I honestly didn't think that Sword/Shield were barebones at all. The storymode was still about as lengthy as other Pokemon games, although that might be an issue with other people if they were hoping for something bigger for the Switch. Part of it might be just how I progress through the games, but it still takes me around forty hours to complete the main storyline. The post-storyline mode was a pretty good length all things considered and there's still a decent amount to do with the Wild Area and Battle Tower. It may not be huge, but I don't think that the contents for the games are barren in the slightest.Having this much DLC was a bit unexpected to me. I guess this makes up for the fact that Sword and Shield were really barebones IMO.
Instead some people are upset because they were waiting specifically for the third version and now they say that they have to spend $90 (game + DLC) for what they would have gotten in the third version. Not me though, I would have bought the third version in addition to the original release.There have been complaints about the third version releases before, but wanting players to buy another sixty dollar game to play through the journey again to experience the new features would have gotten people pretty upset.
I've heard some of those complaints and it seems kind of strange to me. I know that some people were expecting a traditional third version game and some of those games are pretty popular, especially Crystal and Platinum. But I feel like doing that route would have resulted in more backlash. Asking people to pay another sixty dollars for effectively the same game just a year later probably would have been more upsetting for more people. I'm pretty sure that happened with US/UM too. I would have bought the third version too, but this seems like a much better route to go on. People can get new content for the games they already bought at half the price instead of starting over completely to replay Sword/Shield with some new details thrown in. Paying ninety dollars for a game is a lot and I can understand wanting the DLC to be a bit cheaper. I still wanted it to be twenty dollars instead, but for everything they showed in the trailer, it seems like it will be worth the extra money.Instead some people are upset because they were waiting specifically for the third version and now they say that they have to spend $90 (game + DLC) for what they would have gotten in the third version. Not me though, I would have bought the third version in addition to the original release.
I hope so too. I saw a few Pokemon that I like in the trailer, so hopefully there will be some more of my favorites in the DLC. I'd really like to try raising a Skiddo again since I only tried it once while playing X. I'm also really tempted to try out some new Pokemon in these two areas. I like being able to go on new adventures with my current teams, but with a lot of returning Pokemon, new Galarian forms on the way and other Galar Pokemon that I wanted to try out, I may make multiple teams. It is easier to access the Pokemon storage with these games and since I don't know if they'll make another game set in Galar, I could try out different Pokemon. A lot of it also depends on the levels of the wild Pokemon and the trainers you'll battle in the new areas too.SNS said:I'm also really glad that they are truly adding more of the old Pokémon back. I really hope some of my favorites make it in this DLC.
While they did lie about the reused assets, they never once claimed that they would never add Pokémon. Instead it was always specifically that they would never add all the Pokémon in a single game.During the summer and even as late as November they were saying Pokemon wouldn't be added and the decision was final. But all the information in the direct shows that this wasn't a spur of the moment decision and was clearly planned months ago and possibly even from the jump. Also, on the official japanese website it was quietly revealed that animations were in fact reused in Sword & Shield. They started a lawsuit over strategy guide leaks but lying to consumers for months is much more damaging to the brand overall.
You can argue that region is much smaller then it should be because the locations were held back but the returning Pokémon can be transferred from previous games or traded with others. Now some people will point out that you need to pay for Pokémon Home but you also needed to pay for Pokémon Bank for the last two generations and there were also Pokémon that you could not catch in the game but needed to transfer from previous games with Pokémon Bank.However, locking 50% of the roster behind dlc is excessive. Sword & Shield had a very short and linear main game and a barebones post game. A lot of the content feels like it could have been included in the initial release but was purposely held back to make more money.
I clearly remember that they hadn't decided on including more older Pokemon as DLC yet when the news of the National Dex came out. That could have been just an attempt to not reveal the passes until after the game came out, as I don't think that DLC expansions are normally announced before games are released, but given that we mostly saw concept art during the Direct, they may not have a lot of footage ready to show yet either because of whenever they started the DLC project, especially when the first half of the DLC content won't be released until June.SNS said:While they did lie about the reused assets, they never once claimed that they would never add Pokémon. Instead it was always specifically that they would never add all the Pokémon in a single game.
I'm pretty sure that people complained about Pokemon Bank for similar reasons. I could understand that issue more if Pokemon Bank wasn't just five dollars a year. Everyone has a different kind of financial situation, but it never really seemed like that much of a big deal to me. I do think it's a problem that we still don't know how much Pokemon Home is supposed to cost when it's supposed to come out next month, but the notion that older Pokemon are locked behind a paywall isn't really the case. You can still get older Pokemon from trading with other people without paying for the DLC passes. The DLC payment is for all of the new stuff. Technically speaking, you'll still need to pay for the online Switch features to trade with other players, but if that's still considered hiding older Pokemon behind a paywall, then trading wasn't really free for most of the series. In the past, people have had to pay more money to get extra equipment for trading, buying another system and game to trade with yourself or being lucky enough to find someone to trade with in order to complete the Pokedex or get a version exclusive Pokemon. Trading with other people was especially hard before online features were introduced.You can argue that region is much smaller then it should be because the locations were held back but the returning Pokémon can be transferred from previous games or traded with others. Now some people will point out that you need to pay for Pokémon Home but you also needed to pay for Pokémon Bank for the last two generations and there were also Pokémon that you could not catch in the game but needed to transfer from previous games with Pokémon Bank.
So it's exactly the way it was in the previous two generations. And generations before that required multiple systems, games, and link cables (if you go back far enough) or trading with others. Nothing has really changed since the franchise started when it comes to that subject.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|T||Pokemon Sword and Shield Has Highest-Grossing Launch On Switch||Toonzone News Comments||0|
|These Pokemon Are Not Available In Sword And Shield||Toonzone News Comments||1|
|T||Pokemon Sword and Shield Producer Doesn’t Regret Pokemon Choices||Toonzone News Comments||0|
|Four New Revelations From Pokemon Sword And Shield||Toonzone News Comments||0|
|New Sword And Shield Trailer Leaves Pokemon Fans Hangry||Video Games||0|