so that IGN review on pokemon

[RedDeadFred]

To be fair, water is a massive pain in the ass. Fighting the same 3 pokemon over and over when you really just want to get to another destination is a massive time waster.

As for the HMs complaint, personally, I find them to be an incredibly outdated system that serves only to limit what you can do in the game and are not of any real strategic value. They're also just plain stupid, my flying pokemon needs to e taught fly?

If you're going to force us to use these things, make sure there's only 4 in the game so that I only need one HM slave and the rest of my pokemon can utilize all of their slots to be of the most use. I understand there's less HMs in this game so maybe some of the ones left are actually useful.

The whole reason people are mad about this is because they skip to the bottom to see the score without reading the actual review.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Seriously fuck this, fuck that, fuck everything. Getting real tired of this fanboy hyperbolic bullshit. Reviewer said there were too many water types compared to every other type due to the lay of the land (irony) and HM's are the biggest piles of BS in whole series, Surf is the only decent HM, rest are horse crap.

Every damn fanboy acting like it's the end of the goddamn world that Pokemon got a 'Good' review instead of 'Perfect', it's the same bullshit as with Bayonetta, damn Nintendo fanboys getting their bloody knickers in a twist, because somebody wasn't bending over backwards for Nostalgia. Makes me wanna buy every Wii-U and DS I can find only to pulverise with sledge hammer, getting goddamn sick of it that it's driving me to caustic forms of rage therapy.

I know IGN isn't some pinnacle of greatness but honest I'm willing to bet some editor can just see what a little bit of controversy by, oh dear lord, not giving a Nintendo game a 10 outta 10, can give them a whole several a months worth of traffic in a couple of hours. Congratu-fuckin-lations, you win, everybody wins, I win, thanks Obama. *rolls around on the floor throthing at the mouth with rage*

WHY ARE POKEMON GAMES EVEN REVIEWED ANYMORE, FORCE OF HABBIT?!!?!

*For the record 3rd gen was my favorite after Pokemon Crystal, didn't know jack about Rayquaza, blew my goddamn mind when I stumbled upon him*

 

[CaitSeith]

IGN reviewers needs to either stop using their single sentence positive/negative summary or to learn how to use them.

 

[Something Amyss]

I distinctly remember them marking down Heart Gold/Soul Silver for:

-Being a remake
-Having the same Pokemon

Which, lets be honest here, are paltry reasons to mark it down, taking points off it for being a remake is absurd and the "same Pokemon" thing is false, since there were many other Pokemon from other generations thrown in later. I don't think its so much the score that aggravates people so much as the silly reasons they use to mark it down (like one guy marking down Kirby Triple Deluxe for having a "short campaign" was pretty embarrassing)

Those flaws still totaling to a paltry score of 8.5. I mean, oh, the humanity. That score is about the Metascore average of 87, and above several other notable sites, including The Escapist itself. You'll notice that same video review involves Craig Harris saying "this isn't just a mere port and it wouldn't be fair to dismiss [the games] just because it's based on a 10 year old adventure" and you'll notice one of the bullet points doesn't appear in either the video review or the written one. This follows the standard review style for the blurb of "two positives, two negatives[footnote]this was at one point incredibly common, though it looks like they've shied away from it in recent years[/footnote]," and doesn't necessarily impact the score in itself--they've done the same for games which they've scored higher than a 9.5. Looking at the score breakdown, it looks like the sound was more a factor, backed up by the text of the review.

Honestly, if this is the grounds upon which people are calling IGN reviews bad, they seem horribly petty and vindictive. Which is, more and more, what I've come to expect from gamers and review scores.

Fuck, as someone who has thousands of hours in all Pokemon gens combined (you get this far when you play each several times and breed Pokemon for online battles) I can't comprehend this behaviour that people somehow assume they are in a position to deny criticism because they feel like it. Water sections in Pokemon games suck ass. They always did. And they are the reason why gen 3, in my opinion, is the weakest of them all.

