OrbitalBeard
Member
IGN did rate the game how it was when it released.
And now they're re-rated it, based on its current status.
How that can be considered "garbage" is beyond me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IGN Splatoon Re-Review is up
- Thread starter jmizzal
- Start date
IGN did rate the game how it was when it released.
And now they're re-rated it, based on its current status.
How that can be considered "garbage" is beyond me.
The game has just about doubled in content, original levels are modified, gameplay balance tweaked...it's absolutely a different game from the one that was released in many respects, and it's not like the original game was barebones. You guys are just shitting on this game for seemingly no reason. At the end of the day, WHO CARES if they re-review it?
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Re-reviews are great. Splatoon is a better game today then it was the day it released. If someone is looking to buy Splatoon today going and reading a review from months ago with outdated criticisms like a lack of content is doing the reader absolutely no good.
Good on IGN for taking the time to upgrade their score as the game improves. This is how reviews for video games should work at any outlet that has the manpower to make it possible.
Jawmuncher
Member
Most of the negativity is that there are games this gen that have had the same sort of improvements yet there's no re-review for them.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I actually can't think of a single game that has added the amount of content Splatoon has, for free. I'm not saying they don't exist though, so I'd appreciate some examples.
HF2014
Member
Picked it up last week. It sure does miss modes,id love more normal modes, more map rotations, but its the most fun i had in a while since playing black ops. I think the 8.6 is fair enough. More modes would give it a 9.
Id love a Domination more with Turf Wars, but instead of capturing a point, you have to splat a ballon which cover the zone, and your goal is to make sure other team doesnt make the respawn ballon splat to their color.
Id love a Domination more with Turf Wars, but instead of capturing a point, you have to splat a ballon which cover the zone, and your goal is to make sure other team doesnt make the respawn ballon splat to their color.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
There should be though. People shouldn't be getting mad because IGN is doing the right thing just because they're not always re-reviewing games like they should be if they can.
I also can't think of any other game this gen that added this much content and has changed this much because of post launch free content.
The people that seem to be completely anti-re-review, I really don't understand. Applying singular review scores to a book or a movie and having that never change, well, fine, because that piece of work will remain the same throughout its lifetime. Modern games and the rise of DLC and online connectivity, though, necessitates changing the rules, because the package that a consumer is getting for their investment changes over time with these products.
On the other side, sure, if review sites want to go back and do the same for DriveClub or other games, I'd say they're more than welcome to do so. Admittedly I don't know the specifics of how games like that or Evolve have....evolved over time (bah), but speaking strictly for Splatoon's case I'd say the logic behind revising the review is completely justified. There are some distinctions that I think should be made in this case.
Popping Splatoon in to play today is a very different product than it was if you bought the game on day 1. The amount of content that's been added to the game is beyond substantial, the number of stages has more than doubled since launch, the amount of weaponry (including variants) is actually getting kind of ridiculous, there have been two large injections of new clothing with different ability combinations that give rise to the ability to craft new loadouts and looks, the number of actual game modes has doubled from 2 at launch to 4 now, and the addition of squad battles and private matches fundamentally changes the experience because they address two of the launch-game's largest criticisms. This isn't just a new mode, or a couple new guns, or a DLC map pack, the only aspect of the game's content that hasn't been doubled is the Octo Valley single player stuff, and there's still a chance for that to come down the line, too. Perhaps just as important as the content itself is the fact that all of this is completely free and available to literally the entire player-base without any additional work on the player's part. You aren't going to see a re-review of CoD for the release of a paid map pack or season pass content finally coming out, because that content comes with its own additional cost and splits the player-base between those who continue to buy in and those who don't. This isn't the case in Splatoon, where the most recent version of the game, with all the additional content, is functionally the only version of the game that exists, and all still for the original purchase price. That really hasn't been the case with most games, even games with the "gradual content roll-out" approach.
With Splatoon being one of the featured products as part of Nintendo's most recent Wii U bundles, I think it's a good idea to update the reviews, since people curious about the system will have a more accurate idea of what it is they're actually spending their money on. I don't know if re-reviewing will become a regular practice, if only because usually a game's business model isn't built in such a way that justifies it in the way Splatoon does. I'm personally going to be very curious to see how reviewers handle Street Fighter V, since the new fighters and maps and so forth that will be coming to that over time (and, at least theoretically, available without investing more than the game's original purchase price) create the next big example that I can really think of.
On the other side, sure, if review sites want to go back and do the same for DriveClub or other games, I'd say they're more than welcome to do so. Admittedly I don't know the specifics of how games like that or Evolve have....evolved over time (bah), but speaking strictly for Splatoon's case I'd say the logic behind revising the review is completely justified. There are some distinctions that I think should be made in this case.
Popping Splatoon in to play today is a very different product than it was if you bought the game on day 1. The amount of content that's been added to the game is beyond substantial, the number of stages has more than doubled since launch, the amount of weaponry (including variants) is actually getting kind of ridiculous, there have been two large injections of new clothing with different ability combinations that give rise to the ability to craft new loadouts and looks, the number of actual game modes has doubled from 2 at launch to 4 now, and the addition of squad battles and private matches fundamentally changes the experience because they address two of the launch-game's largest criticisms. This isn't just a new mode, or a couple new guns, or a DLC map pack, the only aspect of the game's content that hasn't been doubled is the Octo Valley single player stuff, and there's still a chance for that to come down the line, too. Perhaps just as important as the content itself is the fact that all of this is completely free and available to literally the entire player-base without any additional work on the player's part. You aren't going to see a re-review of CoD for the release of a paid map pack or season pass content finally coming out, because that content comes with its own additional cost and splits the player-base between those who continue to buy in and those who don't. This isn't the case in Splatoon, where the most recent version of the game, with all the additional content, is functionally the only version of the game that exists, and all still for the original purchase price. That really hasn't been the case with most games, even games with the "gradual content roll-out" approach.
