Pokemon Sword & Shield Discussion RD: 15/11/2019

I guess they're finally balancing the mons. VGC2015 and VGC2018 must have hit 'em hard to reach such decision, even tho they snapped half of the population in the proccess. It seems not reasonable to me to get all ~1000 in a single game as each game could have their own dex + few extras, the only reason backing the "Dexit" tantrum is the old yet rotting slogan: "Gotta Catch 'Em All!".
Yeyeyeyey, millions of ppl who have invested hours in breeding and catching their mons, in a franchise that every year presumes of "connecting with people and your Pokémon as friends", forcing you to throw away the majority of mons u've dedicated your life as a player.

Ts, ts, but ey, its just the old yet rotting slogan of "Gotta Catch 'Em All!", not the obvious reasons behind this decission. They've done all alright. Ok? Everything. It has nothing to do with the little effort they've put onto their games the last years leading us to the point we are now. It has nothing to do wit selling u the same game twice to add 5 mons or move tutors they deliberately keep from the first 2 editions in every generation, it has nothing to do with all of this ending with the wiping of half the dex in what should've been the most ambitious Pokémon Games ever made, due the conditions and the hardware it runs on, and it has nothing to do with justify the payment of both the online service and the Pokémon Bank.

They've done it alright. We are the problem x'DDDD
 
So, it's clear that you can't provide a list of great things that we already know of and justify the absence of -to say something- hundreds of Pokémon. I respect you as a player in the sense that maybe you are focused only in the competitive scene, and so I understand you don't care a bit about content because you won't use it, but those things are content, quality content in real terms, that make some editions of Pokémon great and justify the 40 bucks (60 this time) you'll pay.

Your opinion is respectable, of course, but I don't see anyting or anybody providing me objective information about great things that we know have existed before and news just tell us that a bunch of Pokémon will've wiped from the games, so I'm pretty sure Platinum, HGSS or BW2 will have more quality content than Sword and Shield, in a hardware 10 times inferior.



You'll buy the game. It'll have next to no Post-Game like the las 2 Generations. You'll have 400 or 500 mons to play with so ye, I'm pretty sure it'll have less content.

In fact, copy me on this, I'll say that they don't even have Move Tutors.
You can see 6 months into the future and know exactly what the end game stuff us?! QUICK, TELL ME THE WINNING POWERBALL AND MEGA MILLIONS NUMBERS ARE THE WEEK BEFORE SWORD AND SHIELD COME OUT!
 
So, it's clear that you can't provide a list of great things that we already know of and justify the absence of -to say something- hundreds of Pokémon. I respect you as a player in the sense that maybe you are focused only in the competitive scene, and so I understand you don't care a bit about content because you won't use it, but those things are content, quality content in real terms, that make some editions of Pokémon great and justify the 40 bucks (60 this time) you'll pay.
My assessment of value will be based on replay value- how many times can I replay it and have a fresh and unique experience. The wild area alone (and info that you can go anywhere in it, but not catch too powerful Pokémon) heavily hints towards a more non-linear and varied play through experience. If the game delivers on this, I’ll gladly say it was worth (temporarily) losing 400 mons I wouldn’t have ever used in the game anyways (not meaningful content to me).

Basically, post game isn’t my priority, main game variety is.

Oh, and don’t bank on move tutors. First game of each gen rarely have them
 
I think I'll do something similar to what I did with Let's Go: I won't preorder the game, and wait until the game is leaked to see how much content it has, and if it could be worth a go despite the reduced roster (which, as a reminder, we don't know how reduced it will be - regional Dexes since BW2 have been quite large, with none having less than 300 Pokémon, and XY and USUM having over 400).
 
Last edited:
I'm worried that these supposed balance reasons might be less about actually changing pokemon to be better balanced and more about keeping away from a critical mass of strong mons. They might avoid situations like gen 5's dragon spam by just not allowing the equivalents of garchomp and hydreigon to be in a position where they could be on the same team. They still have their in-game strength curves to worry about, and that's still likely going to entail certain mons being flat-out better or worse than others (such as having the early-evolving bug be a lot worse than something that evolved in the mid-forties)
 
You'll buy the game. It'll have next to no Post-Game like the last 2 Generations. (actually, 3 if you include BW1)
It's not good use that excuse, as recent past gens showed us that they won't change their tradition-like barren Post-Game. Having 400 less pokémon is indeed less content but not significantly less when it comes to the playthrough, as transferring contributes near to nothing bar showing off, rushing the game or using them for competitive means.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
Let me get this straight...

