Pearl'z Spla2nz Hype Thread *now with more woomy* - (Hype AAE) - (84 MC ~ 8/10 ~ Hype met)

@jg4xchamp: I never said Overwatch limits anything?

In the context of what the writer is saying, considering what it follows in the review versus what you said about its paucity of content. Maybe in terms of map count, but Overwatch like TF2 isn't necessarily about a quantity of modes, but it's classes and team synergy. No different than the glory that is Rainbow Six Siege.

Derp.

Yeah, I was just talking in terms of overall count, which I know is low. I have no more context or knowledge of Overwatch, so I refrain from talking about it too much.

Only an 8 for a game with potentially unlimited replay value, oh well, Gamespot has been handing out 9's left and right so I figured this might have a chance, but no worries its the same score as Halo 5 which in my opinion can provide thousands of hours of enjoyment, so sounds like the game is in good company. I played the first one a little and thought it was great fun online. If I had a Switch I would definitely get this.

Here's mine, then. Linked this time.

I mean time out, I value replay value as the next guy. But that can be inherent to a genre or type of game, and would imply there should be a floor to how much low you would score a multiplayer game for instance. You can get a player for a long time through just being compulsive or being comfort food gaming. There is no nuanced to that sort of critique, not that gamespot or any game reviewers are good critics, they aren't, but it's a bit of a flawed logic that just because you "can get x amount of hours" from a mp or any game, that it is somehow expected to deserve better.

More to it "only an 8"? Come on.

shucks, didn't meet the 9 I was hoping for, oh well, still can't wait to play it

@jg4xchamp: Hehe, I agree high replay value should not necessarily mean high scores, many other factors to consider. I was half kidding with my comment because some people take individual scores so seriously, so I was kind of poking a little fun at that.

But, a game that has solid gameplay(as did the first one I played, I never played this one obviously) and very high replay value should have those aspects reflected in the score(good value for your money) especially when there are other games out there that can be finished in 4 hours and get glowing reviews. At the very least, this aspect should be covered in the text of the review if it is not easily apparent in score. Reviews scores(numbers) often dont stand up to scrutiny, and don't give the full picture. I'll have to read the text to see why he didn't score it higher, out of curiosity

@jg4xchamp: Hahahaha! :)

Ahhhh it will be fun all the same. Are you picking the game up on Friday?

I need to get a Switch.

Nintendo is back baby, she can't be stopped. Hit after hit after hit. Where is the competition?

Will update this when not on mobile...

Great score, had a blast during the Splat Fest and can't wait for Friday to get my copy!

@iandizion713: 8 is kinda par for 8 spot though :P

And why wouldn't an 8 or even a 7 reflect that? Both scores argue for a good game. To me the stuff that gets 9 or 10s, should be straight up classics that you're willing to bet are going to stand strong, they should stand tall against the best that genre has ever had to offer (not necessarily better than the best, but at least in that company), and it goes without saying it should be one of the deeper entries in the genre depending on what you value: Gameplay, narrative, or both.

Personally I think too many people put stock in sheer hour count. I'd rather take an excellent game for 4 hours that I might replay a bunch or even go back to over the years, versus something I'll sink a lot of time into, but rarely think all that highly of.

Beyond that is a matter of perspective, the score isn't some objective thing, it's just a place holder for a word. Good=7, great = 8, superb=9. The person could have played it and simply went this is great, it's just not Superb.

I'm surprised that the reviewer thinks the additions are significant enough while other reviewers from other sites think they aren't.

@jg4xchamp: don't question the score system, man! It's a flawless measurement of artistic quality!

/s

The same score as the first game.

nah, Splatoon was never a 10/10 game. Though the first one was a tad forgiving on it's score.

regardless 8/10 is perfect for a game like splatoon.

Damn.... I would have expected a 9 for all the good changes. 8/10 isn't bad but not adding in all the new mechanics from so did does hurt the MP. Also, why can't you change weapons in lobbies? Nintendo still goofed.

@metalslimenite: I like your enthusiasm, but Splatoon 2 and ARMS don't feel like 10/10 games where as I can see why Zelda Breath of the Wild is a 10/10 game.

Good to see another great game on the Switch.

Still waiting for Super Mario Odyssey.

the reviewer didnt even play online... she said she couldnt get any matches

gamespot reviewer had more enthusiasm in her tone than your article did...

your review is for people who only part time play splatoon

So, the average gamer?

yes.....

which is so meh for me because i am not an average gamer.

Nice review and giving it a 7/10 isn't bad either.

I tried to warn you

Truly a discerning bunch

youre too much for us plebs

Both Nintendo and MS have great FPS games this gen. lol

Amen.

