Pokémon Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire

[SlowPokemon]

Ok but ign in particular is awful because the staff is huge and every writer has a different opinion, resulting in ridiculous reviews and hilarious contradictions between the site's official reviews

Like their official "top 25 games" of each system include games they said were terrible and lack games they said were great because their reviewing is so inconsistent

[Maelstrom]

[KefkaticFanatic]

I still think it's silly to just consider any one review on its own though.  I would only take seriously an aggregate score, and then actually look into the details of the high and low end of that collection.  Also, all these complaints about the "too much water" are from dumb kids who can't even bother to read the damn content they think they are criticizing.  The reviewer felt that there was an overabundance of water types in their playthrough, and that made it feel imbalanced.

But seriously, how can you expect *any* large website to just have a single monotonous viewpoint about games that determines all of their reviews?  That is silly and doesn't make sense.

FD I've only ever played a few CoD games once or twice, but I still know that it is a general impression that it does the style of close combat infantry only FPS very well.  TF2 is a class-based team objective game, and BF is also quite different in the more 'arcade' sort of mechanics and that it has *vehicles*.  It is also largely a team objective game.  There are some CoD copycat expansions which have nothing but close quarters maps and all those free for all types of gamemodes.  CS is also a totally different game unless you are for some odd reason playing deathmatch.

You can say you like those sorts of games better, which is fair, but you can't just say "well I like how BF4 gameplay is better than CoD gameplay therefore CoD should be reviewed poorly".  There are obviously a fairly substantial amount of people that heavily enjoy its style

[SlowPokemon]

i bet you're fun @ parties

[K-NiGhT]

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.

i guess i didn't really word what i was trying to say correctly. all i'm saying is that having the same game with the exact same features year after year isn't innovation (which, might i add, is what half of the gaming community clammers for, yet still manages to get upset when games try something new), yet those games, since they are from an american studio and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their development, get immense praise.

I just went back and looked at the reviews for the original ruby and sapphire. They got a 9.5. Granted, the way IGN did things was probably different back then, but still. To say that the game was improved immensely and then lower its overall rating by nearly 20% is just contradictory.

Of course, these are just review scores. I get that. I'm not just absolutely upset that "omg pokemon didn't get as good a score as CoD 532142, that must mean they hatin" I'm just saying that I'm upset that this is how reviews work now.

[FierceDeity]

i guess i didn't really word what i was trying to say correctly. all i'm saying is that having the same game with the exact same features year after year isn't innovation (which, might i add, is what half of the gaming community clammers for, yet still manages to get upset when games try something new), yet those games, since they are from an american studio and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their development, get immense praise.

Granted, (not that I hold this view) many people would have the same criticism of Pokemon as a series. CoD may change somewhat less than Pokemon, but if you're going to criticize a game for monetizing off of releases of the same game with seemingly minimal changes, it seems pretty silly to do that in defense of a Pokemon game. CoD does not have the "exact same features year after year". Neither does Pokemon. But the same blind criticism is frequently made of both (typically by the fandom of the other game)! We are merely accentuating the changes made to Pokemon in our minds because we are much more immersed in it; even with the amazing things being done with ORAS, the ultimate "differences" between games are extremely minimal, from an outsider's perspective. Please focus on the actual qualities of a game rather than its relation to its predecessors, because if you turn the looking glass back onto Pokemon, you'll find that it's not so innocent of rehashing old concepts for monetary gain (and yes, the gaming community's fickle views on innovation contribute to this, as well!).

You can say you like those sorts of games better, which is fair, but you can't just say "well I like how BF4 gameplay is better than CoD gameplay therefore CoD should be reviewed poorly".  There are obviously a fairly substantial amount of people that heavily enjoy its style

Fair. Though I would argue that culture and aesthetic play a pretty comparable role in its success in relation to its actual gameplay (not that aesthetic shouldn't be considered a valid asset, but culture is pretty external to the game itself).

[SlowPokemon]

Major ORAS spoilers:

Spoiler

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/pokémon-omega-ruby-and-alpha-sapphire-dlc-spoiler-leaks-hint-possible-battle-frontier-395686

[close]

[Nebbles]

Spoiler

BATTLE FRONTIER, COME BACK TO ME

[close]

[K-NiGhT]

Spoiler

I'd totally be ok with that.

[close]

[SlowPokemon]

I mean IDC if it ends up being true or not because I like the main story much more but that would be hella

[DrP]

^hella... what

Got my shipping notification from Amazon today!! Get ORAS tomorrow!I wonder what I am going to play first!

[Nebbles]

Tomorrow's the big day!!

[Yugi]

Today!!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Spoiler

As you go down Cave of Origin, places will start to shake as Groudon/Kyogre's power awakens. As you go down, you'll put on the Magma/Aqua Suit, fitted with the Blue/Red Orb to allow for you to pass and awaken Groudon/Kyogre. You end up riding it as they go into the cave.

Am I understanding this correctly? In Omega Ruby, you put on a Magma Suit, and ride on Groudon THROUGH MAGMA?

[close]

[Bubbles]

I STILL haven't gotten my shipping confirmation

I'm not going to get this until mid December -_-