• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Are you fine with the way games are?

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Problem there is that different people (loudly) have differing notions of what that $90 "should" get them, so saying "I have the right to expect my money's worth" isn't quite a defining metric.
 

Divine Retribution

See who you are, where from, what of
Problem there is that different people (loudly) have differing notions of what that $90 "should" get them, so saying "I have the right to expect my money's worth" isn't quite a defining metric.
Maybe, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. "Be grateful for what you get" is absolutely condescending when we're talking about a paid product. You can argue about whether or not my expectations are fair or realistic (or you could if I shared them with you, which I haven't thusfar) but to say that having expectations at all is wrong and I should just be grateful for what I get regardless of its quality is itself asinine.
 

Pokefan_1987

Just another pokemon player.
I've mostly played emulated version but with sword on switch lite as a true first experience...Its actually good. The ammount of dlc legendaries makes you feel godlike if you purchased the crown tundra.

Solid 9/10
 

janejane6178

Kaleido Star FOREVER in my heart <3
Can we drop the "be grateful for what you get" nonsense please? It's a valid argument when you're getting something for free; it's downright insulting when you're shelling out $90 for it. When I'm paying $60 for a game and then $30 for DLC on top if it, I have the right to expect my money's worth.
Thankyou. Thats accurate.
 

Sicksadpanda

Discord Mod
Can we drop the "be grateful for what you get" nonsense please? It's a valid argument when you're getting something for free; it's downright insulting when you're shelling out $90 for it. When I'm paying $60 for a game and then $30 for DLC on top if it, I have the right to expect my money's worth.
While I get the frustration, and the "grateful" part is definitely condescending. However, we have to remember that Pokemon has been $40 since the beginning, along with Enhanced games being also $40 despite it having little amount of features. I would argue that Gamefreak have been underselling themselves since they've kept the game at $40, which was the standard price for 3DS. Most 3DS games aren't nearly as big as Pokemon either, so $40 is an astonishingly good deal if you make good use of the content it offers.

The DLC is a better compromise for a lot of players since they don't have to feel the need to wait for a year for the enhanced game to come out (which wasn't guaranteed to begin with), or buy both base and enhanced game, costing players twice the average game price. They could very very easily make an enhanced game for SwSh that would be just both IoA and CT, and make it $60. Players then may end up having to pay $120 instead of $90, and not everyone wants to wait a year for the better versions to come out as some of the best experience are at the beginning of the game when it's new.

EDIT: The text was a bit too wally, so I shortened it.
 
Last edited:

Lykouros

Sandslash fan
The games' philosophy of being quick, streamlined affairs designed for mobile players with short attention spans just isn't compatible with the console market, console gamers generally want the exact opposite type of experience.
Reading through this thread, this feels to me to be the root of the problem. We really can't have both of these things and have a complete, engaging game for the established audience.
 

Aduro

Mt.BtlMaster
Maybe, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. "Be grateful for what you get" is absolutely condescending when we're talking about a paid product. You can argue about whether or not my expectations are fair or realistic (or you could if I shared them with you, which I haven't thusfar) but to say that having expectations at all is wrong and I should just be grateful for what I get regardless of its quality is itself asinine.
Pretty much. If they expect you to pay more for the games, they should offer significantly better quality in some ways.
Better quality means different things to different people. But I can't understand why anyone would think that SwSh is much of an improvement. Rather it dropped the ball in a lot of ways. It was such a shallow, bare bones experience, while still having most of the flaws that the older games have had.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Problem there is that different people (loudly) have differing notions of what that $90 "should" get them, so saying "I have the right to expect my money's worth" isn't quite a defining metric.
The market has more or less established what $90 should get them already. Look around at what other console games have been providing for the same/similar price point. Adventure games are large, open world affairs with maps that dwarf Pokemon's and enough sidequests to last you weeks, maybe even months without running out of things to do. Multiplayer games have a variety of different gameplay modes that cover various aspects of their respective gameplay formulas. Pokemon is far behind compared to other IPs on console and its content is more in line with a $20-30 eShop title than a full $60 game. Usually when people are saying "Pokemon isn't worth the money", they're comparing it to other IPs and wanting Pokemon's value proposition to match it, not just basing it on their own varying preferences.
 

jaden767

Amphetamine
Can we drop the "be grateful for what you get" nonsense please? It's a valid argument when you're getting something for free; it's downright insulting when you're shelling out $90 for it. When I'm paying $60 for a game and then $30 for DLC on top if it, I have the right to expect my money's worth.
Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would defend that price tag. It's like twice as much as a core game would cost prior to the Switch era and I think that paying that much for games that still feel a bit incomplete is a very steep cost. :(

And there's probably going to be even more future DLC content that we'll most likely get so that cost will increase again.
 

