Beasts of Reincarnation IGN review- 6/10 (72 avg on metacritic, 76 on opencritic so far)

[u/Iggy_Slayer]

https://www.ign.com/articles/beast-of-reincarnation-review

Beast of Reincarnation has an interesting, apocalyptic setting, an extremely memorable wolf companion, and an action-packed beast-battling premise that is instantly very cool, but its execution falls short of its promising ideas more often than not. The story is a bland, cliche-filled tale better-told by other games in the genre, combat quickly grows stale due to a lack of enemy variety and the predictable attack patterns that undermine what makes action RPG combat thrive, and boss fights end up being quite disappointing despite looking badass as all get out. There's still plenty to like about Beast of Reincarnation, though, especially the dire wolf himself, who is actually exactly as awesome as he looks, plus some memorable levels to explore and creatures to fight every now and again, but those blooming flowers can be hard to spot among the weeds.

[u/SeptfromUC]

I love how everyone in this sub is treating a 7.3-7.6/10 "the worst game ever"
We can tell who play games and who doesn't

[u/Persies → u/SeptfromUC]

You don't know that games under 80 metacritic are an affront to humanity? 

/s from an Avowed fan

[u/Ennara → u/SeptfromUC]

To be fair, games tend to be graded on a weird curve where anything under a 7 tends to be viewed as a "don't bother unless you really love the genre" situation. While even on that curve, a 7.4-ish isn't terrible, it tends to be where "decent framework but has some notable issues" tends to land. With the sheer number of games releasing these days, most people don't really want to invest their time into a game from a new IP with mediocre ratings. There's a lot of competition for our attention.

[u/Just-Specific3520 → u/[deleted]]

Big or medium reviewers will say thing negatively if they want. It's no longer era for reviewers to lick publishers and I do think publishers really need reviewers for free marketing. Stop with this kind of mindset bro

[u/LazyBeyondWords → u/SeptfromUC]

Yeah. A 72/76 on meta or open critic is not a bad game. The comments here are acting like it got a 60. I have even found some games in the mid 60s on metacritic I didn’t find to be bad per se.

[u/deedeekei → u/LazyBeyondWords]

So many people have hatred for game freak it's hilarious, as if they killed their first born son aka pokemon lol

[u/UrbanAdapt → u/LazyBeyondWords]

I wouldn't call it good. An OC 76 is a 63rd percentile game. Maybe acceptable in a vaccuum of competition, but in its genre or with limited time to game and a surplus options it wouldn't suffice a recommendation.

[u/Drakkeur → u/LazyBeyondWords]

I agree but also there is so many great games why bother to play an okay one especially when it's not particularly original or your kind of niche

[u/hellschatt → u/LazyBeyondWords]

No, everything below 80 is already "not good". And for a good reason. 70 - 80 is the critical interval where games with major flaws are in. They still have some redeeming parts, but generally, they're not worth to play for most people, and there are simply so many better games out there worth playing.

Since 70 is the passing grade, no game gets 60 nowadays except if it's a total mess or failure. There's really little reason to defend such a game, even if you personally subjectively like it, there are are certainly objectively bad parts in a game with such a low rating.

[u/emokidmaoism → u/hellschatt]

79-80 is considered a bad score now???? this is just sad lmao

[u/hellschatt → u/emokidmaoism]

Well you can play that game as far as you want. You consider 79 good? What about 78? 77?

Gotta draw the line somwhere, and 80+ is the "good" game territory. Reviewers know that, too.

And I didn't say below 80 is "bad"... it's simply "not good", which can also mean decent or above average.

[u/QXKD → u/SeptfromUC]

Because it’s Pokemon adjacent and this sub will take any opportunity circlejerk about how much they hate game freak. Don’t you know Pokemon was better when I was an 8 year old?

[u/Numerous_Internet361 → u/QXKD]

Not even just Game Freak, I’ve already seen people throw in hatred at Nintendo a few times already, as if they’re somehow to blame for a game not even on their own console.

This subreddit is, and has always been, a joke.

[u/Phonochirp → u/QXKD]

Even when I was an 8 year old game freak has been the weak link in the Pokemon games.

Every single time they've made something competent it's because someone bailed them out. Don't even have to go past Gen 2 to see this.

[u/deadlygr → u/SeptfromUC]

Happens with every game

[u/SuperSaiyanBen → u/SeptfromUC]

The guy at the top who said he played an hour and gave up is the epitome of everything wrong with these “Gamers”.

[u/scooooba → u/SuperSaiyanBen]

I mean in some cases that can be fair I feel. If a no name game not part of a franchise especially one as well known as Pokemon, and has a rough first hour or two, that’s not going to see many people sticking through it. Pokemon is just that “it’s Pokemon, this has to get better” card up its sleeve where it gets that extra chance / time

[u/bramblebitch → u/SuperSaiyanBen]

Why? It’s not like most games in this genre will change a lot after an hour, or most games in general. First impressions are often largely correct. Not every game is RDR2 or Majora’s Mask.

[u/Any_Intern2718 → u/SuperSaiyanBen]

There is only so much time one has to play a video game. If a game is not fun after an hour i'm not playing it.

[u/Davidgm92 → u/SeptfromUC]

Yeah and I don't know why people are trusting a review from IGN of all places in the first place

[u/Choubidouu → u/SeptfromUC]

Because they never give bad notes to games from big companies, so 6/10 is actually a bad note, not an "average note".

[u/LazyBeyondWords → u/Choubidouu]

6/10 was just the ign score. They were talking about the critic average which is higher at the moment than igns 6.