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..
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD
"El Psy Kongroo!" Hearthstone Moderator
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*
"El Psy Kongroo!" Hearthstone Moderator
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD
"El Psy Kongroo!" Hearthstone Moderator
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD
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.
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.
"I was a normal baby for 30 seconds, then ninjas stole my mamma" - Deadpool
"so what do we do?" "well jack, you stand there and say 'gee rocket raccoon I'm so glad you brought that Unfeasibly large cannon with you..' and i go like this BRAKKA BRAKKA BRAKKA" - Rocket Raccoon
FC: 3437-3046-3552
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...
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.Also I can't really move the goalposts if this was the first post I made on the subject...
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD
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
"I was a normal baby for 30 seconds, then ninjas stole my mamma" - Deadpool
"so what do we do?" "well jack, you stand there and say 'gee rocket raccoon I'm so glad you brought that Unfeasibly large cannon with you..' and i go like this BRAKKA BRAKKA BRAKKA" - Rocket Raccoon
FC: 3437-3046-3552
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 - - -
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.
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.
Last edited by Jtbrig7390; 2020-01-12 at 03:38 AM.
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD