Quantcast
Pokemon Sword/Shield Official Metacritic Score/Review Thread. (80)

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Pokemon Sword/Shield Official Metacritic Score/Review Thread. (80)

Tagged games:

Where will Pokemon Sword/Shield metacritic be?

Between 0-50. 2 2.44%
 
Between 51-70. 2 2.44%
 
Between 71-79. 13 15.85%
 
Between 80 6 7.32%
 
Between 81-82 20 24.39%
 
Between 83-84 21 25.61%
 
Between 85-86 10 12.20%
 
Between 87-88 4 4.88%
 
Between 89-90 0 0.00%
 
Above 90. 4 4.88%
 
Total:82
         

** Betting is CLOSED - all winnings have been paid out by Machina **

 

Where will Pokemon Sword/Shield metacritic be?

Between 0-50. 0 $0.00 0.00%
 
Between 51-70. 0 $0.00 0.00%
 
Between 71-79. 4 $1,150.00 15.38%
 
Between 80 1 $1,000.00 3.85%
 
Between 81-82 9 $5,080.00 34.62%
 
Between 83-84 7 $2,470.00 26.92%
 
Between 85-86 1 $0.00 3.85%
 
Between 87-88 3 $160.00 11.54%
 
Between 89-90 0 $0.00 0.00%
 
Above 90. 1 $100.00 3.85%
 
 
Totals: 26 $9,960.00  
Game closed: 12/31/2019
Chrkeller said:
JWeinCom said:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

This seems to be just your go to thing.  The simple fact is he did not say he didn't attack people.  He said nope indicating that he was disagreeing with some part of your post. Since the word nope absent of context is vague and unclear, he then provided two more specific statements precisely defining his disagreement.  His clarification made it clear that "nope" was not implying that he never attacked people for any reason.

But hey, responding to what you wanted him to say is much easier than responding to what was actually said.  Of course, I'm probably just nitpicking, because anything that disagrees with you tends to fall into that category.

Yep this exactly.  Thank you kindly.  

More specifically:

First Dolphin comment: "You attack people over games you haven't played, most of your post about Sw/Sh involves defending Game Freak from criticism. "

I said "nope" referring to "defending" Game Freak.  And I clarified that I am reserving judgement for when I play the game.  He then responded with "quoting" himself:

"You attack people over games you haven't played"

Note how he intentionally only quoted part of his original statement.  He did so to make it appear he said something other than what he originally did.   

Yeah. It went from you attack people over games you haven't played, to simply "I said you attack people".  Again, this is a pretty standard playbook.  Also, if a person expresses a desire not to engage with obvious and blatant dishonesty he'll go with the "you can't fire me, I quit" defense. Or in this case more accurately the "yeah you better run" defense.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 14 November 2019

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
The game still looks like a big improvement over the last one gameplaywise,i do not really mind them cutting into the pokedex if what remains got effort put into it.
I also think they do not owe me to make every pokemon accessible forever.

What exactly seems to be an improvement?  I'm legitimately asking, because reviews have kind of been vague on that, and I'm on the fence for this game.  I don't particularly care about the Pokedex issue.  I might buy it if I feel I can actually raise competitive teams without the huge time commitment of past games (which admittedly has gotten better with each release). I'm in law school right now, and if it's too much of a time sink, I probably won't do anything after the story, in which case the game isn't going to be worth it.



JWeinCom said:
Immersiveunreality said:
The game still looks like a big improvement over the last one gameplaywise,i do not really mind them cutting into the pokedex if what remains got effort put into it.
I also think they do not owe me to make every pokemon accessible forever.

What exactly seems to be an improvement?  I'm legitimately asking, because reviews have kind of been vague on that, and I'm on the fence for this game.  I don't particularly care about the Pokedex issue.  I might buy it if I feel I can actually raise competitive teams without the huge time commitment of past games (which admittedly has gotten better with each release). I'm in law school right now, and if it's too much of a time sink, I probably won't do anything after the story, in which case the game isn't going to be worth it.

The scale,graphics and that semi open world area, also those big pokes to beat raidstyle seem like fun,no fixed camera and to be able to turn it how you want makes it more immersive,gives a greater feeling of freedom.

Heard there are plenty of gyms this time around and your character is highly costumizable.

But i'm not a good source to base your decisions on,i would firstly need to play it.



