Alright, while Splatoon does admittedly have it's fair share of problems in terms of features and content and whatnot, which hopefully will be resolved in a sequel(or DLC, but imo that's stretching it...), there's still a damn good reason it's sitting at 81 right now. It's just generally because the game is innovative and well, fun, because at the end of the day, it's core gameplay design is still spectacular, with or without voice chat, and that's what saves the game. You can check a cross on a whole list of things Splatoon doesn't have, but it has the one thing a game needs most: Superb game design. A game can have a whole lot of content, but if it plays like ****, it's bad and all that content has gone to waste. But if you're game misses out on content, while still playing amazing, it's still gold, yes possibly a smaller amount of gold than you'd hope for, but it's indefinitely better than a large pile of ****.
To me, I think a game is worth it if I enjoy it. Which can be caused by any amount of factors. If it's caused by more content to you, then fine. But can good gameplay alone satisfy $60 for a game? Well heck, you have reviewers who seem to feel that way, and the preorders for Splatoon are pretty decent so far, and it's safe to assume some of these were fans like you and me who've played the Testfire demos and feel the game is worth it after that. Seems a bit harsh and downright false to accuse them all of being "braindead fanboys", as if a game can't be fun when it doesn't have so and so amount of content. I mean, this very site even houses a Smash 64 competitive community which plays and heavily enjoys a 15 year old game that's been supposedly improved upon in various aspects(graphics, music, content, etc.). So is it any wonder that people can look past what Splatoon lacks in favor of what it does have? And that what it does have, outweighs what it doesn't to some people?