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
MasonADC said:
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 

Even if the game has been rebalanced for it generally, wouldn't it be better to just have an on-off toggle for it?  I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason not to have a toggle. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
MasonADC said:

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 

Even if the game has been rebalanced for it generally, wouldn't it be better to just have an on-off toggle for it?  I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason not to have a toggle. 

This certainly is baffling to me, too. With me attempting to 'catch em all' from scratch in Sword/Shield, it works for me and I have every intention of keeping it on at all times, but for those who don't like it....well...yeah it makes no sense to me. 



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

Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

Even if the game has been rebalanced for it generally, wouldn't it be better to just have an on-off toggle for it?  I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason not to have a toggle. 

This certainly is baffling to me, too. With me attempting to 'catch em all' from scratch in Sword/Shield, it works for me and I have every intention of keeping it on at all times, but for those who don't like it....well...yeah it makes no sense to me. 

Overall, I don't think I would ever turn it off, because I'm OCD about one Pokemon getting more leveled than my others.  But if someone wants to plow through the game with just one Pokemon, then that should be their prerogative. 



JWeinCom said:
MasonADC said:

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 

Even if the game has been rebalanced for it generally, wouldn't it be better to just have an on-off toggle for it?  I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason not to have a toggle. 

Clearly GF wants the game to be played in a certain way, so I don’t see why there should be a toggle 



JWeinCom said:
Runa216 said:

This certainly is baffling to me, too. With me attempting to 'catch em all' from scratch in Sword/Shield, it works for me and I have every intention of keeping it on at all times, but for those who don't like it....well...yeah it makes no sense to me. 

Overall, I don't think I would ever turn it off, because I'm OCD about one Pokemon getting more leveled than my others.  But if someone wants to plow through the game with just one Pokemon, then that should be their prerogative. 

But isn't part of the issue that EVs are also shared, not just EXP? So if you were really being OCD about your Pokemon's levelling then you'd also want different EVs for different Pokemon. Anybody wanting specific EVs for specific Pokemon has kind of been screwed over by it.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
MasonADC said:
JWeinCom said:

Even if the game has been rebalanced for it generally, wouldn't it be better to just have an on-off toggle for it?  I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't think of a legitimate reason not to have a toggle. 

Clearly GF wants the game to be played in a certain way, so I don’t see why there should be a toggle 

Because it makes the experience better for those who want the feature, and in no way detracts from the experience of those who don't.

I don't care how Game Freak wants the game for me.  The question for me as a consumer is whether the decisions they make make the game better or worse.  If you could think of a valid reason why Gamefreak's decision improves the game, go for it.  Otherwise, your argument is essentially just "because they said so", which is a pretty crappy argument.



Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

Overall, I don't think I would ever turn it off, because I'm OCD about one Pokemon getting more leveled than my others.  But if someone wants to plow through the game with just one Pokemon, then that should be their prerogative. 

But isn't part of the issue that EVs are also shared, not just EXP? So if you were really being OCD about your Pokemon's levelling then you'd also want different EVs for different Pokemon. Anybody wanting specific EVs for specific Pokemon has kind of been screwed over by it.

That may be a fair point to other people, but actually it never concerned me personally.  When I'm running through the game, I really don't bother with EVs because it is too much hassle, and the pokemon I'm using are generally not going to be used competitively anyway.  When I actually am raising a competitive Pokemon, I usually just have the one that I'm trying to EV train with me.  So, it doesn't really affect me.  But, it may affect people who play differently, so a toggle would be better.



JWeinCom said:

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

lol says the guy desperately trying to distract from the argument.

Runa216 said:

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. 

It's funny you talk about purposeful misrepresentation when that's how the guy you're coming to defend started this whole conversation. It's funny you talk about strawman when trying to change the subject to be about my argumentative style itself is a strawman, certainly has nothing to do with any of the discussion points being chrkeller complaining about complainers, generalizing, and lying.

There is basis in my accusation, your post here is further evidence of you making claims with no proof or explanation, only excuses why you wont provide them, and despite this you waffle on as if you're in the right. But yeah, with your logic of Game Freak being entitled to our money, that standards actually work in reverse and we should be happy with inferior games, I know I shouldn't waste my time on you, but it's just so fun pointing out your nonsense.

MasonADC said:

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 

There was no proof or explanation on how the game has been better balanced around it, and regardless there's no reason for it to not be optional.



Meta user reviews are at a 3.7 this morning. Crazy to me how childish people are.  Which is fine in itself.  What is the real shame is user reviews have lost all meaning at this point.  I am not specifically talking about Pokemon, but user reviews in general. 

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 15 November 2019

JWeinCom said:
MasonADC said:

Clearly GF wants the game to be played in a certain way, so I don’t see why there should be a toggle 

Because it makes the experience better for those who want the feature, and in no way detracts from the experience of those who don't.

I don't care how Game Freak wants the game for me.  The question for me as a consumer is whether the decisions they make make the game better or worse.  If you could think of a valid reason why Gamefreak's decision improves the game, go for it.  Otherwise, your argument is essentially just "because they said so", which is a pretty crappy argument.

It makes the game better because that’s the way the game is meant to be played, what are you not understanding