I'm going to properly critique based on how I'd view it if I didn't know you were from /vp/, and have been here since /tr/ which gives me an automatic affinity for you.
The key to a piece is the introduction. If the reader is fine with it, they'll continue reading without a second thought. If it starts to bore them, they'll have a negative opinion of the rest, if they even read it.
You prolong your introduction and make it boring, and a chore to read, by explaining what you're going to do. This isn't a scientific journal, it's opinionated journalism.
"This turn based RPG has been a fan favorite and one of the most popular game series to date. Announced to the public on January 8th, 2013, the long months to wait for the game to release in October were excruciating for some, and a blast for others! As a Pokemon game it was expected to live up to and surpass its predecessors, but was the hype too much for the final product? Keep reading and we’ll get to my conclusion on the matter!"
This entire bit isn't needed, and bores the reader, giving a negative impression for the rest of the piece. Spend that wordspace later in the review discussing something else, or going into further depth. You need to give an account that is brief enough to invite people to read it casually, but go into an adequate amount of detail to explain WHY the game is good/bad. This requires a succinct approach.
"The game started off like so many before it. You wake up in your room, head downstairs and after telling your mother your good-byes you set off on your own journey. After you get your starter Pokemon the game truly begins. They recreated the rival system and added a small group of friends instead. "
Too much description.
Instead of saying "A happens" and then "my opinion on this is B", keep it interesting by saying "it's good how A happens because in previous games it was B, this is an improvement".
