Pokemon proves how out of touch Gamespot has become...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

Pokemon Black 2 got a 6.5 here on Gamespot. That's a bad score, the lowest a Pokemon mainline game has ever gotten. Even some Pokemon spin offs have received a higher score. However, not only was the review itself baffling and somewhat misleading, it also in essence proves how out of touch Gamespot is now.

Pokemon Black2/White 2 are incredible games. They take all the streamlining and everything else that was good about Black/White, and then they add the scope and the technical depth of HeartGold/SoulSilver. Narratively, they break new ground for the series for being the first direct sequels in franchise history. Structurally, changes have been made to the traditional formula even beyond Black/White, which in itself was a departure from the norm for the series.

Why was the review so down on the games, exactly? Because they haven't changed? The Pokemon games get more changes per installment than most other AAA franchises do; in spite of that, they retain their core gameplay and structure, because Game Freak got it right the first time. There is no other way to do Pokemon. At most, there can be graphical changes, but the gameplay and mechanics themselves are perfect, and Game Freak keeps polishing them to ensure they remain up to scratch. So why were points docked for the game 'being the same old Pokemon' when games like Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Medal of Honor, God of War, Capcom Fighters, and more get high AA or even AAA scores with each annual iterative release, that adds even less to the formula than each Pokemon game does?

And finally, of course it's the same, Gamespot, it's a part of the same series, what, do you expect Pokemon to go full on Grand Theft Auto or something?

And maybe, just maybe, there's a reason it's still the same structurally: maybe the fans like it that way? Just a thought. But your review and your score just show how out of touch you've become. I eagerly anticipate the 8.0 Warfighter review, and the 8.5 Black Ops 2 review with bated breath.

#2 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -
GS is biased against sequels.
#3 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
GS is biased against sequels.SaltyMeatballs
Yes, Modern Warfare 3's 8.5 is conclusive proof.
#4 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]GS is biased against sequels.charizard1605
Yes, Modern Warfare 3's 8.5 is conclusive proof.

Dat moneyz!
#5 Posted by super600 (30275 posts) -

Blame the outscored reviewers.

#6 Posted by Vaasman (11220 posts) -

Spiderman-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg.

#7 Posted by Bigboi500 (29286 posts) -

F*ck review scores.

#8 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] Dat moneyz!

I'd think fear of Reggie would be enough to keep them in line as far as Nintendo reviews go

Blame the outscored reviewers.

super600
Blame the what?
#9 Posted by RulerofGondor (390 posts) -

Spiderman-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg.

Vaasman
...? And in any case, yes, the scores for the last few Pokemon games have been unfairly harsh, but the series itself needs to evolve somewhat. For example, their stubborn refusal to move from the DS to the 3DS is indicative to me of a fear of taking chances or risks, a fear of trying to impose any real changes to the games.
#10 Posted by santoron (7690 posts) -
Out of touch? Because your opinion isn't theirs? Flawless logic.
#11 Posted by super600 (30275 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] Dat moneyz!charizard1605
I'd think fear of Reggie would be enough to keep them in line as far as Nintendo reviews go

Blame the outscored reviewers.

super600

Blame the what?

I meant blame the freelancer reviewer.

#12 Posted by clyde46 (44816 posts) -
Its Pokemon, the only thing more convoluted is the Bible.
#13 Posted by Bigboi500 (29286 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

Blame the outscored reviewers.

charizard1605

Blame the what?

The weirdos who GS hire to review games they think aren't important enough to be reviewed by members of the Gamespot community.

#14 Posted by timmy00 (15360 posts) -

I fully agree but lolreviews.

#15 Posted by FIipMode (10846 posts) -
There is a really low quality threshold for your threads but this is still surprisingly terrible.
#16 Posted by TheEroica (13299 posts) -

why does everyone have to agree with everyone else when giving a numerical score? are we fuking robots? "i was just about to feeeeel"..

#17 Posted by Obviously_Right (5093 posts) -

LOL @ the GOW reference.

GOW3 had more changes to its gameplay than all the Pokemon sequels put together.

#18 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -

Nope, just goes to show that people are tired of how stale Pokemon has become. There's a reason the reviews keep dropping lower and lower across the board.

