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

[Teeqoz]

irstupid said:

Teeqoz said:

irstupid said:

No I didn't read the review, and haven't played the first game either.

But yes he is baised.  He is docking the game for its CORE MECHANIC, which is a water, island, water based game.  

Be like if I reviewed AC4 and I hate ships, pirates and warm weather.  Then I bitch about seeing too many pirates or having to sail.  

I should NOT be reviewing the game.  We need someone impartial.  I LOVE Pirates and ships, so I shoudl not be reviewing AC4.  The same as one who hates that shoudl not be.  It takes a 15 second trailer to weed out bad reviewers.  If I show someone a AC4 trailer we should be able to tell who is insanely biased one way or the other.  Same with Pokemon game.  All the trailers I have seen, this seems a very water based game.  I'm not a big fan of surfing in pokemon, thus I put it on my pass list from teh very first trailer I saw.  This reviwers should have done the same, and thus not been one to review the game.  He clearly is biased before coming in.  

If a core mechanic is bad, why shouldn't they dock points because of it? Should I make a game where being crappy is a core mechanic and then expect good reviews?

The thing is, the writer has nothing against water (Or do you think she has some personal agenda against water, and wants to se all water in videogames dead?). The writer is docking points because there is a huge abundance of water-type pokemon which makes battles be repetetive, and because it's tedious and annoying to move in the water! It's not because this writer has a bias against water and wants it all to go away, it's because the mechanics assosiated with water are poor! So the more water there is, the more you'll have to make use of those poor mechanics, which leads to annoyance, and it should remove points dammit! 

 

I could just copy and paste that part from my previous comment, because you obviously didn't read it. If a mechanic is bad, then the game should lose points because of that mechanic. 

Unless you want the reviewer to not care about anything in the game, I mean, obviously, if the reviewer finds out that he likes the mechanics in pokemon, then he is biased right? (If you answer no to this question, then you are a hypocrite). Thus, you can never ever have an un-biased review. Unless it's like the one in the link I gave you, which it seems you didn't bother to read either.

The core mechanic isn't bad though.  It's just not to the reviewers liking.  

It's not to my liking either.  Moving in water is like being in tall grass 100% of the time.  Meaning unless i use repels i'm fighting too damn often for my tastes.  

But please tell me what could be improved upon for water?  You hop on a pokemon and move around the water.  you move around just like when on ground, your just on water.  You encounter trainers the same as on land, ect.  Only diffrence is as I said before, you are basically always in grass, thus always fighting.  No roads to run on to ignore battles, you need to pop a repel, which if my memory serves right isn't very expensive.  It tells you when it wears off and even lets you just select yes to apply a new one in seconds.  hardly a hassle.  

This game was obviously made with Water and Water Pokemon in mind.  Should a game be docked for its theme.  Should The Last of Us be docked because I'm sick of fighting zombies?  Besides there are like 150-200 water pokemon alone. So even ignoring all other types of pokemon it has enough in just that type to fill an entire game.

"The mechanic is just not to the reviewers liking"

No, ofcourse it isn't. I'll ask you again, have you read the link I gave you? It's literally impossible to make a review without OPINIONS and OPINIONS are PERSONAL and based on PREFERENCES and wether you like it or not BIASES. Let's for example take Mario Galaxy. I could say that all those reviewers giving it a 100 score are biased and shouldn't be reviewing the game, because the obviously are bieased towards liking the game mechanics.

 

But since you basically refute logic, there is no reason for me to continue this discussion, because the very idea of an unbiased review is impossible.