Splatoon 2 reviews started coming out as soon as the embargo broke, and that's too soon.
o matter what the reasoning is behind Splatoon 3’s lack of content and substance in the first half of its paid expansion, Wave 1: Inkopolis is certainly not worth any fan’s money and should have always been viewed as a small bonus to tide fans off from what’s still to come.
A new version 5.5.1 update has just gone live for Splatoon 2.
Splatoon 3 has revealed that special bonuses can be obtained in the game if you have save data on your Switch system for Splatoon 2.
Most reviews were published before any non-press were able to play the game. How am I supposed to trust a review that didn't even play the game in its real environment?
I get their point and agree with it on some level, but I also think a lot of conclusions are jumped and there is never really a "right" time to write a review.
One article I keep saying I want to write is about asking the question of when should you review a game.
Sometimes it's pretty easy, like Destiny should be reviewed following completion of the raid, but most other games are a lot harder. For instance, Cladun Returns: This Is Sengoku! actually requires countless hours of grinding just to get to the point where the game starts to shine. It really isn't that great when you're under leveled, barely beating levels and everything feels tedious. It's best when you put in like 40 hours, get almost every class to 99 and start to obtain the more powerful titles. The amount of fun I have at the 70 hour mark is significantly higher than anything I saw playing through the story, but does this mean everyone should put in this much time just to see it at its best and if you review it, should you grade it based off its best or the worst part that people are far more likely to see.
"In the case of Friday the 13th: The Game, it was especially clear to me that many critics didn’t play the game enough before releasing a review, including cases where critics got objective facts wrong."
Now, the example of Friday the 13th is hard for me, since I've never played it, but this sort of thing happens and not just in multiplayer games. Just looking at pull quotes for Spelunker HD on Metacritic there are like six statements that are outright wrong. It's a shame it happens, though it's hard to say when or if all these things would click. When I did my review of Dead by Daylight, I recall the included help section was actually the most useful resource in figuring out what I was doing wrong and resource in becoming a better hunter.
With this being said, maybe my perspective is off, but I find things generally don't vary significantly the more time you put in. For instance, I put about 12 hours into the LawBreaker beta and had a lot of fun. However, I wouldn't say my perspective on game set ups, mechanics and so forth didn't change by much. Now, I learned tricked, figured out smarter tactics and came to the realization of certain things that helped me win, but my general impression was unchanged. I could've reviewed my first hour and I likely would've agreed with it after putting in 11 more hours.
Again, I don't think it makes it right to rush reviews, they should take a decent amount of time and see a significant portion to all of a game, but after a certain point you should have an idea of the approximation. Especially in multiplayer games, where it's more important to review the mechanics than the experience, as the experience varies based off the type of people you play. My most enjoyable LawBreakers match was a game of Blitzball we played for an extra 20 or so minutes because neither team could score in sudden death. Likewise, some of my least enjoyable games were against teams that I wasn't quite sure knew which end the bullets came out of.
I'm honestly fine with provisional reviews (though I am a bit bias given I work in the industry), but honestly as long as the publications acknowledge it in the article, holds off on a score, and gives a thorough play through once the game is live I'm fine with it. Reviews are there to inform the reader and holding off your thoughts, especially if there is a single player component you've had extensive time with, feels less consumer friendly. Again, reviews 100% need to be accurate and detailed, but I really never saw an issue with "Reviews In-Progress" Hell, I'd like more publications to take in launch day server issues/problems/etc. Those can completely ruin first experiences with a game and can save people time and money.
Fun solution to this issue, don't read reviews for anything other than potential technical issues with the game.
I'll be playing day one, don't expect much different than what they've experienced mixed in with my own beta plays. So in a sense, early reviews like this are not a huge issue for me (especially given beta play). Just a rough estimate of others' experiences to compare to my own take on the game in general for day one expectations (so I'm expecting some drops in pregame matchmaking already for example but once in game it seemed fine and games still didn't take too long to fill up).