In fact, all of the points people are complaining about are ones I see complained about by Pokémon fans routinely. Lack of play balance (yeah, this is usually leveled at competitive play, but not always). Having to use an HM slave because they hate HMs (made worse by this being the gen with the most). Water travel being tedious. But suddenly when it's in a review, it's not valid criticism.

I get this attitude of "it's different when we do it."

IGN reviewers needs to either stop using their single sentence positive/negative summary or to learn how to use them.

This has nothing to do with their "single sentence" summaries.

Good
Pokémon Alpha Sapphire introduces needed updates and a gorgeous new view of Hoenn, but a clearer view reveals its dated holdovers.

In fact, the problem seems to be that people can't be bothered to actually read a review, and rather accept someone else's single-sentence summary of the review.

WHY ARE POKEMON GAMES EVEN REVIEWED ANYMORE, FORCE OF HABBIT?!!?!

Have you ever seen the comments section of a Zero Punctuation when a big game comes out?

"hey Yahtzee, review this game!"
"Why won't you review this game?"
"OH MY GOD IT'S BEEN THREE WHOLE DAYS SINCE THIS GAME CAME OUT. WHY ARE YOU NOT REVIEWING IT."
Then Yahtzee comes along and is all "alright, fine. I don't like it."
And the responses are angry or dismissive. Yahtzee is teh bias, or just hates (company, often but not exclusively Nintendo), he's just against multiplayer even though we were just riding him to review a multiplayer game, etc.

I imagine part of the reason they still review the games is that many of the same people complaining now would be complaining if they didn't.

Given this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, I know I'd opt to publish a review, because at least then I would get internet traffic for the hate.

 

[ArcadianDrew]

eh, doesn't sound that bad to me. Too many water sections with too many random encounters can be irritating and it's perfectly legitimate to complain about them if they negatively affect your experience of the game. For once, IGN seem to be in the clear as far as I'm concerned.

Have just realized though, we now have a new 'gate' scandal, surely;
IGN-gate
Poke-gate
7.8-gate
Kallie-gate
Plagge-gate
Review-gate

and so on and so on

 

[Something Amyss]

Its IGN, move along people, nothing to see here.

I'm still not getting this, given how many Pokémon games they've given a 9.0+

 

[Lieju]

Wait, so what is the criticism? I read the review and I thought they meant too many water type pokemon? With whatever BS water type hydro pump surf armor penetrating attack they have? That seems more like a valid complaint than a map had too many water sections.

Wasn't it both? That it had a lot of water areas AND a lot of water-types? Which are two related things.

 

[Buizel91]

I don't get the problem....

U only need to visit these water section once in the entire game, then u can fly anywhere u want, i simply train my electric and grass types while over water, easy EXP.

Some people are never happy, what did we think would happen with a remake? They are obviously going to keep the water segments the same. Could they have changed it? Sure, but then people will moan that it got made easier.

Either way Nintendo can't win.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wasn't it both? That it had a lot of water areas AND a lot of water-types? Which are two related things.

From the review:

It?s not a new complaint, but Hoenn is still imbalanced type-wise, heavily favoring water. It?s especially noticeable in Alpha Sapphire, in which Team Aqua (the villains of the piece) use a lot of water types. It feels like there are water Pokémon in nearly every battle, and I have an overleveled Pikachu to show for it. You also have to navigate many bodies of water, since much of the late-game involves the HMs Surf and Dive to get from place to place. Diving was really neat back in 2002 when it was new, but I found it incredibly tedious in Alpha and Omega ? an obvious example of how superfluous some HMs are.

So yeah, it's both. Back to back.

 

[KazeAizen]

So, i checked out the IGN review on the latest Pokemon games, and I gotta say.......

seriously Too much water? what kind of negative is that?


thoughts on it?

Bonus Round: Post game content confirmed, speculations?

That really is much more down to personal taste. While the surfing segments are long the game doesn't truly open up until you can use Dive. Sure it probably could've been handled better but Nintendo was trying something new with not just land exploration but having pretty much an entire world to explore in the water segments which I honestly don't think has actually been done as much since then.