With Splatoon being one of the featured products as part of Nintendo's most recent Wii U bundles, I think it's a good idea to update the reviews, since people curious about the system will have a more accurate idea of what it is they're actually spending their money on. I don't know if re-reviewing will become a regular practice, if only because usually a game's business model isn't built in such a way that justifies it in the way Splatoon does. I'm personally going to be very curious to see how reviewers handle Street Fighter V, since the new fighters and maps and so forth that will be coming to that over time (and, at least theoretically, available without investing more than the game's original purchase price) create the next big example that I can really think of.
Stay fresh!
You totally don't have to care what reviews say about a game, but you're really only looking at this from a very limited perspective.
Some people don't buy a game on day one, or take a wait and see approach. Some readers search for reviews info months after the release of a game. Splatoon changed a lot since day one, and we knew that was going to happen (Nintendo announced Squad Battle and Private Matches would be coming later). We decided to try this version 2.0 review with the hope that it would be a service for readers. And I don't see that as a bad idea.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
8.5 and 8.6 = nothing, except and extra percentile on Meta.
7.9 and 8.0 = mental game from not having cracked the number 8 (it is a little slimy IMO).
Oh so halo 5 should be Re-reviewed in a years time? People will shit the Internet in rage.
If Halo 5 has doubled its amount of content and features in a year's time, and it all comes completely free to anyone who buys the game, then I don't see why not.
OrbitalBeard
Member
If the game receives substantial changes and extra content at no additional charge, why not?
But that review is now outdated and doesn't represent the game in its current state. Plus they are useful for anyone who haven't pick up the game yet.
I'm almost sure Halo 5,will not be Re-reviewed. Halo MCC wasn't and it had a bunch of content and a new game added.
OrbitalBeard
Member
The new game was paid DLC. What other new content was added, outside of a new map?
TheRealJakoozie
Member
Cool. People seem to hate re-reviews for some reason, but I think it's good that the extra work Nintendo have put into the game is rewarded by a higher score if that's merited.
POWERSPHERE
Banned
Harsh but fair
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They should have re-reviewed it for all the connection problems it had, and still has.
They did not experience those issues because certain things were disabled in the review copy pre-launch. Disingenuous 9.0 sitting there.
The new game was free. Oh wait, your right it was 5 dollars,,ix you bought the game after a certain point.
So by that metric it doesn't count?
TheSlySoul
Member
I am fine with re-reviews because they added content. Now re-review MGSV and lower the score because all the game-hindering patches.
Well, it's not something that comes in the package if you walked out to a store right now and bought MCC, so no.
Like I said in the wall earlier, the most recent version of Splatoon's multiplayer, with all the extra gear, maps, weapons, and modes, is the only version of the game available. It essentially is the base game now. That's not the case with the extra stuff in MCC if you're right about the extra content being a paid extra and not a requirement.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Correct, it should be reviewed separately and it was. IGN gave the ODST remaster a 9.0
weevles
Member
It's a great game, IMO. It's not a game I'd play hours on end, but it's great fun in short bursts. I kind of gave up on the Ranked Battle stuff, it's too hard for me lol. But doing Turf War is cool, even if it occasionally feels random what kind of team you end up with. My only real complaint with the game is it can get janky with the network stability and can feel really arbitrary with the team selection.
CamHostage
Member
Nobody reviews every game, and no site has the manpower or budget to re-review every game that's gotten an update. It just has to be pick-and-choose for outlets that choose to attempt this method of post-release reviewing, and that choice has to be based on A) quality of added content in contribution to the value of the product, and B) potential hits to the site for producing the new review (because it costs manpower and money to make these bits of text and video, if it doesn't pay off then they've got to look elsewhere because even the most principled professional gaming journalists are still running a for-profit business.
There's just no good template yet for how reviewers should handle the new future of game coverage. Games aren't boxed-and-done products anymore; anything could break at any stage of the launch or post-release support run, and any major update or content drop could radically change the value of a product. How do you handle it? It's tricky, and nobody has it exactly right; lots of sites have proven how to do it wrong, but that hasn't led to full progress just yet. Probably they'll never get it right, probably appreciation for professional game criticism will continue on a downward trend even if they do get it right, but for now, they have to try. To them, it's business and reputation that needs to continue on if they want to keep doing what they're doing. To us, it's a service that we can take or leave if we care about how games score or what specific outlets say before we make a purchase. To the larger audience, there's still the Google rating box you get when you look up "Splatoon Reviews" and the metascore and the current score on said site and everything else that multitudes of buyers still look at before making a purchase, even in the age of Youtube and Twitch and whatever else gamers use to get info. (BTW, of course, Youtubers and user reviews are their own problem, and if we had only those to go off of we'd all be suffering NeoGAF becoming MineGAF right now because no other game matters to those people and those people are legion.)
It's tricky making a living trying to please people by producing info these days, and one of the only valid methods of making sure content is worthwhile is to follow the money and do as people ask you to do. Making hard-line stances on reviewing everything and giving every game multiple looks just isn't good business right now, and bad business decisions lead to bad service.
timetokill
Banned
If I could give a 10 to only one game this generation, Splatoon would be in the discussion.
A sub-8 score is ludicrous to me, but whatever. Opinions.
A sub-8 score is ludicrous to me, but whatever. Opinions.