[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[Captain Proton]

The wild area is new. The entire raid system is new.

There's a difference between disliking and being dishonest.

The raid system isn't new, Pokemon Go has had it for a couple of years now.

[Video Games]

If you don't buy the expansion pass, it's gonna be a fucking nightmare to obtain them through trade since ofc they removed GTS which allowed specific pokemon trading.

Or you know, ask people online like i have.

[Jtbrig7390]

I can honestly say that they did not improve anything with SW/SH. Its worse in every aspect.

Ya it totally didn't improve anything at all besides.........

1) Performance.
2) Graphic's. (World Detail,Effects,Weather,Lighting)
3) World Scale.

None of those things was improved at all clearly.....

Not every game needs to reinvent the wheel, Believe it or not but doing the same old same with just a touch up can be a good thing..

[Jester Joe]

The raid system isn't new, Pokemon Go has had it for a couple of years now.

Which isn't made by Game Freak at all, and has a completely different implementation and different functionality?

Boiled down to the basics, sure they're similar, but not enough to say they're the same thing.

[Jtbrig7390]

Which isn't made by Game Freak at all, and has a completely different implementation and different functionality?

Boiled down to the basics, sure they're similar, but not enough to say they're the same thing.

Raids isn't new, Everquest had them......

That's his argument.

[Jester Joe]

Raids isn't new, Everquest had them......

That's his argument.

I mean I get the point, but I don't agree with it at all. For all purposes, Pokemon Go is basically a random mobile game that's just wearing the skin of Pokemon.

And the Harry Potter game proves that since it's basically the same.

Almost as if the company had their own mobile game they were using as the skeleton and just throwing a fresh paint job over it repeatedly... hmmmm *insert thinking face here*

[Jtbrig7390]

I mean I get the point, but I don't agree with it at all. For all purposes, Pokemon Go is basically a random mobile game that's just wearing the skin of Pokemon.

And the Harry Potter game proves that since it's basically the same.

Almost as if the company had their own mobile game they were using as the skeleton and just throwing a fresh paint job over it repeatedly... hmmmm *insert thinking face here*

Oh I mite not have been clear but I agree with you. Raids is new to the series and I honestly hope they expand on it in the future.

[Jester Joe]

Oh I mite not have been clear but I agree with you. Raids is new to the series and I honestly hope they expand on it in the future.

I gotcha, just expanding on what I meant hah. I should have said "I get their point"

[Jtbrig7390]

I gotcha, just expanding on what I meant hah. I should have said "I get their point"

At this point it just seems like some people are just looking for a reason to bitch about Sword and Shield. They could release a update tomorrow adding all the Pokemon in for free and people would still complain about it.

[Lahis]

Oh I mite not have been clear but I agree with you. Raids is new to the series and I honestly hope they expand on it in the future.

Oh they won't. They'll throw raids and Dynamax into trash like every other gimmick they have done.

[Jtbrig7390]

Oh they won't. They'll throw raids and Dynamax into trash like every other gimmick they have done.

If so so be it, would be nice but doesn't matter to me in the end.

[Poppincaps]

Ya it totally didn't improve anything at all besides.........

1) Performance.
2) Graphic's. (World Detail,Effects,Weather,Lighting)
3) World Scale.

None of those things was improved at all clearly.....

Not every game needs to reinvent the wheel, Believe it or not but doing the same old same with just a touch up can be a good thing..

lol what? Go online in the wild area and tell me they improved the performance of the game. They did improve some aspects of the game, but they have also regressed in many areas as well. Considering the game costs 20 dollars more than all the other mainline Pokemon games, I don't think a regression is really excusable here.

[Tech614]

lol what? Go online in the wild area and tell me they improved the performance of the game. They did improve some aspects of the game, but they have also regressed in many areas as well. Considering the game costs 20 dollars more than all the other mainline Pokemon games, I don't think a regression is really excusable here.

Cost of the game is a goal post shift and not really a retort. Nintendo published Switch games are $60, Nintendo published 3DS games where $40. In other news water is wet mate. Why even bring it up. I'm honestly done with everyone trying to turn a debate into video games somehow related to the cost of them, if games where priced based on how much effort went into making them shit like RDR2 or Sony first party games would be $200 lmfao. It's such a non talking point, and if you can't afford a game at a certain time well too bad it's a luxury, not something you're entitled to.

When I'm deciding if a game is good or not the cost is simply not a factor. A game isn't better or worse based on how much it costs, stop bringing it up lmao.

[Immitis]

i cant believe people are bitching about "paywalling" the older pokemon.

this is literally the exact same way its been since x and y.

how did you get the missing pokemon in x and y? you either traded for them or you used bank
oras? you traded for them or you used bank
sun and moon? you traded for them or you used bank?
usum? you traded or used bank
sword and shield you fucking trade or use home

its pretty clear some people dont even want to give criticism and just want to bindly hate because theyre angerey

all you do by endless nitpicking and bringing up nonpoints is devalue all the actual valid criticism.

