The issue with game criticism as a whole is that it’s wildly subjective, much more so than people pretend it is. Also much more so than the review industry lets people believe thanks to bandwagoning. Also, pessimism tends to reign in critical world, as it’s a really lazy way for critics (mainly amateur critics) to make dumb people think they (the critic) know what they’re talking about—it’s much easier for a dumb person to call out the bullshit on an optimistic take than it is to call it out on a pessimistic take.
When it comes to overblowing small issues, they take a 98% full glass of premium cask whisky and claim it isn’t as good as the glass of cheap beer that’s 100% full. Games are bigger and more complex these days, a few glitches (many of which you have to try to get) that take a lot longer to track down and fix. While it’s true, there are your Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wilds that seem relatively clear of all classes of bugs, those are the exception. A company can dump all sorts of cash into development, but there are only so many top tier resources to go around. The thing about Pokémon is it’s fairly iterative, so when it’s done it’s transition to modern visuals, later games are going to have most of those glitches ironed out, and QA/engineers will become more aware of what to look for as they gain experience.
AnywY, I haven’t played the game, I’m not a fan of Pokémon, but this post brings up the same story as general problems with the criticism industry.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
