So let's not even try to maintain it, or what? What a pathetic defeatist attitude.
How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
So let's not even try to maintain it, or what? What a pathetic defeatist attitude.
Basically at the end if the day if a publication wants to be taken seriously they should have up to date reviews that are open to change. Or hey, they could not because "gaming journalism!!!" And look like idiots when the average Joe figures out that your reviews aren't updated like your competitors
Update the review I say. As much as I wish games were released complete
Update the review I say. As much as I wish games were released complete
balladofwindfishes
Member
Nintendo games generally maintain a decent online community for sometimes years after release.
I tried finding a game of Mario Tennis Open a few months back and assumed nobody was playing it and I got matched with, like 5 different people with very little wait time. And that's a game with far less content than Splatoon and it's not even a particularly good game.
The reason other online communities fall is because the game doesn't offer anything interesting to do in it after the next new shiny thing comes out.
I'd prefer them to just review what's available at the moment, so that gamers would be able to decide if they want to drop the money on this. They would have to indicate as well that some content will be updated shortly (by end of summer).
Once the updates hit, they could do an updated review, going more indepth into the game as a whole, with all the different functionality that was added.
Most likely this won't happen though and I feel like reviewers will complain about lack of content
Once the updates hit, they could do an updated review, going more indepth into the game as a whole, with all the different functionality that was added.
Most likely this won't happen though and I feel like reviewers will complain about lack of content
GoonerTRON
Banned
What? This is a full price early access game from NINTENDO!?! The last company I could guarantee to put a finished product on a disc.
Seth Enosh
Member
Yeah, there is no way this game's community is going to die over the three months between end of May and end of August. Here's CoD:Ghosts on Wii U right now (Friday morning EST, so pretty much a dead time for the USA):
and Black Ops 2 on Wii U:
These are games that get basically no community support or DLC, and sold absolutely terribly on Wii U. Splatoon's going to outsell them a lot and get new modes and maps all summer long.
Neff
Member
I'm not sure any multiplayer-focused game ever really qualifies as 'complete', myself...
It really is amazing isn't it? I have to hand it to Nintendo, they have crafted far and away the most loyal fanbase ever.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
It is finished, but it will be expanded for free in the next few month.
Seth Enosh
Member
Early Access = buggy and unfinished. Even if Splatoon turns out to be severely lacking in content, it's no more Early Access than the Order 1886 was (which I bought for $60 too, knowing it had only 7-10 hours of content).
Now if this game is truly early access (and does stuff like crash and have other blatant bugs) then game reviewers should rightly savage it. I don't expect that to happen though.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Why is an entire half of the game being forgotten in this thread?
The game has a full length proper single player mode with an actual story and stuff. Made by EAD, top tier masters of level design. It should be a good time.
The game has a full length proper single player mode with an actual story and stuff. Made by EAD, top tier masters of level design. It should be a good time.
My question is what about the WiiU owners who dont follow directs, nor really understand to check for updates/even have their WiiU online?
Ive seen some people say they are releasing it now because their target audience is 11-13yr olds who are getting out for the summer. I can see that being the case.
Its anecdotal, but of the kids that I know in that group, who even have a WiiU, either dont have their WiiU connected or do not follow gaming news enough to know when the content is there to be downloaded (nor do their parents).
I guess the argument could be why buy a game based on online multiplayer, if you dont understand to keep it online, I agree. So I wonder in that case why would Nintendo release a game based on online multiplayer with core features coming down the line.
I think trickling out maps works here, but not features. Features that are core to online multiplayer, so yea in that respect I would call it unfinished
Ive seen some people say they are releasing it now because their target audience is 11-13yr olds who are getting out for the summer. I can see that being the case.
Its anecdotal, but of the kids that I know in that group, who even have a WiiU, either dont have their WiiU connected or do not follow gaming news enough to know when the content is there to be downloaded (nor do their parents).
I guess the argument could be why buy a game based on online multiplayer, if you dont understand to keep it online, I agree. So I wonder in that case why would Nintendo release a game based on online multiplayer with core features coming down the line.
I think trickling out maps works here, but not features. Features that are core to online multiplayer, so yea in that respect I would call it unfinished
Hmm, they should review what's there. This whole thread is kind of crying over spilt milk imo. If you don't think there's enough content at launch, wait until all of it is released. For those who want to play and don't mind, they'll be getting a steady stream of free content that will keep the community coming back. I've read the first 4 pages of this thread and this last page and I'm still not seeing what the problem is.
Yes, exactly like it should be.
Junahu
Member
I imagine that content downloads will be an automatic background process that happens whenever the content is released (Spotpass download). And if they weren't, they'd be a mandatory title update that hits the player when they boot the game. Free updates aren't usually hidden in the e-Shop, they're pushed out to players automatically.