#19 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -

Nope, just goes to show that people are tired of how stale Pokemon has become. There's a reason the reviews keep dropping lower and lower across the board.

DarkLink77
Pokemon goes up and down. 3DS version AAA on lock.
#20 Posted by CanYouDiglt (7306 posts) -

So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out of touch?

#21 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -
I haven't played the either Black/White or Black/White 2, but I am going to have to disagree with what you say about Pokemon games having to be the same all the time. My favorite Pokemon game of all time is XD, because it's the basic Pokemon game at heart, but completely different. It was even a major step up compared to Coliseum, which it shares much more in common with, but is very different from. I'm not sure about the innovation that occurred in the newer entries, but Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald->Firered/Leafgreen-> Diamond/Pearl were all pretty similar, and they do get tedious eventually. I think they need to start experimenting more with things like the GC because it ends up really well. Or at least release a sequel to XD on the Wii U. I would buy a Wii U for that.
#22 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out out touch? CanYouDiglt
Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.
#23 Posted by -Patrick_92- (2168 posts) -

MoH and GoW are annual releases?

I hardly ever agree with GS reviews, but it's just someone's opinion. Don't let it get to ya, as long as you enjoyed the game it shouldn't matter what score they give it.

#24 Posted by MBirdy88 (7644 posts) -
[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out out touch? charizard1605
Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.

Lol pokemon isn't cookie cutter? "how can we make thsi combat better" "ADD MORE POKEMANZ AT ONCE!!1111"
#25 Posted by Lems_R_Tools (255 posts) -

"" Pokemon black version 2 is the same pokemon you've come to know, year in, year out.""

i agree with the reviewer, its the same thing over and over again with this franchise, nothing new but some bad designed monsters that you know theyre running out of ideas creating..dont get asshurt and say Gamespot is out of touch just because the crappy score isnt to your liking.

#26 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Nope, just goes to show that people are tired of how stale Pokemon has become. There's a reason the reviews keep dropping lower and lower across the board.

SaltyMeatballs
Pokemon goes up and down. 3DS version AAA on lock.

Not here, unless it changes significantly. And it won't.
#27 Posted by almasdeathchild (9517 posts) -

the pokemon games really havent changed since red and blue from like what 16 years ago?not suprised it got a low score

#28 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -
[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out out touch? charizard1605
Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.

The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine.
#29 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out out touch? DarkLink77
Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.

The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine.

No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.
#30 Posted by ultraking (6904 posts) -
Lol. Gotta catch that 6.5.. pokemon sucks
#31 Posted by Bigboi500 (29286 posts) -

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]So because they gave a game a score you do not agree with they are out out touch? MBirdy88
Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.

Lol pokemon isn't cookie cutter? "how can we make thsi combat better" "ADD MORE POKEMANZ AT ONCE!!1111"

I think the point of the thread is not that it's not, but the fact that Gamespot treats one differently than the other. Then you have to ask 'why'. Could it be because one is a Western company and the other is Japanese? Could it be that maybe GS reviewers are genre, company and country fanboys? I'm not saying they are, but the questions have to be asked.

#32 Posted by Vaasman (11220 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.charizard1605
The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine.

No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.

Oh well then you should play pokemon some more because it's design never changes.

#33 Posted by Joedgabe (5110 posts) -

People in here love mario platformers. The word hypocrisydoesn't exist here.

#34 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine. Vaasman

No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.

Oh well then you should play pokemon some more because it's design never changes.

ba dum tss

Well played, sir :P

#35 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -
[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] Please read the OP. My point is that cookie cutter sequels like Modern Warfare 3 will get an 8.5 or 9.0 every year, while Pokemon will not.

The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine.

No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.

So if Call of Duty scored 6.0s every year you'd be happy?
#36 Posted by mems_1224 (46485 posts) -
woah woah woah....there most certainly is another way to do pokemon. god dammit nintendo. GIVE ME POKEMON SNAP 2 NOW!!!! its the perfect game for your crappy tablet controller. make it happen. now back to our regularly scheduled program. GS sucks, that is why i haven't taken their opinion on games seriously in years.
#37 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] The system ain't perfect, but saying Pokemon deserves higher scores because the industry collectively faps to Call of Duty is asinine.

