Pokémon Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire

[SlowPokemon]

I just finished reading that review and came here to laugh about it

Also they complain about the number of HMs even though there are fewer than the original Ruby/Sapphire wat

[Nebbles]

This is why I just don't pay attention to gaming reviews. They're for the most part, really dumb.

[SlowPokemon]

Nah. Just IGN. Sites like Destructoid and Kotaku are awesome.

[Nebbles]

...let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

At least nothing is stopping my hype for Friday!

[Roz~]

I just finished reading that review and came here to laugh about it

Also they complain about the number of HMs even though there are fewer than the original Ruby/Sapphire wat

IGN a.k.a the website that gave Skyward Sword a bad review because of the game's controls. Turns out the reviewer wasn't using them properly yay

Honestly we all know IGN sucks and the game is gonna be awesome.

[Bubbles]

do you even check the pokedex

whoops i forgot to memorize the height and weight of #258 out of ~721 im a bad fan

Anyway, because I'm a complete airhead, I just realized yesterday that I never even preordered AS yet... I ordered it on amazon but I'm too cheap to actually pay for shipping and now I might not get it until december :/

[BlackDragonSlayer]

whoops i forgot to memorize the height and weight of #258 out of ~721 im a bad fan

Height Comparison?

[SlowPokemon]

IGN a.k.a the website that gave Skyward Sword a bad review because of the game's controls. Turns out the reviewer wasn't using them properly yay

aka the website that gave dual destinies a low score because it was too linear

[Maelstrom]

aka the website that gave dual destinies a low score because it was too linear

You need to add 2 points to every VN score on iGN

[KefkaticFanatic]

It's more appropriate to actually read reviews and determine whether the feedback is something that would be relevant to you

The only complaints about ORAS are that there's a slight bias towards water types and that dive is obnoxious.  I sort of agree, but neither of those are things that would make me not want the game.  Similarly, they might rate some game as being moderately fun to play, but as a story-driven game having a terrible plot.  That would probably be a big issue for me personally, but then if it was still on the edge, and if other reviewers might be uncertain on the same issue, I might consider just trying it to see what I think myself.  Actually, I agree completely with their complaints about SS, as I found the controls to be just as clunky and partially broken (or at least poorly implemented).  It wasn't enough to make me declare the game as bad as I still enjoyed it, but it still sticks out to me as a reason to rate it lower as others.

It's easy to say "well this review is dumb because i played it and i liked it", but you have to realize that while it is a publication, any review is both objectively and subjectively critical.  Maybe the reviewer might be biased towards some things being more important than you might think.  It's always important to know or at least be able to parse the particular bias of your source.

[K-NiGhT]

what bugs me though is they found the tiniest of things wrong with ORAS and gave it a 7.8, while literally every version of Call of Duty they have ever reviewed (except apparently Ghosts cuz I guess that game was legit bad) has gotten a 9 or above. I read their review of Advanced Warfare the other day and the only negative they gave it was "Exposition dialogue"

This is why I just don't bother reading most reviews anymore.

[KefkaticFanatic]

You can be mad about that because you dont like fps and some people do, but you have to realize that it isn't just "they", as there are multiple individual reviewers at IGN.  Maybe you want to complain that they aren't standardized enough, and perhaps that could be fair, but it really is impossible to have a review that is entirely objective with no angles unless you look at nothing but the bugs in the game and maybe how long it lasts.  The rest of my reply would just be my last paragraph.  They are writing the review of the game as a review of an online FPS.  The games do online FPS well, and have done so for a long time, relative to other games in that field.  You can't just say "well they gave cod a 9 and pokemon a 7 so they are saying cod is better than pokemon?!", as that's not a fair or reasonable analysis of the reviews or scores in any way.

[SlowPokemon]

i am laughing so hard ign's review of omega ruby and alpha sapphire is the new tumblr meme

[BlackDragonSlayer]

what bugs me though is they found the tiniest of things wrong with ORAS and gave it a 7.8, while literally every version of Call of Duty they have ever reviewed (except apparently Ghosts cuz I guess that game was legit bad) has gotten a 9 or above. I read their review of Advanced Warfare the other day and the only negative they gave it was "Exposition dialogue"

This is why I just don't bother reading most reviews anymore.

Yeah; that's totally wrong! I'm sure ORAS is a solid 8 game!

My brother brought up the same example (Call of Duty vs. Pokemon). I don't really think their logic can be explained reasonably (or, it could be explained as "money"); if everything shown in the trailers is as good as it seems, ORAS will definitely (strong emphasis on this) be better than a 7.8.

[FierceDeity]

They are writing the review of the game as a review of an online FPS.  The games do online FPS well, and have done so for a long time, relative to other games in that field.

Whoa whoa whoa, which "other games" are we talking here, because I actually do like online FPS games and I find CoD pretty inferior to TF2, Halo, and battlefield