This is also purely conjecture, but I think that the game itself will have a news board, or a ticker, or something of the like that will inform players about upcoming content.
shiftplusone
Member
Early access really just means unfinished and you get to "be involved as the game evolves"
bugginess is rampant in the titles under EA but they're not all buggy
Amplitude Studios released their games in early access I believe and all 3 were a bug free experience for me, I just got to see them as more content came in. Same with stuff like Prison Architect and what not
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Umm they should review what they receive, no exceptions tbh. Every other game has to be scored that way so I'm not sure why there should be some consideration to wait for everything to be fleshed out.
Unless this is just reassurance so people can have a reason to justify why it didn't get a 10/10 by saying that the complete game wasn't released.
Unless this is just reassurance so people can have a reason to justify why it didn't get a 10/10 by saying that the complete game wasn't released.
Not necessarily. See Killing Floor 2.
the reviews for this game will be scrutinized whether they're good or bad. that's just how it is these days.
Isn't the single player just 28 challenge room missions with no narrative? That not a "full length proper single player mode."
That's a pretty ignorant point of view. Some games get tons of new content that completely changes the game. For example Team Fortress 2 only shipped with a couple of game modes, 6 maps and a single set of weapons for each class. Today the game has several more game modes (including a coop hoard mode), over 60 maps, over 100 new weapons and many other features not found at launch. In the coming months it's also getting competitive matchmaking. The PC version of TF2 is almost a completely different game then what was released in 2007 and several places have done new reviews of TF2 because their original review is very out of date and no longer applies.
Would you say that a game like TF2 should never get re-reviewed and all the reviews of the game from 2007 still apply to the game.
nope
it's a 3D action/platformer style campaign with an unknown number of levels and bosses and stuff like that. I was touting that ~30 number too but I think that comes from a false rumor so I'm not sure how many levels are there anymore.
check Nintendo's youtube channel for the single player trailer and then check out GameXplain's channel for footage of some of the earlier levels if you're interested.
Then what is the single player? I think it says a lot about the game that it comes out in 21 days and I'm having trouble finding information on it.
Write the review based on the core gameplay and mechanics, graphics and performances, soundtrack, art direction, how much fun it is to play, online stability, customization, sp, ecc. Then specify that the content on D1 is less than what you'll get in a couple of months.
So the game has a "proper" sp? I'm trying to understand this since they announced it.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I don't think that's necessarily true. Obviously if it's fun, reviews will echo that, but if it is incomplete it will be dinged for that especially considering price. I mean, imo it definitely should be something looked heavily through a microscope because if other games was not spared for lack of content at full price, neither should this. It will be scrutinized on what it is currently than what it will be when all is said and done and I think that's fair, especially since it isn't an always online game which does require extra time to review.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I don't understand the "Never update a games review score" point of view. Shouldn't the goal of reviews be to inform interested gamers as to the contents and quality of a game? And shouldn't that information be kept up to date? I mean, if in a year I decide I want to buy Splatoon, what good is a review that only talks about the features that were available a year ago? A review like that doesn't really provide anything of value. It's pointless. It only makes sense to periodically update review scores, or write articles talking about new features and improved content. I really can't think of a single argument for making a review score permanent.
I'm not even speculating on whether or not the reviews will be good or bad, I'm just saying either way they will be scrutinized. again, that's just how it is these days.
I do think the game will get taken to task by critics if the content isn't there at launch.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I don't think their necessarily needs to be updated review scores on SP games because of new dlc etc. If the core gameplay isn't changing but a new map has been added, how does that need to be changed thou?
If you are looking forward to the game, the review should already tell you what to come, but I don't see the score would need to change. There's lots of games that has gotten "better" since their initial review but the score hasn't changed. Why? Because if it was incomplete before, it shouldn't take months to add or fix. It should be delayed months for the full product to release.
This is basically giving exception for devs to say, "Fine, since the reviewers are aware of the incomplete game we can launch, let's let out customer pay full price, brainwash them into believing that because the dlc is free - it's acceptable to release it at that price and the reviews scores will be considered on that."
Imo, that unacceptable. It's rewarding the fact that we can still purchase half games for full price because some of us would rather sleep better at night knowing our favorite game will have somewhat of a good score between now and the next couple of months when it is "complete".
I think we should be reinforcing the complete game rather than the opposite.
If you are looking forward to the game, the review should already tell you what to come, but I don't see the score would need to change. There's lots of games that has gotten "better" since their initial review but the score hasn't changed. Why? Because if it was incomplete before, it shouldn't take months to add or fix. It should be delayed months for the full product to release.