Aduro

Mt.BtlMaster
The market has more or less established what $90 should get them already. Look around at what other console games have been providing for the same/similar price point. Adventure games are large, open world affairs with maps that dwarf Pokemon's and enough sidequests to last you weeks, maybe even months without running out of things to do. Multiplayer games have a variety of different gameplay modes that cover various aspects of their respective gameplay formulas. Pokemon is far behind compared to other IPs on console and its content is more in line with a $20-30 eShop title than a full $60 game. Usually when people are saying "Pokemon isn't worth the money", they're comparing it to other IPs and wanting Pokemon's value proposition to match it, not just basing it on their own varying preferences.
Yeah, Pokemon has been extremely slow in catching up with the times. Even the most basic features, like trainer customisation took years longer than they should have. I wouldn't get my hopes up for any changes that take a lot of time or effort any time soon.

Every time I hit a dialogue tree that's Yes or Yes but in slightly different slang, its like a slap to the face. RPGs are supposed to be interactive stories. Not a railroady swarm of NPCs droning game mechanics and objectives at you.

Also, the AI should be smart enough to be remotely challenging by now. Battling NPCs in-game holds none of the suspense or strategy you'd get from the real game.

I don't necessarily want a full-on pokemon open world RPG or anything. I don't think its a studio that is built to deliver that kind of game. But Game Freak needs to acknowledge that people expect much more from a game than they did ten years ago. People expect gameplay to stay fresh and exciting, and they want more freedom of choice in their games.

In terms of gameplay, its actually offering less variety than Emerald did. In terms of presentation, Colosseum and XD looked better in a lot of ways. And SwSh is arguably the most straightforward and obvious campaign to slog through. Everything just feels meaninglessly restricted at this point.
 
Last edited:

Emperor Empoleon

Honor of Kalos
Multiplayer games have a variety of different gameplay modes that cover various aspects of their respective gameplay formulas. Pokemon is far behind compared to other IPs on console and its content is more in line with a $20-30 eShop title than a full $60 game. Usually when people are saying "Pokemon isn't worth the money", they're comparing it to other IPs and wanting Pokemon's value proposition to match it, not just basing it on their own varying preferences.
Yeah, Pokemon's current multiplayer offerings are kind of baffling. The whole experience seems to have been, I dunno, splintered? Like back in Gen 6, everything from the GTS to the Battle Spot and Holo Caster News Updates was neatly woven into a single, intuitive interface. But now you have things like the GTS and Global Link features being removed, then sold back to us in Home at a premium. VS Recorder has vanished, so people can't save and review their matches unless they have external capture devices (which is nuts when you remember that Platinum's Global Terminal, back in 2009, let you upload and scroll through VS Battles on cart). There are also fewer modes to play in, with all but Single and Double Battles being dropped. You can't even do co-op Battles with friends at the Tower anymore, and this had been a standard feature since like RSE?
 

Dragalge

Custom title: If specified, this will replace the
Yeah, Pokemon's current multiplayer offerings are kind of baffling. The whole experience seems to have been, I dunno, splintered? Like back in Gen 6, everything from the GTS to the Battle Spot and Holo Caster News Updates was neatly woven into a single, intuitive interface. But now you have things like the GTS and Global Link features being removed, then sold back to us in Home at a premium. VS Recorder has vanished, so people can't save and review their matches unless they have external capture devices (which is nuts when you remember that Platinum's Global Terminal, back in 2009, let you upload and scroll through VS Battles on cart). There are also fewer modes to play in, with all but Single and Double Battles being dropped. You can't even do co-op Battles with friends at the Tower anymore, and this had been a standard feature since like RSE?
You can use the GTS for free you just can't upload three Pokemon without paying.
 

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
Honestly, I really don't like the approach they've had in recent years. I don't like Masuda and Ohmori's approach that players have too short of an attention span and want quicker, easier, and more streamlined experiences. Console gamers enjoy longer gameplay experiences that are jam packed with content, but Pokemon games haven't offered that lately.

Sword and Shield cost $20 more than most games, and an additional $30 if you pick up the DLC. For $60, I don't think there's enough content to back up the price tag. The game feels shorter compared to other games, there's not enough side activities or side quests, and there's tons of Pokemon missing.
 

