{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/26/2016 8:35:08 PM
13
But 'too much water' is a legitimate complaint. Ever since the first game people have complained that water traversal is tedious
English
-
I would've considered it legit if they just phrased it a different way. "Too many water hms." "I always have two Pokemon with only hm moves" "dive, waterfall, and surf is too much." Really anything like that and it would've been okay. "Too much water" is a terrible point.
-
I don't have a problem with HM slaves, although Ruby/Sapphire did have too many HM moves. My personal problem with water is that the rate of encounters is too high and, as you generally only fight water or flying Pokemon, you can just spam electric moves constantly. It's tedious and I'm glad I chose Ruby when I was younger. I don't think I could have coped with the extra water Sapphire brings.
-
Its a petty opinionated complaint. The games a remaster of an older game, shouldn't the review reflect as much?
-
The review should reflect the reviewers opinion of a game - since that's what a review is. And as a remaster, designed to be consumed by a modern audience, it should be judged with an eye towards modern expectations. I would expect any review, whether remaster, port or anything else, to highlight a games weaknesses. It's then up to the consumer to use the content of the review - not the score - to determine whether the game would appeal to themselves. Of course, an argument can be made that the original Final Fantasy (for example) has a simplistic story and a reliance on grinding because of its age, and that's part of its appeal for some, but I would still expect a modern review to touch on those shortcomings. I love Pokemon but hate water battling with a passion. It's for this reason that I've avoided the Ruby and Sapphire remakes. Other people don't mind water battling and probably have a blast with those games.
-
It's not a legit complaint when it's basically a remake of the original game though lol. It would be one thing if they reviewed the original ruby and sapphire with "too much water" but to use that as your review centerpiece when reviewing what is in essence a remake/remaster is pretty pointless, it's not like they're going to reinvent and remap the entire already-established region.
-
Edited by dadwithapad: 8/27/2016 6:35:15 AMIt's totally a legit complaint. They review the product that's in front of them, not the product that was there X years ago. If the product in front of them is full of tedious water segments then it's only right to mention it.
-
There's nothing wrong with having that opinion, the point I'm making is that's not a complaint that should be in the review of a remake. They aren't going to make dramatic changes in a remake especially when it involves the region that said remake takes place in. Complaining ORAS has too much water is like complaining CoD4's remaster has too many bullets or too many British people. Reviews of a remake or remaster should discuss the new things and review the enhancements or minor tweaks in a positive and/or negative light. There was barely any discussion of the contest system being tweaked and from what I remember not even a mention in the review of the speed addition to surfing or the new flying mechanic both of which help alleviate the problems of "too much water", just a statement that sounded like whining and nitpicking.
-
I thoroughly disagree. If the reviewer finds something to dislike in a remaster - [i]even if it was part of the original game[/i] - it's absolutely their duty to mention it in a review. A review is someone's opinion of a game. If that opinion is 'the games shit' they should state that, not 'the games shit but so was the original so... 9/10' However, the fact that you say there are mechanics to reduce water travelling makes me think twice about picking this up.
-
The new flying part is semi story based so I won't spoil that, as for surfing there is a Hoenn region Pokemon that in essence doubles your surf speed if you're riding it and in my experience the encounters were lower than the regular surfing Pokemon.
-
The original versions did not have this complaint, so it is not a valid complaint.
-
What nonsense is this? If it wasn't complained about in the original review, it can't be complained about in a remaster review? Despite the fact that both reviews are by completely different people? With different tastes and opinions? What's the point in reviewing remasters if you can't say anything that wasn't said the first time around? The point is, many people find water traversal tedious. You're attacked every couple of 'steps' and face the same two types of Pokemon constantly - namely water and flying. If the reviewer finds that boring - and plenty of people do - then they're absolutely right to factor that into their review. If the person reading the review enjoys water battles, they can ignore that comment. That's how opinions work.
-
[quote]What nonsense is this? If it wasn't complained about in the original review, it can't be complained about in a remaster review? Despite the fact that both reviews are by completely different people? With different tastes and opinions? What's the point in reviewing remasters if you can't say anything that wasn't said the first time around? The point is, many people find water traversal tedious. You're attacked every couple of 'steps' and face the same two types of Pokemon constantly - namely water and flying. If the reviewer finds that boring - and plenty of people do - then they're absolutely right to factor that into their review. If the person reading the review enjoys water battles, they can ignore that comment. That's how opinions work.[/quote] To give a game a worse review because of 1 thing is petty and irrelevant. It would be like saying the game is the greatest ever, but one section is under water and so the game only gets a 7.
-
It depends on how badly that one thing affects your enjoyment of the game. If a 30 hour game is superb for its first 25 hours but ends with 5 hours of mind numbing tedium, would those last five hours factor in to your recommendation? I've watched movies that I've loved for approximately 90 minutes, but which have ended on such a disappointing final 15 minutes that I've had serious reservations of recommending them to friends. And you'd better believe that the shitty ending is getting brought up when talking about those movies.