This is basically giving exception for devs to say, "Fine, since the reviewers are aware of the incomplete game we can launch, let's let out customer pay full price, brainwash them into believing that because the dlc is free - it's acceptable to release it at that price and the reviews scores will be considered on that."
Imo, that unacceptable. It's rewarding the fact that we can still purchase half games for full price because some of us would rather sleep better at night knowing our favorite game will have somewhat of a good score between now and the next couple of months when it is "complete".
I think we should be reinforcing the complete game rather than the opposite.
Here's what the game will have on launch:
5 multiplayer maps.
2 game modes (I say "two" because by the time weekend rolls around, the global Ranked quota will have probably been met).
A single player campaign that features at least 28 levels, hidden collectibles that seem to expand on the lore (or some other unlockable) and several significant bosses. Since people are curious of the story it's really no different than your average Mario or 2D Rayman game - Octarians have kidnapped the energy source that keeps the Inkling world intact and you need to get it back.
A whole lot of gear and collectibles which each allow for unique perks
Several minigames that can be played in the waiting lobby.
Amiibo challenges.
Here's what the game will get during the summer:
Splat Fests; a sort of mix between Smash Bros' Conquest mode and Wii's Everybody Votes channel. This is going to be available roughly two-three weeks after launch.
Free maps. Right now three maps are known of but it seems to imply we're getting six more. The EU Direct implies that this will be spaced out within some sort of weekly basis.
Free gear. The EU Direct implies that the first new weapon will be available not long after launch, so this stuff will probably be available on a more shorter basis.
Two new modes.
One "major" August update that will include at least two matchmaking modes.
Just so this is more clearly defined.
I can see the game getting good/decent reviews based on the launch content alone if the quality of what's there can support it. Not any earth shattering scores but overall positive ones that encourage future development.
Junahu
Member
Maybe that's a problem with how games are reviewed now? Snapshot opinions are becoming less and less useful to the consumer as games gradually morph into more nebulous forms.
F2P games are already taking advantage of the limits of reviewers, by hiding their most egregious tactics far beyond where the reviewer can reasonably play up to.
That is, of course, assuming that reviews are meant to serve the consumer's interests, which is not neccessarily true.
MisterR
Member
Not only is it being defended as being ok, it's actually being touted as a feature.
In the end, it all comes down to the quality of the modes and maps. There are games that ship with 15 maps but only have 3 or 4 that are standouts, there are games that ship with a dozen multiplayer modes but only have one or two that work really well.
Games could use more publishers that put a focused beam of great content forward over ones that fire a shotgun and say "Count up all them holes we done durn made!"
If EAD2's overriding priority was to impress people with the number of maps in their game, I'm sure they could have targeted 15-20 maps, cobbled 'em together and neatly sidestepped all this "glorified demo" trepidation and hand-wringing. That they're willing to put only a few forward, to me, seems to indicate that they're only willing to put forth content that they're absolutely confident in, and that ain't so damnable a notion.
Remains to be seen whether my tea leaf readings line up with reality, but I'm sure they know 5 maps was going to be seen on its face as lacking. I don't think they'd have gambled that information without the self-assurance behind them that they were the best damn maps they could make.
Games could use more publishers that put a focused beam of great content forward over ones that fire a shotgun and say "Count up all them holes we done durn made!"
If EAD2's overriding priority was to impress people with the number of maps in their game, I'm sure they could have targeted 15-20 maps, cobbled 'em together and neatly sidestepped all this "glorified demo" trepidation and hand-wringing. That they're willing to put only a few forward, to me, seems to indicate that they're only willing to put forth content that they're absolutely confident in, and that ain't so damnable a notion.
Remains to be seen whether my tea leaf readings line up with reality, but I'm sure they know 5 maps was going to be seen on its face as lacking. I don't think they'd have gambled that information without the self-assurance behind them that they were the best damn maps they could make.
EA and MS haven't done anything to regain trust. Nintendo hasn't done anything to lose trust. If you feel they have done something in the past to not be trustworthy then point it out.
This isn't Titanfall or Quake3. I have serious doubts their single player campaign will be great but it does exist.
Everything seems blown out of proportion, in typical fashion.
IMO, Splatoon is hardly lacking content, and certainly not to the degree people are asserting. The game is trying to pull of something that needs a decent community to be accomplished. Until that happens, certain measures are in place. What's there, however, is more than adequate. New maps - which would have been rolled out later, regardless - are a given. Some of those said maps were actually seen before, which suggest this is more about a strategic rollout, than a desperate attempt to patch things post-launch. A simple option for team battles - which doesn't require any unique mechanics, infrastructure, maps etc - doesn't seem to scream "unfinished game," but seems more about Nintendo wanting the community to grow a bit before certain online squads begin to reek havoc on everyone else. Did Nintendo made the right choices? Who knows, but this is certainly a unique situation to be in, and I understand what they are trying to do.