Ophie

Salingerian Phony
Every time I hit a dialogue tree that's Yes or Yes but in slightly different slang, its like a slap to the face. RPGs are supposed to be interactive stories. Not a railroady swarm of NPCs droning game mechanics and objectives at you.
That's pretty standard for JRPGs. Games like Mass Effect flop with Japanese players because they feel they've been given too much choice.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Honestly, I really don't like the approach they've had in recent years. I don't like Masuda and Ohmori's approach that players have too short of an attention span and want quicker, easier, and more streamlined experiences. Console gamers enjoy longer gameplay experiences that are jam packed with content, but Pokemon games haven't offered that lately.

Sword and Shield cost $20 more than most games, and an additional $30 if you pick up the DLC. For $60, I don't think there's enough content to back up the price tag. The game feels shorter compared to other games, there's not enough side activities or side quests, and there's tons of Pokemon missing.
Exactly. They've shifted towards that sort of approach to appeal to mobile gamers, but most mobile gamers aren't going to be buying a Switch. They're not interested in buying a dedicated gaming device nor are they willing to pay $60. The gamers more willing to buy a Switch for Pokemon are more likely to want something deeper and lengthier that they can spend hours upon hours on.

I don't think Game Freak understands their audience that well beyond surface level observations. They seem to just be chasing trends rather than understanding why those trends exist to begin with. They made their games simplified to appeal to mobile gamers, but mobile gamers aren't going to want to buy a 3DS or Switch in the first place. They put an open field in SwSh to try and appeal to console gamers that like BotW, but they want more than just an empty field to run around in, they want a large and ambitious game where you immerse yourself for long periods of time and progress however you want. They just seem to throw a bone to whatever's popular and don't really understand what really makes those things popular.
 

Captain Jigglypuff

Leader of Jigglypuff Army
Honestly the price of the DLC didn’t bother me even thought I had to buy two different ones. Compared to Smash Ultimate and Mortal Kombat 11’s DLC prices, $60 for two packs isn’t too bad. With MK 11, I spent around $100 in DLC and that was for 2 bundle packs, an extended Story Mode, and Costumes for Halloween which should have been included in the first season pack since it cost just as much as any of the other DLC. And that’s not including what I’ve spent on Time Crystals to get certain Brutalities and the Robo Cop Announcer Voice.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Sword and Shield cost $20 more than most games
That is not the case. $60 is the price point for a current-generation console title. $40 hasn’t been the price point for a core Pokémon title since 2017.

and an additional $30 if you pick up the DLC.
Compared to the price of another full title that would have been composed of 70% of the same material.
 

mtqc

MY BEANS!
I've been fine with the games. I like the visuals a lot more than the DS era games, and it's been much easier for me to get into competitive play now than in those games, too. I'd love to have more customization options (like body type, eye shape, and age) and better multiplayer (the current online system is way too glitchy for me), but they're certainly not deal-breakers. I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy where Pokemon's been going lately! The improvements vastly outweigh any negatives for me, so much so that I find myself getting frustrated while playing the older games. I've been spoiled now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Dragalge

Custom title: If specified, this will replace the
Honestly, I really don't like the approach they've had in recent years. I don't like Masuda and Ohmori's approach that players have too short of an attention span and want quicker, easier, and more streamlined experiences. Console gamers enjoy longer gameplay experiences that are jam packed with content, but Pokemon games haven't offered that lately.

Sword and Shield cost $20 more than most games, and an additional $30 if you pick up the DLC. For $60, I don't think there's enough content to back up the price tag. The game feels shorter compared to other games, there's not enough side activities or side quests, and there's tons of Pokemon missing.
Pokemon has always been easy. You just know what to do. The only Pokemon games that can be considered hard are Platinum and USUM.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
That is not the case. $60 is the price point for a current-generation console title. $40 hasn’t been the price point for a core Pokémon title since 2017.



Compared to the price of another full title that would have been composed of 70% of the same material.
Pretty sure he means other Pokémon games from before the Switch. Also, while $90 is a much better bargain than paying $120 for a separate copy of Ultra Sword/Ultra Shield or whatever they would’ve done, it’s still $10 more than the $80 we were paying before the Switch. So again it comes down to what are they doing to justify the increase in cost from handheld to console?

Pokemon has always been easy. You just know what to do. The only Pokemon games that can be considered hard are Platinum and USUM.
No,there’s much more going on here than just age and experience. The actual design and content of the game has cheapened for a casual audience in recent generations (5th and 6th were especially big drops). The maps have gotten increasingly linear and started removing optional paths and areas. Extra features and side quests have been dumbed down (remember when we got involved side quests like Contests that were entire secondary goals instead of just 1 minute diversions like Camp and Poke Jobs). Trainer rosters have been on the lighter side and very few trainers have more than 3 or 4 Pokémon. There’s definitely been tangible changes in their development practices designed to make the games easier, it’s not just because of getting older.
 
Top