You still have to pay for Pokémon Bank.
You now also have to pay for Pokémon Home.
You also obviously have to pay for Nintendo Switch Online.
You also have to pay more for the games than before since console games cost more than handheld titles.

And all of this for less content? For "balance reasons"? Get the fuck out of here.
If you transfer everything to Home, you won't need bank anymore. At least not for more than one month at a time when you want to do some more transferring.

But regardless, I think this is misleading. Game prices are stupidly cheap nowadays. Costs of making games have been going up year after year, the amount of content in games has been going up ridiculously. Yet the prices have barely budged. Not even for inflation.

Pokemon Red Version cost 30 bucks in '98. That's the equivalent of about $47 today. Pokemon Ultra Sun cost $40 today. That's cheaper than Red, despite Red being an 11 MB glitchfest and Ultra Sun being a refined 3.6 GB game with far higher production values.

The switch to the Switch and the $60 price tag that comes with it is probably the first time on the series history that games got more expensive, not less, and even then I doubt it is nearly as much of a cost per unit value as the oldest games.

Gamers are getting a steal on games today (and unfortunately are turning the industry to a shithole of microtransactions in the process). The idea that we are somehow getting less for our money, simply because of the number of pokemon, and ignoring everything else, is already an argument that rings hollow to me. But add in the fact that games are dirt cheap compared to what they are worth makes any such argument over price kinda silly, imo.
 
If you transfer everything to Home, you won't need bank anymore. At least not for more than one month at a time when you want to do some more transferring.
If you did that then they literally got you. A bunch of your collection would be held hostage in HOME until Game Freak decides to release a game that allows you to get them out. (Game Freak has no financial incentive to do so)

As for the rest of your post.
I have very strong opinions on a bunch of topics that you mentioned, but writing those down here could easily derail the discussion so I'm not going to do that. If you want to continue this via PM or somewhere else, fine.
 
Last edited:
The content that’s only available to people who pay a monthly subscription fee to actually access it in the first place? Doesn’t hurt me. I already regularly wipe my game files and breeding was never my thing so the decision doesn’t trouble me in the slightest. It’s akin to a company saying that they’re cutting a DLC I wasn’t going to buy in the first place. I’m sure a lot of people wanted it and are angry about it, but I’m much more excited about the open world concept.

I’m sure it sucks for a lot of people. But I’m buying the game regardless because I’m much more excited for the open world and other new stuff than I am disappointed about cut Pokémon.

Just thought I’d provide a counterpoint cuz it seems the apathetic/interested people are being made out to be mindless Gamefreak fanboys or whatever
It goes beyond that. Even if you don't pay to have the capacity to transfer (which is horrible in its own right and fits right into the greed of Nintendo, transfer should be something built into the game), you can still access these Pokemon through trading. You have the ability to use the GTS, friends, WT, etc. to obtain Pokemon that are not normally within the game if you desire them. By removing these Pokemon, they've made it so even people who don't pay to transfer will lose access.

If you're only interested in the story/adventure and don't care about the Pokemon then I understand. But you're still paying for less overall content.

This is a hilariously bad take, speaking for myself I don't give a shit about quantity of content, I care about quality. Emerald is still the best Pokemon game despite not having 700 Pokemon worth of content. The size of the Pokedex has no functional impact on the quality of the game or my enjoyment of it.
Quality, in this instance, is tied to quantity. They aren't mutually exclusive. By removing Pokemon outside Gen 8 from being transferred they limit the gameplay experience. You aren't getting anything in return either. Your experience will not be improved by having fewer Pokemon; either you do want to transfer and you can't do it anymore or you don't and it won't effect you except you lose an option that was open to you.

We're losing a staple feature of the franchise beacuse it's cheaper than spending a few more months to add a few models. Nothing about the game improves by having fewer Pokemon.
 
BlizzardHero, I think your “Nintendo Greed” points are more likely directed toward Gamefreak/The Pokemon Company. Nintendo (sans Pokémon) tends to lack the most noxious money-making trends in gaming such as micro transactions, yearly franchise releases, day 1 dlc, and $60 season passes. Hell they only recently caved into stupid paid online. They’re not saints of course (see online) but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to put them on par with EA lol

Regardless off-topic sorry, for the rest of your post I totally see your point. My main priority is just quality of repeated play through with available Pokémon, so the announcement doesn’t trouble me much, but I still understand the anger. If the main game sucks I’ll happily flip my shit
 
It goes beyond that. Even if you don't pay to have the capacity to transfer (which is horrible in its own right and fits right into the greed of Nintendo, transfer should be something built into the game), you can still access these Pokemon through trading. You have the ability to use the GTS, friends, WT, etc. to obtain Pokemon that are not normally within the game if you desire them. By removing these Pokemon, they've made it so even people who don't pay to transfer will lose access.

