Reviews VideoGame / Pokemon Sword And Shield

EDIT: \"Lazy garbage\" sounded a bit too rude when I saw it again, so I changed it to \"lazy disappointment\". Hopefully it looks better while still getting my point across.

Dude, I think the main problems lies in the fact that you had way too high of expectations and that can be easily seen here: \"Imagine getting to explore a huge, open world, getting to explore in any way you want like Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.\" So, you wanted both a big open world (impossible for its own set of reasons) and for both the graphics and Pokemon models to be as gorgeous as possible? Yeah, the Switch cannot pull it. What you are describing would require the power of the upcoming PS 5 to pull it. You have to remember that the Switch has its limits.

Yeah, both Odyssey and Breath of the Wild are gorgeous, don\'t get me wrong, yet the quantity of characters they have in their datas combined wouldn\'t be even half of the Pokedex (I mean, prior to the dexit we had +800 Pokemon). Simply put, the game would have been way too big (data-wise). Something had to be cut out.

Also, on point with you comparing it to both Bot W and Odyssey: You know that they had +5 years of development, right? Problem is that the Main Pokemon games cannot have the luxury to be delayed because the rest of the franchise depends on them being released on schedule. The TCG would suffer a lot if the had to wait +3 extra years between all their major Booster Pack releases. The anime would require to add an entire filler season between gens (and nobody likes filler, just ask Naruto fans). Spin-offs would have an uphill battle without new Pokemon as a way to advertise themselves. Merchandising simply wouldn\'t be possible without the release of the main games.

\"Oh yeah, bring back Pokemon the other games already had from the start as DLC.\"

Oh, you mean the free update that doesn\'t force you to pay to get them?. Besides, even if you had to pay, guess what? Version-exclusives has been a thing since Pokemon\'s inception, ergo, you always had to pay to get them all. Just to give you an scope of it: In gen 3 you required at least 2 GB As, the Link Cable, at least 3 GBA games (Emerald and copies of either Ruby/Sapphire and Leaf Green), a GC, the GBA Adaptor and at least 3 GC games (Colosseum, XD and Channel). And is not like things change the more gens we get, so why should it be an issue now?.

\"People need to stop supporting these awful practices,...\"

Oh, so you meant to tell me that, no matter how much I like a game, if somebody else believes the franchise as a whole could be improved, then I shouldn\'t buy it no matter what? Okay. Am sorry but all I care about when I buy a game is if I myself will have fun playing it, not what is rating is nor if me not buying it could improve the franchise as a whole.

I think you all are taking something meant to entertain way too seriously. Relax.

Yes it can. See any of the following openworld games on Switch: Xenoblade: Definitive Edition, Breath of the Wild, and The Witcher III. All three look gorgeous, especially when the Switch is docked.

And what is something that all of them have in common but that Pokemon lacks? Both less than 500 different characters (Pokemon are considered characters data-wise [and it has +800 characters with the Pokemon alone]) and had a development time longer than Pokemon (something that I already explained why Pokemon can't have).

By that logic, the wildlife and enemies that populate the overworld in Xenoblade would also count as characters and there's enough of 'em to fill an 11 page beastiary (front and back).

Am I saying the same visuals should be expected of Pokémon? No. What I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that it "can't be done" at all on the Switch, when there are multiple games for it that prove otherwise.

TBH, in a choice between updated graphics and a full roster of mons, I\'d take the full roster any day. The graphics would be really nice to have, but having every Pokemon and Move would be nicer.

Plus, they ate up extra space with the Dynamax gimmick. If they didn\'t have that, then...maybe they could\'ve fit more Pokemon in. Possibly.

Miin U: Okay, I really don\'t know Xenoblade so you will have to forgive me here and give me a more concrete number.

However, what I can say is that Monolith had more time to make Xenoblade. Game Freak lacked time.

War Jay 77: Problem is that without new \"gimmicks\" there really is no good reason to play a new game over an old one. At least that is my opinion.

Eh, depends on how much you care about the gimmicks, I guess. I play to explore new regions and find new Pokemon and battle and have a fun story- I really personally couldn\'t care less about the gimmicks. I think they\'re weird and I just prefer traditional battles. But that might just be me; still though, you gotta admit that with no Dynamax, the other chunk of the Dex might not\'ve been cut.