No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.

So if Call of Duty scored 6.0s every year you'd be happy?

Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.
#38 Posted by almasdeathchild (9517 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] No, I'm kind of asking for consistency. ANY kind of consistency, but some kind of consistency regardless.charizard1605
So if Call of Duty scored 6.0s every year you'd be happy?

Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.

we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

#39 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] So if Call of Duty scored 6.0s every year you'd be happy?almasdeathchild

Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.

we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

You've been able to do that since 2007 :?
#40 Posted by mems_1224 (46485 posts) -

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] So if Call of Duty scored 6.0s every year you'd be happy?almasdeathchild

Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.

we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

wasnt there a thing in the first pokemon black and white games that let you battle random people online through wifi? :? or cant you at least battle friends over wifi?
#41 Posted by almasdeathchild (9517 posts) -

[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.charizard1605

we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

You've been able to do that since 2007 :?

huh.i ditched pokemon around silver and ruby. so i'm cloudy on that

#42 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -
[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] Assuming it got points knocked for not mixing things up, sure. I'm not asking for it to score a 6. My problem is, reviews for Call of Duty games explicitly state that the formula is predictable by now, and then they stick a 9.0 right up there.mems_1224

we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

wasnt there a thing in the first pokemon black and white games that let you battle random people online through wifi? :? or cant you at least battle friends over wifi?

You can both. Friend battling has been a part of the series since 2007, random battles since 2010. So what's the excuse?
#43 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.

almasdeathchild

You've been able to do that since 2007 :?

huh.i ditched pokemon around silver and ruby. so i'm cloudy on that

Yeah, Pokemon went online in 2007. You can trade online, battle online, participate in asynhronyous gameplay online, it's actually pretty full featured, more full featured than most DS games.
#44 Posted by almasdeathchild (9517 posts) -

[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]You've been able to do that since 2007 :?charizard1605

huh.i ditched pokemon around silver and ruby. so i'm cloudy on that

Yeah, Pokemon went online in 2007. You can trade online, battle online, participate in asynhronyous gameplay online, it's actually pretty full featured, more full featured than most DS games.

huh boggles my mind then.

#45 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -
FPSes and sports games seem to get quite the free ride when it comes to sequels, not just here but everywhere. Other generas are hammered for lack of change, but in some cases that may be at least partly warranted. When it comes right down to it, Pokemon is an RPG and that genera has set a fairly high bar on changing things up each iteration. By contrast, in sports games, there isn't as much room to move because you're limited by the sport itself. FPSes similarly have a fairly ingrained and expected set of parameters by the community.
#46 Posted by mems_1224 (46485 posts) -
[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]we're in a period where online rules all. and got has a dominate base for online multiplayer.now lets say pokemon stays the same as it is,but you can go online with you're lvld pokemon.and battle people within the same level as said pokemon. it could get a better score and maybe a bigger fan base.charizard1605
wasnt there a thing in the first pokemon black and white games that let you battle random people online through wifi? :? or cant you at least battle friends over wifi?

You can both. Friend battling has been a part of the series since 2007, random battles since 2010. So what's the excuse?

i thought so. with soul silver i gave my little cousins my copy of heart gold on the condition that they find and catch all the awesome pokemon i couldnt get and trade them to me :lol:
#47 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22416 posts) -
OP speaks the truth, BW2 trumps the first set of games in almost every way imaginable (expect for story, it's not quite as strong) But ofcourse GS has never been kind to pokemon games.
#48 Posted by Stringerboy (6946 posts) -

I agree with you that 6.5 is stupidly harsh to a game that has a lot of polish and content.

But the nature of the review is trying to establish that, at heart, the core gamplay really hasn't changed significantly enough. And it's been over 15 years now.

When are the developers going to take some risks with the established formula?

#49 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

Holy fvcking sh!t, get over it, you whiny, self-righteous dumbasses. Opinions differ. The opinion of a GS reviewer isn't fact. Neither is the opinion of an IGN reviewer. Or a gameinformer reviewer. Or yours. I'm so sick of this b!tching over review scores. Move on with your life.

#50 Posted by Gamingclone (5224 posts) -

Gamespot just doesnt like Nintendo portables anymore.