Do you feel critics are "too soft" on mainline Pokémon games?
- Thread starter Oscarzx n
- Start date
Unlike other games, it really feels that new Pokemon titles are reviewed in relation to previous entries in the franchise, rather than to the market at large. It's the only way I can understand the immense praise they get for including basic, industry standard features.
I mean, the Wild Area in Sword/Shield was absolutely terrible for example, and yet it was held up as a highlight of that game! They even got props for having the camera controllable with the right stick, and you'll often hear people talk about how the new release is 'the best Pokemon has ever looked!' as if that means anything when the production values are this low.
Similarly, I think the open world in Scarlet/Violet is pretty atrocious. The level design is not good imo, and assets are so similar within biomes that I never really know where anything is in relation to each other, unless there's a city or landmark nearby. You're basically just moving through areas from glowing dot on the ground to the next glowing dot. It feels so vapid tbh. There's almost no interactivity in the world, and every attempt to include something different is *incredibly* halfbaked. That 'roll the olive' minigame was something else, lol. I play a lot of open world games and I really can't think of one that has a less interesting world than this? And this is before you get into the fact that this is an 'open world' game that CLEARLY has an intended path, but never indicates what it is. I should have known that I couldn't just go anywhere. I'm turning up to some Gyms and challenges like 10+ levels about them.
The game is enjoyable for the same reason any Pokemon game is; it's fun to choose a bunch of monsters that appeal to you and raise them up over time. But I really don't think anything this game is doing outside of those Pokemon fundamentals is handled well.
I mean, the Wild Area in Sword/Shield was absolutely terrible for example, and yet it was held up as a highlight of that game! They even got props for having the camera controllable with the right stick, and you'll often hear people talk about how the new release is 'the best Pokemon has ever looked!' as if that means anything when the production values are this low.
Similarly, I think the open world in Scarlet/Violet is pretty atrocious. The level design is not good imo, and assets are so similar within biomes that I never really know where anything is in relation to each other, unless there's a city or landmark nearby. You're basically just moving through areas from glowing dot on the ground to the next glowing dot. It feels so vapid tbh. There's almost no interactivity in the world, and every attempt to include something different is *incredibly* halfbaked. That 'roll the olive' minigame was something else, lol. I play a lot of open world games and I really can't think of one that has a less interesting world than this? And this is before you get into the fact that this is an 'open world' game that CLEARLY has an intended path, but never indicates what it is. I should have known that I couldn't just go anywhere. I'm turning up to some Gyms and challenges like 10+ levels about them.
The game is enjoyable for the same reason any Pokemon game is; it's fun to choose a bunch of monsters that appeal to you and raise them up over time. But I really don't think anything this game is doing outside of those Pokemon fundamentals is handled well.
I mean, Scarlet Violet are sitting at 76 Meta, so Pokemon isn't getting a free ride into the 80s range
I think ditching this graded system would make it feel less like an exam and be a subtle reminder to everyone that reviews or subjective. I think grading gives the impression of objectivtiy, when reviews can't be. Like it wouldn't get rid of the problem completely, but it would help, imo.
Ah yes Eldin Ring... the game that is nonetheless 60fps for most people playing it.
I kind of agree the games seem to be reviewed in a bit of a bubble. Like for all intents and purposes the "open worlds" in Arceus and Scarlet/Violet are unremarkable compared to other open worlds in other games, even 10 years ago. But because it's Pokemon trying something new, it is seen as being a positive development.
I love Pokemon, but my partner and I both agree the new games are a 5 or 6 out of 10. Perfectly playable but thoroughly average in almost every way. It is a middling series that isn't terribly exciting when new entries are announced, and I feel every "innovation" is ultimately an uninspiring attempt at something other games do far better.
I love Pokemon, but my partner and I both agree the new games are a 5 or 6 out of 10. Perfectly playable but thoroughly average in almost every way. It is a middling series that isn't terribly exciting when new entries are announced, and I feel every "innovation" is ultimately an uninspiring attempt at something other games do far better.
I mean, those games don't have Pokemon in them and all that entails.
Then we'd spend even less time entrataining those discussions because if they haven't read the review then there is nothing to talk about really.
Yes. I'm currently playing the game and I am definitely enjoying, but the review scores do not reflect just how much of a technical mess this game is. In addition the production values (not just graphics and performance) are simply not up to standards.
Most are way to soft for every popular game/genre. I'd like to see more scores below 7 for once.
I only trust a few reviewers these days so it is what it is.
I only trust a few reviewers these days so it is what it is.
The only way to play ER at stable performance on console is to play the PS4 version on PS5.
The PC release was atrocious.
MC 97
I'm not specifically talking about stable performance, although I probably should have said "near 60fps". Either way you cut it, you're comparing a game that's regularly going sub-30 (for everybody) to one that is largely approaching 60fps for most.
Along the years I have seen both too much praise and too much critic to inconsequential stuff. During the DS era they kept mentioning how they wanted the franchise to go full 3D, so that's why X&Y got so much praise. Then it happened again with Sword when they finally added an open area like critics asked for and probably because of the HD.
Seeing S&V as a 76 on metacritic feels just right to me. The online is a glitchy, but the game itself is fun to play and explore. They're finally getting closer to that feeling that Pokémon Snap has of a world where Pokémon are actually living there in the wild. The art direction also works pretty well for this open world.
Apart from literally getting stuck from talking to a npc one time (which tend to be close to the towns where the game autosaves), I haven't seen anything that -breaks- the game in a way where people can loose progress or have to constantly think about a glitch in order to avoid it.