@megagutsman: I've never sat down and counted each enemy in Xenoblade, there's way to many and the overworld is massive. I doubt it's anywhere near 800, like Pokémon, but at a guess, I'd ballpark it somewhere around 250 - 300+. Add all NPNPCs and it easily goes up to 450 - 500 or so.

Xenoblade overview trailer that showcases just some of the areas you traverse and the indigenous wildlife of each area.

War Jay 77: If I wanted to play a game that has new \"Pokemon\" and a new region I could easily play either fangames or romhacks and I can even do so for free. That\'s why I care so much about gimmicks, because it is the only major thing the official games have over their fanmade counterparts.

Miin U: Then it cannot be compared. Is not even in the same ballpark. The number I gave didn\'t include both Pokemon with multiple forms and all the other human characters. Including them I think the number could increase to +1100.

Except I wasn't comparing them in terms of number of characters. You originally said it wasn't possible to make an openworld game with graphics as gorgeous as possible on the Switch.

My point was and still is that it's already been done multiple times. That includes Ni No Kuni too.

Except that I was. My point always was that the Switch cannot handle an openworld game that both has gorgeous graphics and +900 different characters. As in, my point was that the game would be way too big (data-wise) for the Switch.

The games are 10.3 GB, while XC 2 is 13. The largest Switch games hit 30. They could clearly go larger if they wanted to

Yeah, but with size comes lag issues that would need to be solved and with a dev time as short as the one they have that could lead to other issues being forgotten. Sadly, no matter how I slice it, the only thing I can see with a game like the one N8han 11 wants is issues.

Now see, if the game was so utterly breathtakingly gorgeous and advanced to the point that the devs couldn't simply bring back all 700-ish Pokemon at once because they'd have to make new models for all of them, I might be more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that the game really isn't that graphically-advanced at all compared to other Switch games; it's basically an upscaled 3DS game by comparison, which makes it even more ridiculous that they couldn't bring back half the Pokemon when the 3DS games managed to just fine. The Pokemon models/animations were even specifically designed to be reused for future games with how high-poly they are, which just makes it even lazier that they couldn't just port them over with better textures.

Honestly, Pokemon games shouldn't even be released yearly to begin with! All it does is force GF to cut back more and more with every installment and only later add things that should have been in from the start. I'd rather have a single Pokemon game per console that has a ton of work put into it and gets even better with new content being added to it than half-assed Pokemon games that come out every year and keep cutting classic features every time while only later bringing back some of them as DLC.

\"...if the game was so utterly breathtakingly gorgeous and advanced to the point that the devs couldn\'t simply bring back all 700-ish Pokemon at once because they\'d have to make new models for all of them, I might be more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.\"

My friend, something you haven\'t bothered to notice is that translating said models isn\'t as easy as just changing the formats of the files and that\'s it, they have to go one at a time translating it and making sure the upscalling process didn\'t break any one of the animations nor the model itself. All of this takes time. Add to that the new Pokemon and gimmick and you should understand why it took them so long, more so when you notice that they were also working on the Wild Areas and Pokemon following you.

\"Honestly, Pokemon games shouldn\'t even be released yearly to begin with!\"

Problem is that they cannot avoid it, they have other branches to take care of as well. Delaying the release of the main games would mean having to create a ton of filler for the anime and mangas. Delaying would mean that they wouldn\'t be able to sell new merchandise for a while. Delaying means that the TCG would see fewer updates and they would be less common and that would mean death thanks to both Magic and Yugioh going strong.

The reason why all this problems exist to begin is because all the imprtant debuttals (Pokemon, characters, gimmick and region) always happen in the main games, so the rest of the franchise requires them to be released on schedule so things can advance smoothly. Now, is this good organization? But of course not! However, that is how the franchise works and till that changes things wont improve.

See, Game Freak's kind of a multi-million-dollar company. I think they can manage porting a few hundred models over from game to game easily, but they're not doing it, simply out of sheer laziness. I really doubt a year without a Pokemon game's going to hurt them that much when they're already in charge of one of the most profitable franchises in the world, and one that will likely continue selling well even when a new game/anime/whatever isn't out at that point.

And honestly, people like you constantly defending everything they do just enables them to continue being lazy like they are now. Fans have to stop supporting them, otherwise they'll continue to pump out half-assed games like this without improvment. Because honestly, why bother putting in the effort if people will buy them no matter what?

