reviews are supposed to drop either today in 1 hour, or tomorrow at the same time. what review score you think it will get?https://strawpoll.com/ajnE1POdxnW
9/10 Fresh Pokemon Experience
>>58407126I think 80-84, it seems decent for a modern pokemon game but of course that’s a low bar to clearidk what goes on inside reviewers heads though, so who knows
85 metascorereviews will be the same “it’s rough around the edges but Pokémon is still fun” reviews we always get
>>58407126After playing I think 80-84 and here's why:>It's a genuinely fun new Pokemon game>New designs are cooler than expected>They're trying something new when they didn't have to which is admirableBUT>I think some will just dislike the battle system and/or have criticisms for it>As a result they'll mention preferring the turnbased system>Graphics, namely the flat buildings, as well as the setting itself may be things I think some criticise>If they really liked Arceus they may harp on how different this game is to that (no ride mons, less focus on catching more on battling)
>>58407153ummm anon https://www.metacritic.com/game/pokemon-scarlet/
>>58407162>New designs are cooler than expectedPfffft
>>58407213in a lot of cases, yes
>>58407213yea
>>58407144>>58407151>>58407153>>58407162I think they'll be harsher on it than you guys think. Some people have a bone to pick with the franchise. It has the opposite thing that most of Nintendo's other franchises do where they'll handwave away issues due to the "magic":>The map. - it's too small, way too copy-paste, even though there are multiple vertical layers. After 4–5 hours, it feels like you've seen almost everything except a few minor details. At the 10-hour mark, it really feels like this is just a tutorial map, and the real, large map is yet to come. (For comparison, it’s smaller than the very first area in Arceus, the Obsidian Fieldlands. It’s more densely packed, but still feels smaller.)>The wild zones - some are literally just a single street or a circular plaza. You can explore them fully in about 5-10 minutes, and that’s all the potential they offer. Each wild zone has about 4–5 Pokémon species. I don’t know if this will change later, but I’ve unlocked 10 zones so far, and this is definitely the weakest part of the game. The wild areas in Sword/Shield were miles more interesting, which is saying something.>as you climb from Z to A, a really nice gameplay loop starts to take shape. But then, around hour 5–6, beating one story opponent suddenly jumps you from rank V to F, skipping half the alphabet. Why? That was the whole point—gradually climbing the ranks. What’s the point if the game throws you up to F so early?I think hardcore fans will be a lot kinder to this game than casuals honestly
>>58407176>>58407310I think one of the big problems reviewers usually cite is how formulaic the games are, thoughPLA wasn’t some masterpiece in game design but it shook things up, and got pretty good reviews for ithttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pokemon-legends-arceus/I think ZA will get a similar score boost because reviewers will see the non-traditional structure and new combat as giant positives
>>58407126Return to form for the Pokemon franchise.In other words, fucking run.
Reviews filtering in, looks like a hit. Sitting at 86https://www.metacritic.com/game/pokemon-legends-z-a/
>>58407176I imagine the fact it's not turn based will be enough key jangling to make reviewers score higher than normal.
>>5840712665 if not lower. It's dogshit
>>58407609That and the fact that a lot of Pokemon games this past decade have been shit will bump ZA's score. In the end it still is average at best compared to the rest of the industry.
>>5840760282. It's going to be yellow. There are red red reviews coming.
I hope this gets panned so they ditch real time combat for gen X
>>5840712679/100Journos just give scores based on what they think people want to hear, and at this point they know everyone just want to see pokémon fans seethe
Seems to be settling into the 80+ range. Makes sense as most people who played it casually said it's an 8/10 for them, including rtard kun. it's a good score. Around Legends Arceus score.
>>58407643Ok it's at 80 now, seems to be dropping a lot. We shall see how it progresses. Maybe you're right anon >>58407636
>>58407126reviews have never mattered for Pokemon. Nor do they reflect what hardcore Pokemon fans actually care about. Fucking SwSh got an 80 on metacritic despite deserving way lower, while Legends Arceus only got an 83
I liked Eurogamer’s review, basically “it’s a good proof of concept, but you get frustrated they didn’t do more with it”seems accurate from what I’ve seen
Anons called it pretty well, though surprisingly nearly every review praises the battle system so I'm glad about that, everyone says the buildings look like shit lol
Looks like the % of positive reviews is increasing, so it should settle in around 81-83 which is a good result for Game Freak after the last couple of games
>>58407643So 51 without pokeslop bonus
>>58407126I'm sure a majority of people view "IGN" as the "main" reviewer, where's theirs?
I saw a bunch of 100s and thought I was on the wrong game then I scrolled down Do brits unironically suck at video games
>>58407900Nintendo Life giving it a 70 despite being a Nintendo fan site is surprising>>58407891In progress but it seems to be quite positive
>>58407126It is interesting to actually read a lot of these reviews. Goes to show the main reason they scored SV low was due to the bad performance, like some anons were saying. As soon as the performance was fixed up we go back to the XY-SwSh era scoring where it doesn't really accurately reflect the merits and drawbacks of the game, but rather just being a functional Pokemon game being enough. Interesting.Excited to play nonetheless, just thought it was an interesting observation
>>58407900The UK in general has always scored Nintendo lower. They're STILL bitter about ZX Spectrum.
>>58407942kek what
>>58407900Which idiot gave a 100?
>>58407920>Nintendo Life Gives very little few good scores to Pokemon game unless they're mainline games and are gens 1-4.
>>58407976weird because you think they'd realise that propping up pokemon games also helps them support the nintendo agenda haha lol
So its SwSh tier got it, better than SV atleast
>>58407891>"doing every side quest that pops up, and stopping every so often to completely change my outfit. I’ve currently got a full team all in the level 50s, and I can’t wait to stop writing this review-in-progress to go play more. It’s real good so far!"Sounds like an 8-9 secured there
>>58408005SwSh does not deserve that score at all
>>58408005SVbros.....
>>58408010hi notliquid
>>58407877SV didn't get a Pokeslop bonus though
>>58408050It did, it's a 30s/100 game and got 70s/100
>>58407126I think it'll be slightly less than PLA but still above 80.
>>58408105I said this prior to checking if the reviews were out and it looks like I was exactly right.
>>58408024hi indeedsolid
If the Switch 2 version can only get an 81, the Switch 1 version is going to be a shitshow
>>58408270What for being capped at 30fps? I played it for a while on my day one Switch and I'd say performance is about on par with PLA, rather than SV.
>>58408270Switch 1 version runs fine, at the cost of every version of the game having completely flat buildings
>>58407126Honestly the most I could give this game is 7/10. The game is fine but compared to the joy that was playing Pokémon Legends Arceus this ain't it. When I think Pokémon I don't think walking around a city all day and going around city parks.
>>58407891>>58408010>it’s good>it’s fun What kind of writing is this? I wish I was allowed to post the reviewer’s bio, but you can find it easily. Seem to be the target demographic for this game.
Worse than PLA but not by much
>>58407126It'll be in the 80's
>>58407213Unironically yes. The only ones that were underwhelming are Victreebel, Starmie, and Feraligatr.
>>58408350If they said >It's bad>It's boringyou'd lap it up.
>>58408270It'll be a 77
>>58408537Yes sir. I am paying $70 right now sir. Either something is good or it’s bad, and clearly this cannot be bad (checkmate chud), therefore we will buy it.
>>58407900>return to form
85. 90Users 0