The games that are fun to play but that fail to reach the potential of the franchise because of time or technical issues, and the critics tend to reflect that.
That's the sort of situation that we always end up in with mainline. We never got a 9/10 Pokémon game, even if some got close.
Seeing S&V as a 76 on metacritic feels just right to me. The online is a glitchy, but the game itself is fun to play and explore. They're finally getting closer to that feeling that Pokémon Snap has of a world where Pokémon are actually living there in the wild. The art direction also works pretty well for this open world.
Apart from literally getting stuck from talking to a npc one time (which tend to be close to the towns where the game autosaves), I haven't seen anything that -breaks- the game in a way where people can loose progress or have to constantly think about a glitch in order to avoid it.
The games that are fun to play but that fail to reach the potential of the franchise because of time or technical issues, and the critics tend to reflect that.
That's the sort of situation that we always end up in with mainline. We never got a 9/10 Pokémon game, even if some got close.
I feel people wish that critics were harsher on Pokemon because their critical balance is so incredibly out of whack that they perceive the series as a flaming 3/10 for each game released. Usually accompanied by posts of a single release every 5-6 years jRPG saying "why isn't it like this?" or a some fans Unreal Engine trailer that is 90% smoke and mirrors.
Framedropping is horrible on TV, being sub 60 or sub 30.
And you are moving the goalpost.
The point is, critics are too soft with a lot of games / devs and overall don't care about the technical sides of games.
Moving the goalpost? The fuck are you doing, then. I mentioned 60fps and then you moved over to stability. Again, we're comparing a game that struggles to reach 30fps, and often just doesn't, to one that doesn't quite reach 60. It's obvious to me that you butted in without really getting what was being talked about.
Pokemon is given an enormous amount of leeway. The games are often mediocre and only stand out in character design. The technical performance problems wouldn't be excused in other Nintendo titles, let alone releases by other major developers. Corners are cut big time in this franchise, and it's one of the biggest in gaming.
I won't disagree that PC ER performance was a mess and deserved way more criticism. It is fun to point out that Steam deck performance was great thanks to pre-cached shaders.
I won't disagree that PC ER performance was a mess and deserved way more criticism. It is fun to point out that Steam deck performance was great thanks to pre-cached shaders.
It was nice that you prove my point and that ERA is also too soft depending the game / dev :)
Because the glitches aren't as bad as some try to make you believe (see the CP2077 comparisons).
Also: the game has had reviewers deduct points for the performance problems.
Hardly atrocious. It had an annoying stutter but that was fixed pretty quickly. Besides that, the game has a gorgeous world. Amazing level/world design.
This is Pokemon S/V running at 20 fps with insane stutters and pop-in:
That was fixed AFTER the reviews, which is the topic here.
See what Alex have to say about it :
And that's also what I said in a previous post. In the end, critics don't care about technical side. The only thing that they can't handle is game saves breaking.
The new games are at 76 on metacritic, which is the lowest (IIRC) for a mainline game. Pokemon or not, they would never go much lower than that for games that sell so well.
I mean people already voted with their wallets. They decided that the tech issues wasn't that big of a deterrent from enjoying this game.
This is what Pokemon should look like at this point.
Yeah, that would be incredible. Maybe Monolith can make the next Pokemon game. ;)
Or they just bought the game without knowing about any of that.
They are. BIG TIME. Especially the shit 2 games to get everything model that they still have. If any other game with piss poor IQ and performance came out with 2 games annually like that from anyone else, they would get destroyed by gamers and critique.
This is what Pokemon should look like at this point.
That's *really* nice.
Nintendo, investigate! Your! Human! Resources! For! Any! Relevant! Shortcomings! In! Headcount! That! Might! Be! Alleviated! Through! A! Competitive! Hiring! Process!
Well the tech issues are out all over social media, review sites, etc., so there's a chance it could affect its legs.
but most likely, it won't. "Open world Pokémon" is too appealing for a large group of people. It's also getting good word of mouth despite the issues.
Too soft in general. Yeah the Pokemon games are ugly as sin and run like trash, but I'm addicted to them. Despite all their problems, they are still some of my favorite games every year.
Missing the wanted stars in the top right.This is what Pokemon should look like at this point.
Please don't use that Image 😂This is what Pokemon should look like at this point.
No, I think that they are voicing the obvious criticisms with the correct tone generally.
But, if I were to review the game myself, I'd honestly say that many reviews can stand in for my views on the game.
But I'm having a really fun time with it, despite seeing its technical shortcomings every moment I play. But my experience isn't stuck in a place where the presentation and jank are dominating how I feel. It was a very rough first impression, but once the game got into its flow, I got addicted and am having a great time.
But, if I were to review the game myself, I'd honestly say that many reviews can stand in for my views on the game.
But I'm having a really fun time with it, despite seeing its technical shortcomings every moment I play. But my experience isn't stuck in a place where the presentation and jank are dominating how I feel. It was a very rough first impression, but once the game got into its flow, I got addicted and am having a great time.
More effective would be people taking reviews as the subjective aggregate of opinions that they are, and not extensions of their own confirmation bias
people shouldn't be "more harsh" because you or anyone else thinks they should be - their opinion is what it is and that's all it should be
people shouldn't be "more harsh" because you or anyone else thinks they should be - their opinion is what it is and that's all it should be
Find a better one and post it. The Pokemon games shouldn't look like they do now in 2022. It's ridiculous.
Tbh I am loving the game besides the glitches. Heck even the glitches aren't game breaking 🤷🏿♂️