Also its IGN. The guys, that even when they are giving a fairly positive review, always come off as snarky and condescending (Looking at you Ultimate Ninja Storm reviews). Also they said a con to Sonic Generations was rehashed versions of old levels....for Sonic Generations....which pretty much from the outset said it was going to be a nostalgia tripe and tribute to 20 years of Sonic with past levels.

 

[Something Amyss]

I haven't paid any attention to them in years.

That much is fairly evident, since we're talking about Pokémon, which IGN has consistently rated at 90+ percent for the life of the franchise. I only found two below 90 in my quick search--this one and the previously mentioned HGSS (which still netted a 95, so not a bation of inconsistency).

I guess maybe you weren't joking about them being paid off for their other reviews, but if I went down that rabbit hole I might as well join Gamergate.

In fact, this review was from a woman, wasn't it? Probably some feminist agenda involved.

 

[Something Amyss]

Again, inconsistency on the part of individual reviewers, rather than the site as a whole. I mean wouldn't you think something odd is going on if Yahtzee suddenly started praising Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, a bunch of shallow, jingoistic military shooters with hand-holding gameplay and went on to condemn a game like Far Cry 4, the sequel to a series of open-world games that are known for actually gives player a significant amount of choice in how they decide to approach problems in the game? Thats not even to say that its a sign that they're being paid off, as it can just as easily mean that they're not very thorough with their opinions and can give a very poorly opinion on the game.

Which individual reviewers? Because barring evidence, this is indistinguishable from conspiracy theory.

But as the publication seems overall consistent, I find this hard to believe.

 

[Lieju]

Wasn't it both? That it had a lot of water areas AND a lot of water-types? Which are two related things.

From the review:

It?s not a new complaint, but Hoenn is still imbalanced type-wise, heavily favoring water. It?s especially noticeable in Alpha Sapphire, in which Team Aqua (the villains of the piece) use a lot of water types. It feels like there are water Pokémon in nearly every battle, and I have an overleveled Pikachu to show for it. You also have to navigate many bodies of water, since much of the late-game involves the HMs Surf and Dive to get from place to place. Diving was really neat back in 2002 when it was new, but I found it incredibly tedious in Alpha and Omega ? an obvious example of how superfluous some HMs are.

So yeah, it's both. Back to back.

Well I spot a lie right there. Diving was never 'really neat'.
IGN being paid off by Team Aqua confirmed.

Seriously though, I recall these exact complaints back when gen 3 originally came out. There really isn't a good division between land and water Pokemon: On other hand you have Water-type, on the other EVERYTHING ELSE.
Same goes for exploring water and land. They tried to mix things up with diving and rapid currents, but it wasn't enough. Which might really be because of the type-problem.
It also makes the plot utterly dumb. Well, even more dumb. This was really the first attempt at more 'epic' storytelling and I have to say I far preferred Team Rocket just being a bunch of thugs.

 

[Ghostface2206]

Water sections in Pokemon have always been a pain, go to the waters edge, press A, "waves roll on the waters surface...would you like to use surf?", play that same goddamn animation again, move around in what is basically an area where you area at constant risk of annoying random enocunters...with only water types...

And also the fact that the map is full of water sections has ALWAYS been a complaint of Ruby/Sapphire. You want to know another thing I've always noticed, a lot of people that started pokemon with Red/Blue or Gold/Silver didn't like Ruby/Sapphire (mostly down to the fact you couldn't transfer your pokemon so had to start from square one)and that also the only die hard fans of R/S are the ones that had it as their first pokemon game when they were kids.

So really the only reason IGN is getting hate for a legitimate complaint is because the fanboys can't stand a review criticizing their precious pokemon (it wasn't even a bad review. Have these fanboys even seen the IGN scores for previous pokemon games? They're all like 9s!!)

 

[Hero of Lime]

I agree that the HM system is still really bad. My way to fix it? Give each Pokemon a 5th HM slot. The fifth move cannot come into play for battling, and it allows you to use the full team you want, without having to keep depositing a team member for a HM slave.

As for the water complaint. Just use super repels! They are cheap enough to buy like 30 without breaking the bank. Plus, Hoenn is known for two things: water and trumpets. Take one away, and Hoenn loses its very soul!