My point is, Nintendo realizes this game needs a proper community to thrive, and for the time being they believe they have to exercise some control. I think there's plenty content there until things really get going. However, reviewers should review the game as is. That can be bad for Splatoon if some reviewers get overly hung up on "but but lacking content till August," but it's fair, and we need not make altering scores a habit! They may get early access to ranked battles. Other than that, a few new maps and a couple match-making options doesn't/shouldn't dramatically affect the game's core appeal, like we have seen with some other games recently. Just fairly & honestly rate what is there. Update impression later if necessary, but leave the initial review score intact.
Supermanisdead
Member
Funny how the amiibo content was completed in time for release, but basic functions like custom parties and extra game modes are promised for the future. Not a cynical cash grab at all, right?
all of this post
I love when people throw the phrase "cash grab" around like literally every single product offered by for-profit businesses isn't a cash grab.
Supermanisdead
Member
Sorry, I should say desperate, pathetic and lazy cash grab.
lol, I prefer not to allow amiibos to rent space in my head ;p
Steve Youngblood
Member
There's certainly an argument to be made for keeping reviews updated with content updates. However, I certainly wouldn't say that it's a requirement. The timeframe during which reviews matter the most is during the launch window. As such, I don't really expect a ton of effort to be expended making continuous updates to old reviews as new content is rolled out. However, if the fanbase for that site asks for it and/or the reviewer wants to update the text/score, I don't have any objections.
Oh just shut you idiotic mouths. I get it. You don't like the game. You don't think the game is worth shit. You think that the game is nothing more than a cynical cash grab. That is perfectly fine. You aren't entitled to like or get this game. But why do you feel the need to make snide remarks implying anyone who DOES like the game is somehow inferior to you? I'm sure it makes you feel oh so powerful and gives you a fucking high but this continuous condescending attitude is doing absolutely NOTHING to this discussion except give other people false information about this game. That and invites so many more drive by insults that you seem to enjoy cultivating.
SolidSnakex
Member
I understand the point you're getting at, but a major risk by going this route is that they simply turn people off right away. Getting off on the wrong foot with a multiplayer oriented game can be really damaging in the long run. People will compare its content to other shooters. They'll see that something like Advanced Warfare launched with 13 maps while Splatoon only launches with 5. They'll see AW had 12 multiplayer modes while Splatoon launches with 2. These are comparisons that Nintendo can't avoid just like any other company making shooters. And when you compare them it doesn't look good.
This is why their current three hours of test time that they're giving gamers with the Testfire isn't enough. They should give several days of playtime in order to start generating a positive word of mouth from gamers before the game is even released. They need as much positive momentum behind the game as they can get.
GuessMyUserName
Member
I'm perfectly fine with calling the game "unfinished", but that still doesn't make this wrong. If someone is excited enough to play the game that they'll put down money to play it in its incomplete state while waiting for the full features to come out, that's their own choice. As for your weird scenario there, yes, a game can be nothing but a menu and be "feature complete", if that's what they're advertising for and it does exactly that. Of course, nobody would be interested in buying a menu soooo it would be really dumb. In the case of Splatoon? People like what they see, they want to play it, and they are willing to purchase it earlier in its "incomplete" state. Anyone who does not is more than free to sit this out, or pick it up when the package is more enticing.
Nobody is obligated to buy every game at launch. The game will still be available later on when it offers more. There is no necessity to "gamble" on the rest of the content. If you don't trust the promises to deliver do not buy it.
Form a better argument instead of making incorrect assumptions about your opponents' positions and attempting to use that to somehow invalidate what they're saying now.
Why? When you have flimsy ground to stand on, the easiest solution is rather obvious.
More over, its rather obviously deflection to argue that "hell would break lose if X" did this, since the people who flip their shit over this when "X" does it, are more than likely not the people in here right now discussing this.
This is a discussion on which neither side has any actual concrete details aside from what is and isn't going to be in the game, most of which has been known for months but people don't do their research, especially when their only desire is to have a pissing contest. We have no idea what the actual breadth of content is in the game when it ships (aside from people making up numbers to suit themselves). Depending on your preconceived narrative this means you can twist this to be a game with "only five maps and two modes" or "a game with a full-fledged single-player mode".
Nothing is being discussed in here aside from arbitrary decisions on how much content is/isn't in the game from nothing other than guessing. Luckily, review copies are (seemingly) going out already so we'll know in short order just how founded or unfounded this whole thread is...
Um, if they don't have their Wii U online, they won't miss those online-only maps right?
Nah, generally it's only the bad reviews that are scrutinized by raving fanboys who haven't even played the game yet, especially for platform exclusives.