>>52369411The problem is that Pokemon's core gameplay has remained unchanged and doesn't complement the design of the rest of the game with the lack of level scaling and how easy it is to outlevel everything. In regards to the basic, just normal monster vs monster gameplay loop of Pokemon, we actually LOST features like the ability to turn move animations off or the Set battle style, not to mention full outfit customization.
The new method of exploration is nice, and much better when next to other Pokemon games, but still far behind the curve of other games in the same genre, not even mentioning the awful performance. The world is shallow, the landmass is extremely flat, there's a lack of interesting and immersive biomes and the few that do exist generally run terribly. The interactions with Pokemon that were introduced in PLA are mostly gone, so despite Pokemon in the OW being an objective improvement, the way they're implemented is very barebones. The story tries, but the worldbuilding is an absolute mess and the school, no, the whole region, makes absolutely zero sense under any scrutiny (you can skip classes for a year and still be a student, everyone, from little kids to old men, are students, Nemona and Arven are your upperclassmen but still take the same classes as you, etc.)
The impression I'm getting from your post is that people are criticizing SV because "new bad!", as if that's what's going on. The issue isn't new = bad, a lot of the stuff in this game would be great if it had more polish and thought put into it, the issue is that new = undercooked and we've seen this exact concept done better from games 5+ years in the past on the same console.
As stated previously ITT, S/V, in the vacuum of other Pokemon games, is great, but if you take off the kid gloves compare it to other full on JPRGs, it's miles and miles behind.