Immersiveunreality said:
JWeinCom said:

What exactly seems to be an improvement?  I'm legitimately asking, because reviews have kind of been vague on that, and I'm on the fence for this game.  I don't particularly care about the Pokedex issue.  I might buy it if I feel I can actually raise competitive teams without the huge time commitment of past games (which admittedly has gotten better with each release). I'm in law school right now, and if it's too much of a time sink, I probably won't do anything after the story, in which case the game isn't going to be worth it.

The scale,graphics and that semi open world area, also those big pokes to beat raidstyle seem like fun,no fixed camera and to be able to turn it how you want makes it more immersive,gives a greater feeling of freedom.

Heard there are plenty of gyms this time around and your character is highly costumizable.

But i'm not a good source to base your decisions on,i would firstly need to play it.

Fair enough, but those aren't the features I'm personally looking for.  Honestly the biggest thing for me is whether they have a feature such as bottle caps that let you raise IVs, and how easy they are to attain.  I just don't have the patience to hatch egg after egg.  Nature changing items are pretty cool though (although somehow changing a living thing's demeanor seems morally dubious). 



KLXVER said:
konnichiwa said:

The petition to the white house to ban the game was worse.

lol what? Why?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-trump-stop-sales-pokemon-sword-and-shield/






Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

This seems to be just your go to thing.  The simple fact is he did not say he didn't attack people.  He said nope indicating that he was disagreeing with some part of your post. Since the word nope absent of context is vague and unclear, he then provided two more specific statements precisely defining his disagreement.  His clarification made it clear that "nope" was not implying that he never attacked people for any reason.

But hey, responding to what you wanted him to say is much easier than responding to what was actually said.  Of course, I'm probably just nitpicking, because anything that disagrees with you tends to fall into that category.

Ha I must of have really made you salty if you're coming to the defense of a willfully ignorant liar, jumping on my one potential fallacy while ignoring his many.

Once again you're trying to derail discussion to be about how I don't word my post the way you'd like. We've had this discussion already, it's pointless and a waste of time, so I'm not going to engage further and you're just gonna have to deal with that.

Chrkeller said:

Yep this exactly.  Thank you kindly.  

More specifically:

First Dolphin comment: "You attack people over games you haven't played, most of your post about Sw/Sh involves defending Game Freak from criticism. "

I said "nope" referring to "defending" Game Freak.  And I clarified that I am reserving judgement for when I play the game.  He then responded with "quoting" himself:

"You attack people over games you haven't played"

Note how he intentionally only quoted part of his original statement.  He did so to make it appear he said something other than what he originally did.   

Attacking people criticizing Sw/Sh is defending Game Freak and I'm not surprised you'd try to pretend they aren't one in the same. Therefore, even with the nope specifically referring to defending, I think the shortening of my post to be concise and to the point is still accurate.

Regardless, you're still an irrational liar, saying you don't defend games you haven't played despite this whole conversation being a result of your defending.

Immersiveunreality said:
The game still looks like a big improvement over the last one gameplaywise,i do not really mind them cutting into the pokedex if what remains got effort put into it.
I also think they do not owe me to make every pokemon accessible forever.

It's not about being owed, they don't owe us anything and we don't owe them. It's about standards not being upheld and blatant lying.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
JWeinCom said:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

This seems to be just your go to thing.  The simple fact is he did not say he didn't attack people.  He said nope indicating that he was disagreeing with some part of your post. Since the word nope absent of context is vague and unclear, he then provided two more specific statements precisely defining his disagreement.  His clarification made it clear that "nope" was not implying that he never attacked people for any reason.

But hey, responding to what you wanted him to say is much easier than responding to what was actually said.  Of course, I'm probably just nitpicking, because anything that disagrees with you tends to fall into that category.

Ha I must of have really made you salty if you're coming to the defense of a willfully ignorant liar, jumping on my one potential fallacy while ignoring his many.

Once again you're trying to derail discussion to be about how I don't word my post the way you'd like. We've had this discussion already, it's pointless and a waste of time, so I'm not going to engage further and you're just gonna have to deal with that.


Right, your other go to move.  When you can't actually address the argument, simply assert the motivations of the opposing party in an attempt to discredit them.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive



Lonely_Dolphin said:
Runa216 said:

Do yourself a favour and take an English class; it seems to me that you don't quite understand how the language works and the amount of time and effort it would take for me to explain how poorly you understood @Chrkeller is not really worth it. I will say, however, that based solely on what he's said and what you've said, he's right, you're wrong, and you're desperately clinging to your negative perceptions and cynicism in spite of his reason. 