If you're only interested in the story/adventure and don't care about the Pokemon then I understand. But you're still paying for less overall content.


Quality, in this instance, is tied to quantity. They aren't mutually exclusive. By removing Pokemon outside Gen 8 from being transferred they limit the gameplay experience. You aren't getting anything in return either. Your experience will not be improved by having fewer Pokemon; either you do want to transfer and you can't do it anymore or you don't and it won't effect you except you lose an option that was open to you.

We're losing a staple feature of the franchise beacuse it's cheaper than spending a few more months to add a few models. Nothing about the game improves by having fewer Pokemon.
Hard disagree. Smarter usage of Pokemon = Quality.

Completing even the regional dex in USUM is so obnoxious I basically gave up. There are very few who would genuinely care or miss half the lesser known Pokemon gone minus hardcore fans, many of who will end up buying the game anyways. I guess I am interested to see GameFreak balance the more popular Pokemon. If all the starters + all the bad at VGC legendaries (Latis, Pixie trio, Regis, etc.) make it GameFreak has me sold and hyped.
 
At first I thought they would use a rotation system, so that old pokemon could appear in at least one game per generation. So, something like Kecleon would be in one game, while something like Lucario would appear in all of them. That would have been shitty but at least all old pokemon would have eventually made their way out of Home. But what Masuda makes it sound like in that new interview is that Sword and Shield's restricted access is paving the way for straight up removing certain pokemon from the game indefinitely.

That quote about picking pokemon ~optimally to reach the ~widest audience is depressing. What a corporate approach to the problem.
 
Quality, in this instance, is tied to quantity. They aren't mutually exclusive. By removing Pokemon outside Gen 8 from being transferred they limit the gameplay experience. You aren't getting anything in return either. Your experience will not be improved by having fewer Pokemon;
180144

We're not talking about a game with only 150 pokémon. Even then, a lot of people play LGPE because it's easier to "Catch 'Em All!".
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit torn on the whole thing. From a more casual standpoint, I don't like the idea of arbitrarily excluding certain Pokemon from future games, and I hope this is a one-off thing due to time constraints, or that it is rectified by future patches or free DLC. On the other hand, from a competitive player's standpoint, this is exactly what we need. Who's going to be the one to deny that the current metagame is stale and bland as absolute fuck? This will shake things up, and it won't just shake them up a little, it's going to turn the entire metagame as we know it directly on its head, and that's a good thing. I look forward to a fresh start and the innovations and creativity that spring from it.
 
It's not good use that excuse, as recent past gens showed us that they won't change their tradition-like barren Post-Game. Having 400 less pokémon is indeed less content but not significantly less when it comes to the playthrough, as transferring contributes near to nothing bar showing off, rushing the game or using them for competitive means.
No. Like the last 2 Generations. BW2 has a great Post-Game, the best of the franchise in fact alongside HG/SS, and it's V Generation. So in those terms (generations), V Gen has Post-Game, something Generations VI and VII lack no matter what version you choose.

As for the rest of your comment, I've addressed it earlier in another post, so I'll not repeat myself. Yes, transferring contributes to everything Pokémon stands for, including competitive purposes and gameplay-related purposes of all kind, be it collecting, sharing, battling, breeding or enjoying variety, which ultimately aims for quality content that affects playability.

It's so obvious that I'll not discuss this matter.

My assessment of value will be based on replay value- how many times can I replay it and have a fresh and unique experience. The wild area alone (and info that you can go anywhere in it, but not catch too powerful Pokémon) heavily hints towards a more non-linear and varied play through experience. If the game delivers on this, I’ll gladly say it was worth (temporarily) losing 400 mons I wouldn’t have ever used in the game anyways (not meaningful content to me).

Basically, post game isn’t my priority, main game variety is.
There are lots of genres about replay value. Roguelikes and Arcades are all about replayability. Pokémon is more about adding and collecting.

Second, almost every modern Pokémon game offers great replayability. You can play V or VI Gen with a lot of team combinations. But you don't even know the Pokémon distribution on this editions. You don't even know, at this point, if the Pokémon distribution of SSh surpasses the variety of Pokémon you can encounter on a determined route. You just know that there's a thing called Wild Area where you can see Pokémon walking. That's all.

