Nintendojitsu
Banned
GameStop reviews games now?
They do as Game Informer but I'm sure James meant Gamespot.
GameStop reviews games now?
A small correction, the MP10 edition that included an amiibo was $60. $50 for the normal version
People and reviewers don't seem to understand the concept behind arcade games. It's all about the number of maps, having endless weapon/character customization options, plenty of xp bars to fill and online modes to choose from. This all results in low quality and inbalance of the gameplay, it's the shitty bigger is better mentality all over again.
It's like you want games to be like WoW where the small ammount of substance the game actually has is bloated to last infinitely longer than it should. The replay value should be judged based on how much fun the core gameplay is, not how much (pointless) stuff there is to do. Just think about any competitive game out there, like how Counter Strike is based on the same mode and 5 core maps you play over and over since 15 years back.
Honestly Splatoon didn't catch on with these reviewers because there are no skinner box elements to it which means the game has no addictive quality. Mario Kart 8 also had this very same issue, they complained about how little stuff there is to unlock and how it needed more content for them to jump back into it.
Unfortunately (in my opinion), Splatoon does have a "skinner box" element: an XP system. XP systems in multiplayer games essentially handicap the people who need it leastthe newest players. Not only are newer players less skilled at the game physicallythey also have worse stats and weapons. How is this a good gameplay element?
I generally agree with you, though. We need to get away from talking about how many weapons/maps/modes a game has, and start talking instead about how fun those modes are.
I couldn't make it past the intro
The starting weapons are extremely balanced and I don't think the higher weapons give you that much of an advantage; especially not in turf wars, which is the only mode you can play until you reach level 10 anyway.
They give you literal stat increases though... you can hold more paint etc. If there's not much of an advantage why do they have them?
GameStop reviews games now?
They give you literal stat increases though... you can hold more paint etc. If there's not much of an advantage why do they have them?
Thanks for the suggestion. Great read.
I enjoyed that review, thanks for sharing it
Yep. Good read.
No, it's that the sites that docked points because the game didn't have one of their magical TPS bullet point features are weighted more heavily into that average.
Because you score a game on what it is, not on what it will or might be.so why not just score it a 9
This is such a ridiculous post. "The people that don't like the game just didn't understand it and who cares about their opinion because they didn't play it the right way."When reading the lower score reviews are rather... Sad.
When you read the top scores you can see that the people actually took the time playing it and was able to express the game's entirety, when the lower scores sounds like they didn't dive into the game too much and they were complaining about things that were either their error and or things that are easily solved if they actually went out for a solution.
People and reviewers don't seem to understand the concept behind arcade games. It's all about the number of maps, having endless weapon/character customization options, plenty of xp bars to fill and online modes to choose from. This all results in low quality and inbalance of the gameplay, it's the shitty bigger is better mentality all over again.
It's like you want games to be like WoW where the small ammount of substance the game actually has is bloated to last infinitely longer than it should. The replay value should be judged based on how much fun the core gameplay is, not how much (pointless) stuff there is to do. Just think about any competitive game out there, like how Counter Strike is based on the same mode and 5 core maps you play over and over since 15 years back.
Honestly Splatoon didn't catch on with these reviewers because there are no skinner box elements to it which means the game has no addictive quality. Mario Kart 8 also had this very same issue, they complained about how little stuff there is to unlock and how it needed more content for them to jump back into it.
The addictive quality are the core mechanics, the controls and the visual/aural feedback.
It's the perfect one-more-go game. Not for getting new gears, not for filling a bar, just for the fun of the battles.
Is the Wii U bundle going to be a staple or is it going to be a limited run?
Metacritic says 81, am I missing something?
Metacritc is a average.He's (and many others in here) talking about the average you get from the OP, which contains ALL of the reviews and not just the ones Metacritic counts or has, at current, updated.
Its like the Metacritic vs. Rotten for movies... or Mad Max which varies between the two from 89% to 98%, respectively.
Metacritc is a average.
RT is more like if its over 5 its fresh if its under 5 its rotten.
So the meta critic is at 81 at the moment. Are there a bunch of scores missing? That's solid but some people in here are celebrating like it's a 9+ average. Not that scores matter much, but I'm just saying!
Lucky bastardJust picked up my copy this morning, and I'm really excited to see such overwhelmingly positive reviews!
It's simpler than that.I think some people expected it to get trashed by review for being released in an incomplete state (imo that would have been sorta justified) with archaic online features. Since it's got fairly decent scores, people are happy.
It's simpler than that.
If you compare the OP and Metacritic you'll see that a lot of 9+ scores, including all four perfect scores, are not on Metacritic. And a lot of us are looking at the OP, not Metacritic.
And the OP is where should look. Metacritic isn't the whole spread of the reviews, it's basically just a sample and that isn't fair and doesn't give the whole picture.
Why are there 23 9+ reviews in the OP but only 8 9+ reviews on Metacritic? Does Metacritic always only include select reviews?
Why are there 23 9+ reviews in the OP but only 8 9+ reviews on Metacritic? Does Metacritic always only include select reviews?
Yup.
i believe so
Why are there 23 9+ reviews in the OP but only 8 9+ reviews on Metacritic? Does Metacritic always only include select reviews?
Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. Unfortunately, there are "skinner box" elements in Splatoon. You have to check the stores every day for a chance at buying new gear which have perks. You can equip 3 pieces of gear. Gear has one main perk and can have up to 3 sub-perks which are randomized. If you don't get the perks you want you have to use a sea snail to re-roll and not get the perks you want again. Sea Snails are hard to acquire, but you can also use 30,000 points to re-roll too.
Yeah, it's some sad shit. Since I don't have the game I don't know how bad it really is... but it sounds terrible.
That's bizarre. How can you call yourself a review aggregator when you're not aggregating all of the reviews?
Who decides which review sources are worthy and which aren't?
That's bizarre. How can you call yourself a review aggregator when you're not aggregating all of the reviews?
Who decides which review sources are worthy and which aren't?
Yup.
That's bizarre. How can you call yourself a review aggregator when you're not aggregating all of the reviews?
Who decides which review sources are worthy and which aren't?
I just bought Tropical Freeze! My wallet!
I don't see what's "shady" about it or how it's "censoring" anything. There does have to be some valuation of "worth" going on. The problem as a review aggregator is how to determine which sites are worth factoring into the average. They can't just let any Joe Schmoe make it into the aggregator. What would be the value in that? Do you really just want an unvetted process?Wow, I didn't know that. Considering how much importance people seem to give metacritic that's pretty damned shady imo. It's like censoring opinions of people they don't deem "worthy" enough.
Wow, I didn't know that. Considering how much importance people seem to give metacritic that's pretty damned shady imo. It's like censoring opinions of people they don't deem "worthy" enough.