are giving them their well deserved benefit of the doubt.
It makes sense to roll maps out incrementally with multiplayer games at any volume. Been through this long enough to see the benefits. Nintendo is experimenting with this stuff and they are doing it confidently and staying in for the long haul, I'm giving them a break on this one, for now at least.
Reviewers should see if they are having a good time and take them at their word as far as getting kick-ass DLC, no reason not to.
It makes sense to roll maps out incrementally with multiplayer games at any volume. Been through this long enough to see the benefits. Nintendo is experimenting with this stuff and they are doing it confidently and staying in for the long haul, I'm giving them a break on this one, for now at least.
Reviewers should see if they are having a good time and take them at their word as far as getting kick-ass DLC, no reason not to.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
The core game looks like a 9 to me but I could see some docking it because of the lack of initial features.
While I don't live by reviews, this is one of the rare times where I don't care at all what they give this game.
I will see how it plays tomorrow but I can kind of tell and could for a while.
While I don't live by reviews, this is one of the rare times where I don't care at all what they give this game.
I will see how it plays tomorrow but I can kind of tell and could for a while.
EatinOlives
Member
There's certainly a disconnect here. Is launching a game with too few content just fine so long as we "advertise it"?
I mean you said as much pretty directly with the bolded section. We can only call the game "incomplete" if it's "not as advertised".
It should be pretty obvious that in terms of software engineering that makes absolutely no sense. "Oh I told my client the only functionality is a log-in screen, but that's OK, it's not feature incomplete because I was transparent about that".
I think the game looks amazing and I'm looking forward to it. I'm incidentally not buying it day 1 due to simply not having the time to play it, but had I actually had the freetime I would've definitely not bought it at launch after learning this.
I think people can choose to do whatever they want with their money. If they want to play any game with any amount of content at any price it's fine by me, because their anticipation of a title and excitement of playing it as soon as possible factors into that "is it worth it?" question.
My true issue is the fact that, for all intents and purposes, this is a game that isn't launching in the way that Nintendo is envisioning, and people are defending it. It's one thing to be OK with it, but it's another to defend it and be adamant about it by applying nonsense logic. There's no way that I'll be convinced that a game is "feature complete" so long as it's advertised about how little content it has, no matter how little content it has (as I mentioned, the ability to choose your team in a friend's game is coming later i a patch). Some of this functionality and content promised later is so basic it just can't be called finished.
Again, no problem with buying unfinished games. Early Access and Kickstarter are famous for a reason. But let's call a spade a spade here instead of bending backwards and insisting otherwise just to make ourselves feel better.
I addressed some of what you're saying in my answer to Hugstable.
You can buy any game that's in any state of finished or unfinished. That's not and hasn't been an issue with gaming since last generation and especially not since Early Access or Kickstarter.
My issues with people in this thread are mainly from what I mentioned above. No, a game is NOT magically feature complete simply because the dev says so. No multiplayer game can ever be called complete without incredibly basic features like getting to choose your own team. You don't need to defend this. All you need to say is "I'm going to buy it because I really want to play the game on day 1", and there's nothing I or anyone else can say otherwise. I'm not judging people who buy the game anyway because they want to play it right away and have a good time on day 1. That doesn't make you an "Iwata cock sucker" or whatever (and I never implied that you did). I'm judging people who, in addition to buying the game right away, are performing every bit of double standards, mental gymnastics, and specious reasoning they have to call the game something it isn't simply because it somehow bothers them if they didn't.
It's about calling a spade a spade and not making excuses for something that doesn't need to be made excuses for. You can buy and play and love the game without defending the lack of features and content that are industry standard and will come at a later time.
Its not so black and white as to only be "as advertised" if I sell a game that barely functions and is advertised as "Early Access", that is in no way a complete game but a buyer knows what they are getting. However, in this day and age, a product can have a lot of post launch release and support, does that make all those products incomplete when they ship? Obviously not.
Splatoon is launching with a full single-player mode, full character customization, a functioning multiplayer mode with two modes and casual/competitive splits, some mini-games, and some amiibo hubbub. In no way would such a descriptor be associated with an "Early Access" or unfinished. Its a complete game that will work out of the box in all ways advertised. You may not like the feature set but that didn't make Titanfall any less of a full game when it launched without custom lobbies... or any meaningful single-player content. (Same with Evolve.)
You may not like the amount of content in any given section but this has been the release plan for months. Nintendo may well be rushing it out to meet the summer schedule but the product isn't any more unfinished than Batman is going to be unfinished in June, or that Smash was unfinished when it launched in November. The only distinction is an entirely arbitrary "enough content". Otherwise you know what you're getting, its a fully working game and it has content that deem suitable to charge 60$.
The issue of an selling an "incomplete" game is when you hide it or attempt to distract a potential buyer from possibly crippling issues with the product. When you promise something that isn't actually in the game until some arbitrarily later time, that is shipping and selling an incomplete product and game. Selling an Early Access, by all intents and purposes, is a more complete product than such deceit because the buyer knows what they are getting and they are getting it: potential and some base game wonkery.
Technically, this is perfectly valid to do... you'd just be out of business rather quickly. You can sell anything legally so long as your buyer is fully informed on what they are buying, even if that thing is complete garbage (so long as its not contraband, obviously).
Please, tell us more!
I think reviewers should judge the game based on the content available at time of release and after more content is released, if they have the time and believe the content is worth changing the review, add the content to the review. Honestly, for a mp centric game 5 maps and 2 modes seems low, especially with one mode being locked, but it might fit the game.
Yeah that's very presumptuous from Nintendo. Maintaining a good online population is never a guaranteed thing. For all we know people could get bored of the game in a week, and back to MK8.
Well if this were another game on another platform I'd say there's no way the player base would stick around with such an anemic offering, but this is a nintendo brand shooter on Wii-U.
There's literally no other game in town on a platform known for it's diehard community. I don't think the community will ever be large, but I think it'll be active enough to get games going. Your interaction with other players may be limited, but there will be bodies to fill slots for quite a while.
Look at the complete lack of support black ops 2 on wii-u had and somehow it still managed to draw a small playerbase that stuck around. Giving splatoon even fewer options means that the small base will still have a reasonable time filling lobbies.
Neff
Member
I had my doubts about the appeal of this title, but after the Direct, I'm convinced that it's firing on all cylinders and will earn itself a loyal, thriving community. There seems to be more than enough day one content (and incoming free content) to justify the lower than usual entry fee.
It's true. Wii U owners aren't exactly spoiled for choice when it comes to online gaming, and it already looks like they're willing to lap this up. Miiverse alone holds this type of thing together tremendously well.
It's true. Wii U owners aren't exactly spoiled for choice when it comes to online gaming, and it already looks like they're willing to lap this up. Miiverse alone holds this type of thing together tremendously well.
Entryhazard
Banned
This is really narrow minded