I wouldn’t expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven’t played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn’t submitted their review yet, and usually they’re early. The game is just really big.
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on ‘types’. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you’ll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it’s just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It’s been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you’ve got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
‘over-reliance on Water Pokémon’ or ‘some routes are boringly easy’ would both be infinitely better sentences than ‘too much water’, which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
The “too much water” was intended to talk about too many water pokemon, as well as the poor navigation of water levels.
To me, when people try to discredit ign because of “too much water” I immediately know their opinion is worthless because they didnt read the review and couldn’t piece together what the criticism was in the first place.
‘too much water’ was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you’re set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn’t exactly an industry darling.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
I wouldn’t expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven’t played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn’t submitted their review yet, and usually they’re early. The game is just really big.
Ign shouldn’t have much issue with it. There isn’t too much water
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
They get memed a lot about this, but I actually agree with that ORAS review. The water does hurt navigation for a huge chunk of the game.
I also agree but for different reasons…
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on ‘types’. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you’ll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it’s just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It’s been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
It really is bad design. I have no idea how it became a meme when the criticism is so obviously linked to this
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you’ve got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
‘over-reliance on Water Pokémon’ or ‘some routes are boringly easy’ would both be infinitely better sentences than ‘too much water’, which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
The “too much water” was intended to talk about too many water pokemon, as well as the poor navigation of water levels.
To me, when people try to discredit ign because of “too much water” I immediately know their opinion is worthless because they didnt read the review and couldn’t piece together what the criticism was in the first place.
I’m out of the loop, can you fill me in on that to much water meme?
‘too much water’ was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you’re set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
I thought it came from thier review of Spider-Man?
Nope, here’s the Know Your Meme page (IGN itself no longer shows the pros/cons section)
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/866746-ign
Thanks, I learneded today
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn’t exactly an industry darling.
Do game journalists even rate things less than a 90 anyways?
Depends on if the cheque clears.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
I mean yeah dude and bg3 is a brilliant effing game you saying it doesn’t deserve great ratings?
Imagine caring what IGN thinks.