You were unable to provide even a list of those "great things that justified erasing hundreds of Pokémon", so at this point, with the informatin we all have, all of your arguments are more about "what you want this Pokémon versions to be" than what they really are. It's fine, but it's wrong. I also like main game variety, both terms are not intended to be exclusive, in fact a good game design should be able to provide main game variety and post-game quality content. The rest is all about wish-lists used as facts and complacence.
 
It goes beyond that. Even if you don't pay to have the capacity to transfer (which is horrible in its own right and fits right into the greed of Nintendo, transfer should be something built into the game), you can still access these Pokemon through trading. You have the ability to use the GTS, friends, WT, etc. to obtain Pokemon that are not normally within the game if you desire them. By removing these Pokemon, they've made it so even people who don't pay to transfer will lose access.

If you're only interested in the story/adventure and don't care about the Pokemon then I understand. But you're still paying for less overall content.


Quality, in this instance, is tied to quantity. They aren't mutually exclusive. By removing Pokemon outside Gen 8 from being transferred they limit the gameplay experience. You aren't getting anything in return either. Your experience will not be improved by having fewer Pokemon; either you do want to transfer and you can't do it anymore or you don't and it won't effect you except you lose an option that was open to you.

We're losing a staple feature of the franchise beacuse it's cheaper than spending a few more months to add a few models. Nothing about the game improves by having fewer Pokemon.
Just like you said, having less pokemon will not improve your experience, having less will not hurt it either. Quantity and quality are also mutually exlusive given that they would have to upgrade all the sprites to hd, which could double or even triple the file size for each individual pokemon. USUM was said to be 3.2 gigs. That amount alone might not even cover what it would take to cover all the pokemon out now, and dynamax file sizes as well. And that open world will not be a small file size either. I can easily see Sw/Sh being 10 times the size of USUM just based on those two things, and that isn't even all the content in the game.
Now imagine if they actually would have the f'ing guts to exclude Ditto from the Galar dex!
I only see that happening if they completely overhauled the breeding mechanic.
 
Gamers are getting a steal on games today (and unfortunately are turning the industry to a shithole of microtransactions in the process). The idea that we are somehow getting less for our money, simply because of the number of pokemon, and ignoring everything else, is already an argument that rings hollow to me. But add in the fact that games are dirt cheap compared to what they are worth makes any such argument over price kinda silly, imo.
This is basically what it comes down to. GF has taken a clear stance over the past few years (not just in that particular announcement) of pandering to the Let's Go microtransaction crowd while saying "what are they gonna do, *not* buy the new Pokemon game?" to the veteran players. Also the bang for your buck argument rings somewhat hollow as 1) this is part of a multibillion dollar company, they're not giving these games away as an act of charity and 2) there is a lot more competition for people's entertainment dollars today than there was in 1998 (not to mention how much cheaper things like microchips are with increases in technology), which obviously should bring prices down.

Regardless off-topic sorry, for the rest of your post I totally see your point. My main priority is just quality of repeated play through with available Pokémon, so the announcement doesn’t trouble me much, but I still understand the anger.
Right and just know this would be a position in a very small minority. Playing through the main plot of the games is meant for an elementary-school child who has never played a Pokemon game and has no clue about its mechanics to be able to do. The plot and characters are generic and cartoonish, and the game plays out in an extremely linear fashion where there are no choices the character can make that will change anything meaningful from one playthrough to the next. If anything, the games have gotten even more linear and hand-holdy over the past few generations.

Of course, you can make the games more 'difficult' by arbitrarily choosing to use weaker Pokemon or not using helpful items or whatever, but all that really does is increase the time spent grinding through the exact same plot and AI trainers. Most people, though, could look back at whatever team they beat the Elite 4 with 10+ years ago before they knew anything about competitive Pokemon and laugh at how bad it was, so it's not like there's much of a sense of accomplishment to be gained with beating the games multiple times with different/less optimal Pokemon.
 
In regards to the whole animation excuse they gave, I can sort of understand it. For just one new animation for Pokémon models, they have to make (likely) over a thousand (one per species... and you have to include all the formes). It can be quite the hassle to make them (and make them right, of course, design process and that)... and I'm only talking about one single new animation. Now imagine having more new animations... and it can be too much for the development time Pokémon games seem to have. I mean, when the transition to 3D happened with XY, I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the effort went about making thousands and thousands of animations. They are not Blizzard, which constantly cuts corners in WoW by copypasting a base model and its animations for new races.