So you should probably give up. His stance of "I'll decide for myself after playing based on the experience and the total package" is objectively a better and more intelligent stance than your "Despite having not played the game, I already know it sucks because it has reportedly done things I don't like." 

Are you his alt? Seriously, you both think you can make claims and expect everyone to take them as fact without explanation and despite rebuttal, then you think this doesn't make you irrational.

I should give up what exactly? Are you even paying attention? He came at me, I pointed out his nonsense, and then the discussion ended. Also no, blind faith is not more intelligent than informing yourself, I mean what the fuck, that's self explanatory. xD

The rest your wall of text is the same "Game Freak has been overdelievering!" justification for lower standards you've said before. Good luck getting anyone to believe that one.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this. You genuinely seem to either purposely misrepresent what people say in order to sound like you're right (this is a strawman fallacy) or you genuinely outright don't have the attention span to read till the end of the post. 

Until you learn to actually engage with others in a respectful and intelligent way, I see no reason to continue responding to you. Your response to my post and others is remarkably off base, responding to points we didn't make and making accusations that have absolutely no basis in the truth of our characters. We are not the ones being irrational, here; you are. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Kai_Mao said:

I think it'll be hard for GF to make anyone happy. Pokemon does not operate like Zelda, Mario, or any other conventional video game franchise. It's a multimedia empire. So its both a blessing and a curse, however you want to put it.

With how TPC, Nintendo, and GF operate, in terms o the games, the anime, the TCG, the merchandise, etc.; having to keep up with all of that can be hard to develop grand games, even under a 2-3 year development cycle and having to release them under an annual/bi-annual basis.
That's their own decision. They don't have to release on an annual/bi-annual basis. They can simply stretch out and extend the generations to give themselves that extra time they need to make grand games. And hire more staff and resources as well. As I've mentioned many times before, Pokemon is the biggest multimedia franchise in the world. It's exactly like you say, an empire. They can have all the resources, staff, and tools they want. They simply choose not to.

The only years where there isn't a Pokemon game (new gen, remake, third version, or sequel) are:

1997, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2015

They would have to rework how they model their releases from all their multimedia projects. 

How long can the anime be? It usually lasts for about 3 years until the next generation to align with the upcoming new generation of games.
Just make more episodes and pad out the generation. Nobody cares how long each series of the anime goes. Furthermore, doing so could add to the legs of the mainline games that said anime is based off.

How will TPC continue with the merchandise and TCG series without a mainline Pokemon game for maybe 3-5 years, instead of 1-2 years?
The merchandise is by far the most profitable aspect of the franchise, it will keep selling no matter what. That train cannot be stopped. And they can do the same with the TCG that they would do with the anime.

Pokemon has garnered billions from all aspects of their media projects using the model that they are using as of now.

That means the likeliness of remakes (i.e., Gen IV), third versions, sequels, are gonna be lower than usual.

But again, are there fans who are ok with no new Pokemon for longer than 2 years?

I don't know if there is a simple answer to all of this.

Game Freak, TPC, and Nintendo could easily work around this situation in multiple fashions. 
1) Extend and stretch out the other aspects of the franchise to coincide with a progressively longer development schedule for the mainline games.

2) Hire more staff and acquire more resources to expand Game Freak into a much larger developer that is closer to the scale of a AAA development studio than an indie dev.

3) Ask for more help from other developers like Monolith, Retro, or better yet, Nintendo themselves, to take the bulk of development with Game Freak acting as advisers or supervisors. 

4) Some of the above.

5) All of the above.

It's not rocket science. They have the finances and ability to do all of any or all of these suggestions. They have the finances and ability to do whatever they want. They choose not to. 



Pancho A. Ovies

Nintendo Switch in Japan (Famitsu): 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=238945&page=2

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239387

Lonely_Dolphin said:

GameXplain regarding mandatory experience share:

"At first I was unsure how to feel about this change as previous experience shares seemed to keep me from using my entire team. And while there's still an element of that here, it's been re-balanced in such a way that it never felt intrusive. Sword and Shield is completely built around this mechanic and it's all the better for it."

Less options is not better lol, and for an otherwise critical review (besides ignoring the elephant in the room) it's odd to see them push the falsity that experience share has been re-balanced and is somehow better than prior games as an excuse for it being mandatory now. The experience share is no different, this has been proven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87F6vrdHGFE

Oh but I haven't played the game so facts and evidence be damned!

But what if the game has been balanced around it? That doesn’t need a fundamental change to the exp share, and if that is the case, then it is better