By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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%
 
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%
 
Between 51-70. 0 $0.00 0%
 
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%
 
Above 90. 1 $100.00 3.85%
 
 
Totals: 26 $9,960.00  
Game closed: 12/31/2019
PAOerfulone on 14 November 2019
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. 



Hardware Comparison Threads:

Current Thread

Is Hardware Getting TOO Powerful?

Older Threads:

PlayStation/Xbox/Switch: 2022 Edition

PlayStation/Xbox/Switch Hardware Battle: 2021 Edition!
PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2019 vs. 2020
PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2017 vs. 2018
PlayStation 4: 2015 vs. 2016 vs. 2017

Around the Network
MasonADC on 14 November 2019
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 



JWeinCom on 14 November 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. 



Runa216 on 14 November 2019
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. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

JWeinCom on 14 November 2019
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. 



Around the Network
MasonADC on 15 November 2019
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 on 15 November 2019
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.



JWeinCom on 15 November 2019
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.



Lonely_Dolphin on 15 November 2019
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.



Chrkeller on 15 November 2019

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