\"I think they can manage porting a few hundred models over from game to game easily,...\"

This tells me you know nothing of coding. Am just gonna put it like this: If bringing the models was so easy as you say it is, then why have I seen ports take longer than a year to be released? After all, with everything done prior ports shouldn\'t take more than 6 months to release, right?.

\"...and one that will likely continue selling well even when a new game/anime/whatever isn\'t out at that point.\"

Then you know nothing of marketing either. Let me give you just one example: The TCG. Tell me how would the TCG survive without major updates happening during those two years.

\"Fans have to stop supporting them,...\"

Why? Why should I care about what the entire fanbase thinks of a game when I buy it? Aren\'t I the one that will pay for it and play it? So why should I care? If I think I will enjoy the game then shouldn\'t that be reason enough for me to buy the game?.

Well, Game Freak is a multi-million-dollar company in charge of one of the biggest selling brands in the world; other parties porting their models have no bearing on this argument (if you're referring to fan-made ports, it's because fans don't have the same equipment as a multi-million-dollar company, aren't being paid to do so, have to use third-party tools and don't follow defined schedules), and even if GF couldn't port them all in a year for whatever reason (despite being one of the largest, richest companies in the world) they could easily delay the game until they're all in. They could easily port them over, they're not some small indie company, and they managed to port them over for each 3DS game with no problems, so the Switch games shouldn't be a problem at all.

And I'm pretty sure Pokemon merch will still sell extremely well even if a new game isn't out that very year. The card game isn't going to spontaneously die forever after a year of inactivity or two: it's POKEMON, it'll be right back up when they release a new update no matter when it comes out.

And fans have to stop supporting GF's laziness because if they continue to buy their games, it just sends the message that they'll continue to buy them no matter how lazy GF gets, which in turn will likely result in GF continuing to cut features and Pokemon from previous games again. If the fans actively stop buying, it would force GF to actually put effort into them again (stuff like actually bringing back and keeping old features, and, y'know, not cutting half the Pokemon despite the 3DS titles managing to get them all in) to get them to buy the games again and would likely result in a better game than if they continued buying regardless. I'm gonna tell you this upfront: GF doesn't give a crap about you constantly defending them - all they see is a sucker who'll buy and support their products no matter how much they cut from them. The sooner you wake up and realise that, the sooner we might eventually see some change.

\"other parties porting their models have no bearing on this argument\"

Why not? They are good examples of how hard porting something really is.

\"...and they managed to port them over for each 3DS game with no problems, so the Switch games shouldn\'t be a problem at all.\"

However, you are forgetting two things:

1.-) That they didn\'t port anything from gen 5. Back then they used sprites but thing gen 6 forward they started using models, two different things entirely.

2.-) That they prior ported either to a console with the same OS (3DS -> 3DS) or a similar one (DS -> 3DS). This time around they had to port to a console with a more complex OS (3DS -> Switch).

\"The card game isn\'t going to spontaneously die forever after a year of inactivity or two: it\'s POKEMON, it\'ll be right back up when they release a new update no matter when it comes out.\"

Of course it wouldn\'t kill it, the first time they do so. But remember that what you want is for GF to do this each time, so each downtime the TCG has is an opportunity its rivals would use to steal players with big updates. So it could die with time.

\"The sooner you wake up and realise that, the sooner we might eventually see some change.\"

And you had to use it, the line that tells me who is toxic and who isn\'t. I am allowed to have my own opinions, am I not? I am allowed to like and dislike what I want to like and dislike, am I not? I am allowed to buy any game I want to buy, am I not?.

At this point, I legit think you\'re just ignoring my points so you can put words in my mouth. I explicitly stated that GF could easily port their models from game to game (considering they\'re a multimillion-dollar company with far more resources than the average fan), and different companies have different resources so how they port models isn\'t really relevant to how GF ports models.

Additionally, Gen 5 aren\'t 3DS games: they are DS games, thus I wasn\'t referring to them. Every single 3DS Pokemon game has ported the same models from game to game with no problems, and Switch technology isn\'t really that complex by comparison so GF could easily have ported all the models (considering they\'ve already ported about half).

