If this were a Sony game it would have 12/10s, the proof is that a game from the same genre that's pure mediocrity in comparison like The Last of Us has got 9-10/10.

PC means "the whole history of PC games to date" in comparison with systems that are not even 2-4 years on the market?

If this is the case, then it would be:

PC > WiiU (thanks to Splatoon, otherwise it would be below 3DS) > 3DS > PS4 = Xbox One (it seems PS4 will have the better multiplatform games tecnically speaking -although the AF problem is a bit worrisme, maybe because of the unified memory architecture limitations?- but I do think that Sony's first party offerings are weak, really weak) > Vita (since Sony abandoned the console it's mostly been an otaku machine with some Monster Hunter clones and Persona 4).

Otherwise, if by PC you mean "what has been released since the console you're comparing it was also released" then for me it's:

WiiU > 3DS > PC (although I prefer to play RPGs on consoles, they still are available on PC and I prefer RTS games to the few exclusive games of those consoles) > PS4 = XBOne > Vita

That's why putting a score in a review is not a good idea. The solid fact to me is that this game has a much, much better gameplay (the foundation of every single game) than The Last of Us (to name one generic 3rd person shooter that received really high scores) so, if that game had a 9+/10, then Splattoon should rank higher.

The problem when reviewing things as if this was an exam is that novelty is left completely out of the equation. If a game has everything the reviewer expects to find it will end with a 10, even when seen in perspective that game did nothing that hadn't been done dozens of times before.

This game reinvented a genre, this is something that happens only once or twice in a generation and that should have much more weight than a few missing maps that we already know we will get in a few weeks.

Not only well deserved, but much less than what it should be. The game is leagues above other generic offers like "The Last of Us" that reviewed much higher, and that's completely unfair no matter how I look at it.

• things zelda can learn from witcher3:

• 1. quest design. even dungeon design to an extent and making dungeons even more interesting. witcher 3s quests, even the secondary quests, are interesting.

¿What the hell? If there's an aspect where the Witcher 3 can't compare to a Zelda this is dungeon design. I mean, ¿is there even a dungeon in the whole witcher 3 game that demands from the player anything more than "use that spell to break a wall" in order to advance?

The only aspect where The Witcher 3 is better is in the background of those missions, the fact that they actually tell you an interesting story instead of being NPC's giving you random requests, but if there's something Zelda is untouched nowadays is in the design of its dungeons and how well crafted their puzzles are.

Splatoon it's already my 2015 GOTY and it may very well be my game of the generation above Toki Tori 2+, the game that held that position until now.

It's not a matter of how many features it has, but about how solid this game is. It not only reinvented the 3rd person shooting genre and gave it a control scheme that actually works on consoles (its still not as fast-precise as a mouse/keyboard, but it's much, much better than the dual sticks option once you're used to it) but it also made the game much deeper.

The best Nintendo franchises are those where the entry level is so low anyone can have good fun from the get go, but then you can progress and progress until you dominate the game to a point you could never suspect you would. The prime example of this was Pokémon, where you can play only considering a few aspects like the levels or the types (with a simple "rock-paper-scissors" design that's easy to understand by everyone) and have good fun playing like that (or just collecting every monster) but that it also recompenses your dedication and knowledge by introducing more obscure systems like the IV, the EV, the breeding, attack's secondary effects, climatology in battles...

This was why until now I considered Pokémon (or Mario) to be some of the best designed games on their respective genres, and that's why Splatoon is the best designed game of this generation. And they did it in a genre (3rd person shooters) that seemed impossible to evolve further!

In Splatoon the entry level is so low that absolutely anyone can contribute to their team's victory. The idea of "painting the ground" instead of "go kill the opposite team" may seem nothing, but it changes everything. It changes how you approach the game completely or how you can feel satisfied even if being unable to defeat your opponents in direct combat without forgetting the fact that becoming good at direct combat is still a clear advantage.

But that's not all. The fact that your own ink allows you to move much faster (and to climb walls) while also dwarfing your enemies' movement allows for some crazy strategies and gives the different scenarios much more depth. You can hide on the ink and use it to induce your enemies to expose themselves (for example, in port merkel I inked the terrain in front of the enemy's base -the central corridor that goes downards to the two "main central zones"- and also one of the lateral passages placed in a higher position so when the other team's members respawned they started to paint up the "central corridor" exposing themselves in the flank, allowing me to buy some precious time for the rest of the team), you can block an opponent's scape route by inking over their ink (not that it's completely blocked, but if he's in a hurry that may be the difference between living and dying), ink some walls to navigate the scenarios much more discretely... even in more traditional modes where killing each other is more of a focus (in ranked battles for example) that alone gives the game a strategic approach you would never find in other shooters.

Heck, even the fact of replacing the traditional bullets for Ink changes the gameplay substantially. Since the Ink has a much more limited range and gravity affects it the game becomes much less about having good reflexes (not that they aren't needed, but this is not just about seeing your enemy before he sees you and be the first to shoot) and much more about thinking how to approach a situation (high places give you more of an advantage both in terms of range you can cover and how close the enemies have to approach in other to touch you with their weapons, just to name the first thing that comes to mind thanks to that).

When the gameplay foundations are so unprecedented and so well crafted like in this game you can't deduce points because of some secondary features that are missing, because then you end with by the book, completely generic games with worse playability having higher reviews because they have what the reviewer expected them to have.

Similar to what happened to SEGA. Since all the revenue streams are limited to the actual sales of your games minus the royalties paid to the platform holders:

1. The only games they would make would be the ones financially viable (so no more Pikmins, no F-Zeros, no more Metroids).

2. Because of 1, the games wouldn't be as polished as they currently are (polishing a game requires money and that's why day 1 patches are becoming more and more popular among the 3rd parties).

I also think this goes to Nintendo. They had a rough start and the WiiU, wihtout 3rd party support, will end with the tinnier game library of the current gen consoles, but every single game they have released for the WiiU is a polished great experience. They've made the best 2D Mario and platformer (NSMBU), the best 2D Donkey Kong platformer, the best Pikmin (and best adventure-RTS game because it's the only one of its kind I think), the best Mario Kart, a great 3D mario (although I don't like it as much as the Galaxy games because of the 8-directional control) and I expect a lot from their games for this 2015.

@sailor232: Xenoblade will be a really hard game to port to the 3DS, and I don't think it will look better than the Wii version did. That being said, the original Xenoblade game had a big flaw which was the lack of an internal "where to get that object" guide. I mean, with hundreds of different monsters and droppable materials, to find something concrete without them telling you "this object is dropped by those beasts" or "can be found in that area" is a really big flaw.

I expect it doesn't. I mean, the first one may be one of the most overrated games ever and it having a lot of success was the demonstration that traditional gaming is dying. No more "interactive experiences" please, no more "movie-like 'games'" with generic (although serviceable) gameplay and 0 level design... that needs to stop ASAP!