@jg4xchamp: I also would take quality over quantity any day. But for me replay value & longevity is very important in an online-heavy game and it is ultimately derived by a very strong foundation: Good Core Gameplay. I find this aspect rarely covered properly in reviews, and I think that if you have a game with strong gameplay and is able to keep you glued to your screen for 200-300+ hours(needs also good content, clever map and game modes, etc), I think that kind of game deserves special mention and is only possible with a very competent dev. You don't see a game like Overwatch or Rocket League come out often, it is a very difficult kind of game to produce.

But often, a reviewer falls in love with the story and the characters and that will warrant a 9. Ok, that's fine, I also love story-driven games even if they are 4 hours long. But you put a game like Overwatch that for me can provide more than 500 hours of enjoyment easily( mastering several characters, knowing all the maps, all the gameplay nuances, keeping up with all the gameplay balances, etc. ) and that kind of game is far more impressive to me than a game with quality writing and limited replay value, because that kind of game is only possible with exceptionally good gameplay and those kind are very rare.

Now I just read the review of Splatoon 2, and I think it's a decent review overall, I can understand why it got an 8(voice chat cumbersome, limited options for matchmaking, etc). But I don't really have an idea about its longevity even after reading the text review. So he dropped the score to 8 because of other factors, not the replay value it seems.

So I guess that goes back to the quality of the publication, if they have a consistent review system and they have established rules for their genres, for example they look at potential replay value of an online game and that is part of their criteria, etc. Then I will know every time I read their reviews a little bit what to expect, but Gamespot is inconsistent that way overall(as are many other publications). So I agree when you say a score should just be a placeholder for the adjective and as long as the reviewers understand that genre well, it's good enough for me. I rarely base my decisions on reviews anyways, I mostly try to extract fact from them. And yeah those 9-10 should be reserved for the cream of the crop, but please don't give a game like Overwatch a 6 just because it lack a story campaign, you just missed its biggest accomplishment....give it to a reviewer who knows the value of creating such a game.(edit: not saying Gamespot did that, just giving an example)

It's not really their fault most of the time to be honest, sometimes they are just given a few days to review a game and they make the best of it. But I'm looking for those quality long lasting experiences(I love competitive games with arcade-like gameplay) and I find that aspect is often lost in a review, and while it is not something that is necessarily easy to predict, I wish there was a little more emphasis on it that's all. At the end of the day, I'm basically forced to play those games myself to truly know how I feel about its gameplay and potential longevity. Hopefully this makes sense, drained after a long workday, time for a jog and some gaming now

oh so youre an average gamer too? my condolences

I must be if the requirement is only to not play splatoon

Fam preaching to the choir as far as game reviewers having poor virtues lol, I just don't subscribe to a mp game inherently being worthy of a 9. Just because it's good, ideally you should be capable of getting a 100 hours out of any good mp game. Plus it begs the question if the critic themselves are going to get that type of play time out of it. I would for instance 9 a Rocket League (in fact Rocket League did get a 9), because it has been that type of game for me. And Overwatch won GOTY, at mad places, so it's not like those games didn't get their credit.

But Splatoon? Good,

Well that one is simple, goes back to my stance that all game reviews are shit and no one should ever put so much stock into them. They often do not know how to talk about gameplay, so as a result they can't speak to the finer nuances of the mechanics, or speak of depth, or speak to staying power. It's just a basic outline of what the game is, maybe, potentially what it feels like to play the game, and a series of thesaurus words.

I mean it's a deeply routed issue at this point. Because it's not just the reviewers that are of poor virtues, it's the audience as well. Look at this forum.

SP only game? Thank god, no tacked on multiplayer.

MP only game? Um where is the single player? Wow, this is bullshit.

A bunch of scrubs making excuses for why they are bad at video games on top of that.

And you call yourself a Nintendo gamer?

again i dont understand you villian lol

oh i see so now you are not an average gamer.... that's what i thought

an average gamer is someone who plays games casually....thats what charizard sounded like when he reviewed splatoon.

he might play other games more but in his splatoon review thats what he sounded like.

I wasn't expecting you to understand that at all KB.

Forgot this was coming so soon, so I got my copy today. I hope it's not bad.

Also, the **** is up with all those locked threads? Can't they be deleted?

Tomorrow is finally the day I get to play Splatoon, skipped this on the Wii U so it's a fresh experience for me. Ordered a copy for me and my GF so omfffg.

We should all get together and play this weekend. :)

Of course the eshop is down... I don't understand how servers crashing on launches is still a thing in 2017.

Experiencing the same thing.

I need the squid and ink puns in my life right now goddammit

@jumpaction: we can make our own splatfest teams. Team Anna Kendrick VS Team Actual Good Actresses

:P