And once again, Pokemon is a huge franchise. The card game isn\'t going to die just because other games are around. It hasn\'t died now when other rivals are present, it\'s not going to permanently die after the occasional year or two of inactivity.

And \"toxic\"? Seriously? Are you so out of arguments you seriously have to put words in my mouth? As I repeatedly stated in my previous comments, if people stop buying Pokemon games every year, it would ideally motivate GF to actually put effort into them so the fans would come back. Buying them every year just encourages GF to continue cutting back on each game\'s features because they know fans will continue to buy them regardless.

Just imagine this thought: imagine a Pokemon game with years of work put into it, a huge region with tonnes of features from previous games and every single Pokemon available to catch, backed up with regular updates adding new locations, forms, moves and species. That\'s the kind of quality GF could easily give Pokemon. I know I sound harsh when I criticize them, but that\'s because I know they can do way better than this. I want them to do way better than this.

I\'m not gonna bother arguing in circles with you, but just think about how good Pokemon games could be if they weren\'t constantly being pushed out every year, if they could get a couple years\' worth of development to be truly great. Think about it.

\"I legit think you\'re just ignoring my points so you can put words in my mouth.\"

Oh yeah, I am ignoring your points and putting words in your mouth even when I quote you prior to replying, I wonder how that works.

\"I explicitly stated that GF could easily port their models from game to game...\"

Yet have failed to share strong evidence that would point to the easiness of the process you speak of.

\"Every single 3DS Pokemon game has ported the same models from game to game with no problems,...\"

Of course it was easy, they were \"porting\" to the same console (that\'s why I said in my same comment \"That they prior ported either to a console with the same OS (3DS -> 3DS)\" [talk about somebody ignoring somebody else\'s points]), all they really needed to do was copy and paste. Porting to the Switch, a hybrid console that wouldn\'t, couldn\'t nor shouldn\'t have a similar OS than the one the 3DS (a portable), would be harder and more complex, ergo, it should take more time.

\"...and Switch technology isn\'t really that complex by comparison...\"

Again, what is your evidence for this. And by now I want a source as well.

\"It hasn\'t died now when other rivals are present, it\'s not going to permanently die after the occasional year or two of inactivity.\"

Are you sure? What\'s your evidence behind this? I mean, you would think that the right thing to do for TCG-related companies like Konami would be to center their major updates around the 1 or 2 years of inactivity Pokemon\'s TCG would have and then simply organize their tournaments so they happen the same day Pokemon\'s happen, to force player to choose a game. Having an schedule that forces them to have some years off would simply create a weakness that rivals could exploit.

\"Are you so out of arguments you seriously have to put words in my mouth?\"

Which words have I put in your mouth? I called you toxic because each and every one of your closing arguments sound to me like you are trying to force me to think like you. Arguments like \"if people stop buying Pokemon games every year,...\" and even \"The sooner you wake up...\" sound to me like you want the franchise to think like a hive mind instead of caring only about what them themselves may enjoy.

What if I don\'t care about what the franchise could be instead of what it is? What if I like what the franchise is right now? Should I still not play the games simply because somebody else doesn\'t like them? Again, why?.

\"...if people stop buying Pokemon games every year, it would ideally motivate GF to actually put effort into them so the fans would come back.\"

Nintendo could also think that the Pokemon fever is dying out and might decide to try and cut GF\'s budget to preserve the loss. That is also a likely outcome out of all this as the one you want, are you ready to face the risk?.

\"...and every single Pokemon available to catch,...\"

With the quantity of Pokemon that exist and will continue to be created this is impossible, there wouldn\'t be enough areas for them to appear in (unless the add padding to the game so that all creatures can be caught, that is). Just to give you but one example: In Blaze Black 2/Volt White 2 (an amazing pair of hack roms) the creators needed to give certain Pokemon the encounter rate of 0.1% so all Pokemon could be caught. Tell me: do you find it fun to expend hours searching for one specific Pokemon? Because I certainly don\'t!.

\"...backed up with regular updates adding new locations, forms, moves and species.\"

This would have to be then the last game they ever release because, thanks to the regular updates, there wouldn\'t be any need for any more games to be released. And I don\'t think GF wants yet to stop producing new games.

\"I know I sound harsh when I criticize them,...\"

More than harsh, but okay.

\"I\'m not gonna bother arguing in circles with you,...\"

I could say the same to you, pal.