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.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.
Thankyou. Thats accurate.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.
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.
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.
Pretty much. If they expect you to pay more for the games, they should offer significantly better quality in some ways.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.
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.
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, 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.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.
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.
You can use the GTS for free you just can't upload three Pokemon without paying.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?
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.
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.
Sword and Shield cost $20 more than most games
and an additional $30 if you pick up the DLC.
Pokemon has always been easy. You just know what to do. The only Pokemon games that can be considered hard are Platinum and USUM.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.
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.
Pokemon has always been easy. You just know what to do. The only Pokemon games that can be considered hard are Platinum and USUM.