IGN gives Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire a 7.8 because of too much water.....

[binary solo]

pokoko said:

sundin13 said:
Honestly, I've always thought that Pokemon games have had too much water...its boring, and the addition of Waterfall and Dive just made it even more of a pain to traverse.

Too much water is a valid complaint, however, I do think the rating system gets weird when talking about remakes. Do you rate a game on how good it is or how good of a remaster it is (or rather, where is the balance)? Rating a remake "badly" because of some fairly artificial complaints about the original game doesn't really sit super well with me, but I can't really figure out where I sit with the matter. I am open for input...

The line that caught my attention was this:

" However, as a remake, it does represent a big missed opportunity to fix several significant balance issues and mechanical problems — the difficulty I had going back after playing the much more modern Pokémon X shows how far Pokémon games have come in 12 years."

Which begs the question, should improvements to bad mechanics from the original games be made?  And if they aren't made, is it valid to deduct points for that?  Should mechanics be modernized in a remake?  At least to the point of filtering out the worst bits and fixing the most annoying?

Depends if those things were considered flaws in the original I suppose. A remake is a chance to fix things that were problems in the original. But it should not necessarily be expected to completely modernise the game.

Having said that if someone were to remake a game like Icewind Dale I would want them to use more modern D'n'D rules for the game and not use the D'n'D rules that were in place at the time, merely because that's how it was in the original. So it's not totally black and white.