Though I insist that I'd rather have more spaced-out releases if that's the case. I don't know why they think everyone would get mad if there is not at least one main Pokémon game per year. I'd rather wait and enjoy, than get constant products that might feel incomplete in some way or form.
 
Last edited:
Just like you said, having less pokemon will not improve your experience, having less will not hurt it either. Quantity and quality are also mutually exlusive given that they would have to upgrade all the sprites to hd, which could double or even triple the file size for each individual pokemon. USUM was said to be 3.2 gigs. That amount alone might not even cover what it would take to cover all the pokemon out now, and dynamax file sizes as well. And that open world will not be a small file size either. I can easily see Sw/Sh being 10 times the size of USUM just based on those two things, and that isn't even all the content in the game.

I only see that happening if they completely overhauled the breeding mechanic.
Wt...

There's no problem in regards to hardware capabilities. Are you for real talking about models size and dynamaxing sizes on the Switch? Bro, have you seen the ENTIRE graphical spectrum of S and Sh compared to Breath of the Wild (to say one of he dozens of games withh far better graphical display than SSh). C'mon, let's be serious here.

Of course having less options than before (Pokémon = Options in playability terms, just for you to know as they are ultimately tools that use mechanics designed to play) will not hurt. In fact, having just 1 attack per mon, 2 Pokémon Gyms, an adventure of 3 hours and 12 Pokémon in total would not hurt either. Quantity and Quality are mutually exclusive as we've stated, thats the main reason why, in the short history of videogames, we haven't had examples of games that were great in both Quantity and Quality, and that's why the best Pokémon versions to this day (BW2/HGSS and, if you want to go back, GSC) are not only the ones with the greater Quantity, but the ones with the greater Quality.

...

Welp. The level is the level.
 
Last edited:
Just like you said, having less pokemon will not improve your experience, having less will not hurt it either.
I'm not the person you are adressing but having less options available would definitely hurt my experience.

Quantity and quality are also mutually exlusive given that they would have to upgrade all the sprites to hd, which could double or even triple the file size for each individual pokemon.
Unless you mean those mini sprites in menus, Game Freak hasn't actually used sprites since XY.
They switched to future-proof HD models with the release of XY in 2013. The size of those future-proof HD models is literally the reason why Gen VI and VII battles had ridiculous frame drops. Those models are done. Adjust for the lighting and maybe brush up a few textures here or there.

USUM was said to be 3.2 gigs. That amount alone might not even cover what it would take to cover all the pokemon out now, and dynamax file sizes as well.
Why would Dynamaxing affect the file size unless Game Freak wips out their programming fail magic again? They are literally just scaled models that already exist in the game.

And that open world will not be a small file size either. I can easily see Sw/Sh being 10 times the size of USUM just based on those two things, and that isn't even all the content in the game.
I can easily see SS being an enormous file size because of Game Freak's incompetence. Content has barely anything to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Masuda's comment about keeping fan favourites makes me think we will get more legendaries than just the native ones and Mewtwo. Quite a lot of people are attached to certain legendaries like the Lati twins and gen 2 birds. Same with starters.

I can see them using this as a way to snip some of the obnoxiously overpowered legendaries like Groudon and Xerneas while still leaving enough in to have an actually good VGC15/18-like environment.
 
Yes, transferring contributes to everything Pokémon stands for, including competitive purposes and gameplay-related purposes of all kind, collecting, sharing, battling, breeding or enjoying variety
You didn't show more than 2. And the "enjoying variety" sounds ironic as you care about competitive yet the ammount of viable mons in VGC are counted just by using your fingers.
 
Last edited:
So umm, will Gen 8 OU just forever be Galar only mons, will smogon say fuck it and just allow everything or will we get like an unnoficial "unrestricted" ladder?
 
Masuda's comment about keeping fan favourites makes me think we will get more legendaries than just the native ones and Mewtwo. Quite a lot of people are attached to certain legendaries like the Lati twins and gen 2 birds. Same with starters.

I can see them using this as a way to snip some of the obnoxiously overpowered legendaries like Groudon and Xerneas while still leaving enough in to have an actually good VGC15/18-like environment.
I can see it too, but you won't be able to catch them in the Faraway Island, Roca Ombligo or Isla del Sur (sry i don't have time to check their respective names on english but u get the idea). That would mean designing an event and also a map for that event (like Darkrai, Shaymin...).

You'll find them in generic Raid Encounters to appeal even more to the Pokémon Go scenario. I can see it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 8)

Top