[Poppincaps]

Cost of the game is a goal post shift and not really a retort. Nintendo published Switch games are $60, Nintendo published 3DS games where $40. In other news water is wet mate. Why even bring it up. I'm honestly done with everyone trying to turn a debate into video games somehow related to the cost of them, if games where priced based on how much effort went into making them shit like RDR2 or Sony first party games would be $200 lmfao. It's such a non talking point, and if you can't afford a game at a certain time well too bad it's a luxury, not something you're entitled to.

When I'm deciding if a game is good or not the cost is simply not a factor. A game isn't better or worse based on how much it costs, stop bringing it up lmao.

It's relevant because I am comparing one game in the series to another game in the series... If they are going to raise the price of the game, then I expect the game to be better in every way with far higher production values. Take Monster Hunter World as an example. Handheld series (at least the most recent ones) that came to Console and got overhauled in an amazing way. The game looks gorgeous, the monster's AI is improved and they have many interactions with each other, etc. Then you look at Pokemon and its best feature is a lackluster open world area that drops to 12 FPS when you're online. Plus they completely gutted of any puzzles in the world and over half of the National Dex which has previously included every existing Pokemon. So what exactly am I paying that extra 20 dollars for?

Also I can't really move the goalposts if this was the first post I made on the subject...

[Tech614]

It's relevant because I am comparing one game in the series to another game in the series...

It's not relevant at all as I already explained. Cost of a game has no baring on contents of said game. Sword/Shield would not magically be a better game if it was priced at $40 nor would Sun/Moon have been worse games if priced at $60. Again price of game is not a factor of game quality it's just one thing whiny ass gamers try to cling to when they can't actually form points against something they're outraged about. If you're in a financial situation where $60 is breaking your bank you probably shouldn't be spending money on games in the first place.

Also I can't really move the goalposts if this was the first post I made on the subject...

That's not how it works at all, you came in mid convo quoting a dude then proceed to list an asinine point(which price is) as the main talking point. Price is not a factor in this discussion at all- you tried to shift that goal post.

[Jtbrig7390]

lol what? Go online in the wild area and tell me they improved the performance of the game.

Wild area for the most part runs just fine and the overall game runs better than the most recent ones that rarely kept a 30fps.

I didn't give a opinion when I said performance was improved over the last few games, The video outright shows it.

[Immitis]

Could you imagine the fps drops though if gamefreaks devs tried to make sword and shield use actual switch level graphics oof

thats one positive for sword and shield basically being uprezzed sun and moon art style at least

[Poppincaps]

It's not relevant at all as I already explained. Cost of a game has no baring on contents of said game. Sword/Shield would not magically be a better game if it was priced at $40 nor would Sun/Moon have been worse games if priced at $60. Again price of game is not a factor of game quality it's just one thing whiny ass gamers try to cling to when they can't actually form points against something they're outraged about. If you're in a financial situation where $60 is breaking your bank you probably shouldn't be spending money on games in the first place.



That's not how it works at all, you came in mid convo quoting a dude then proceed to list an asinine point(which price is) as the main talking point. Price is not a factor in this discussion at all- you tried to shift that goal post.

So you're willing to pay more for less content? Well I'm glad you have abysmally low standards, but I don't. Also the straw man is strong. I can pay for my games just fine, doesn't mean I want to be spending more than I have to. That's just irresponsible. Knowing you though, you'll just come back with some snarky comment that will completely miss the point.

- - - Updated - - -

Wild area for the most part runs just fine and the overall game runs better than the most recent ones that rarely kept a 30fps.

I didn't give a opinion when I said performance was improved over the last few games, The video outright shows it.

That video shows the DF guy running around in the Wild Area with no other people... I said when you go online the FPS tanks. It does. When you're offline it's fine. Problem is you have to go online to have any fun doing raid battles.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're going to link a DF video at least link the proper one:

So as I said, the video shows the game dropping down to very low framerates. Just skimming over it, I saw a drop down to 14 FPS.

[Jtbrig7390]

If you're going to link a DF video at least link the proper one:

So as I said, the video shows the game dropping down to very low framerates. Just skimming over it, I saw a drop down to 14 FPS.

Once again I said the Performance is IMPROVED over the last games, I didn't say it was perfect. It factually runs better because even in 2v2 fights in the last few games they did good to even be 20fps.

You are goal post moving, Not once did I say the performance was perfect. Also The video I linked was proper and you do realize there is more to the game then the wild area while online right?

You are goal post moving but I'm not surprised.