this is just terrible

[Mukmuk]

Like, look at these designs. These are just so ugly, I just don't understand why people like this BS. Moltress looks... not absolutely awful, but still pretty bad. Articuno's going through its edgy emo phase (those laser beams though), and Zapdos... ugh. People are too easily appeased by anything. 

Also, for "new areas" in Sword and Shield (that probably should have been in the game beforehand) you have to spend money so you can unlock these and the Pokemon you can catch there. I mean this is just ridiculous; at least in literally every other Pokemon game you could catch 98%, if not all Pokemon within the game without some kind of stupid DLC.

Sword and Shield -1/10 

[Lightcosmo]

I hate to say it, but DLC is this era, sadly. I agree, it's sad that it's not In the base game, but most games are like this.

[Anacybele]

6 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

I hate to say it, but DLC is this era, sadly. I agree, it's sad that it's not In the base game, but most games are like this.

I don't understand the complaints about DLC. It's not like this is a new concept. The idea has actually been around for decades. It's just back then, they were just done for computer games, were called expansion packs, and weren't digital, but took the form of extra discs to use to install the content on your already installed base PC game.

And on top of that: those expansion packs were more expensive than DLC today. In fact, I remember paying the same price for a Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 expansion that I paid for the base game! So in that sense, we're getting better deals on this stuff today than we used to.

And at the very least, the idea of DLC can help ensure that certain content is not rushed and half-assed. I bet if we'd gotten these new areas in the base game, they'd be boring. I'd rather pay some money for quality content than get rubbish for free.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Anacybele

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I was kind of looking at my phone and other distractions when I watched the Direct. I didn't realize they were the Bird Trio lol.

I'm not inclined to care about the Pokemon DLC news, as I don't own Sword of Shield to begin with and don't plan to, but it sounds inoffensively okay as far as we know. The idea of Pokemon getting post launch updates and content additions was a dream for any previous release, so it's cool that there's a reason to boot up the game after the first month even if you have to pay for it. They may have announced it a bit early, since the first big expansion is all the way in June or something.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I like Articuno's a lot.

 

 

But frankly, I have nothing but contempt for the announcement. Charging $60 per version, cutting out most of the legacy Pokemon, and then selling some of them back to us in an expansion pass put The Pokemon Company/Gamefreak on my shit list. 

[NinjaMonkey]

I like how Sword and Shield take place in a British-esque setting, and yet they still couldn't resist putting a Japanese dojo in there...

Also, Galarian Slowpoke looks to me to be the laziest regional variant yet. "Oh we'll just paint it's tail and the top of it's head yellow, and call it a day".

Also, this should probably be in the Pokémon sub-forum.

Edited January 10, 2020 by NinjaMonkey

[Integrity]

9 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Also, this should probably be in the Pokémon sub-forum.

actually clicked in here earlier, legit forgot we have a pokemon forum and went "ah, yes, it is in gaming, where it belong"

[Lightcosmo]

3 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I don't understand the complaints about DLC. It's not like this is a new concept. The idea has actually been around for decades. It's just back then, they were just done for computer games, were called expansion packs, and weren't digital, but took the form of extra discs to use to install the content on your already installed base PC game.

And on top of that: those expansion packs were more expensive than DLC today. In fact, I remember paying the same price for a Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 expansion that I paid for the base game! So in that sense, we're getting better deals on this stuff today than we used to.

And at the very least, the idea of DLC can help ensure that certain content is not rushed and half-assed. I bet if we'd gotten these new areas in the base game, they'd be boring. I'd rather pay some money for quality content than get rubbish for free.

Okay, here's an example then. Paying for dissidia nt on the ps4 was 60$ when it came out, I've paid around... 100$ for DLC so far. And they arent some putting it out yet, and its 20$ for 2 character alts, now you tell me whether or not that's not "half assed". That kinda stuff should have been in the base game, it wasn't like that before and they have plenty of more quality than dlc does. It's just a way to make games 40$ more than they should be. 

[Anacybele]

8 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Okay, here's an example then. Paying for dissidia nt on the ps4 was 60$ when it came out, I've paid around... 100$ for DLC so far. And they arent some putting it out yet, and its 20$ for 2 character alts, now you tell me whether or not that's not "half assed". That kinda stuff should have been in the base game, it wasn't like that before and they have plenty of more quality than dlc does. It's just a way to make games 40$ more than they should be. 

I never said all DLC was done properly. Not all of it is. But when done right, it's good.

[eclipse]

Easy skip IMO, the art doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Seafarer]

4 hours ago, Etheus said:

But frankly, I have nothing but contempt for the announcement. Charging $60 per version, cutting out most of the legacy Pokemon, and then selling some of them back to us in an expansion pass put The Pokemon Company/Gamefreak on my shit list. 

They're not doing this. The new-old Pokémon are coming in a free update. Before you say "but we can't catch them", last I checked, the whole controversy over Dexit was that the missing Pokémon were removed from the code, since there has pretty much always been Pokémon that aren't directly capturable in each game.

You got part of what you spent a whole thread complaining about, and you're still complaining. (Though by all means, complain that it's still not all of the old Pokémon.)

[Diovani Bressan]

These design are good for me. I really liked Articuno. His normal variation was already my favorite between the 3 birds, and his Galarian form is not different.

I am getting this expansion pack.

I have nothing to complain about it.

[Flere210]

I have a problem whit DLC when i feel the base game eas left incomplete on purpose. Right now i think Sword and Shield have been left incomplete out of incompetence, so i have no problem whit the devs trying to patch that out. 

And the DLC seems to add more contents compared to a third version, much more, so it's morr than just stuff that they should have put in the main game.

 

As for the birds. Articuno and Moltres are ok for me, but i like Zapdos a lot because it looks like a chochobo.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Flere210

[Lightcosmo]

8 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I never said all DLC was done properly. Not all of it is. But when done right, it's good.

No, what you said was this:

12 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I don't understand the complaints about DLC.

And at the very least, the idea of DLC can help ensure that certain content is not rushed and half-assed. I bet if we'd gotten these new areas in the base game, they'd be boring. I'd rather pay some money for quality content than get rubbish for free.

And I gave an example as to why it's fair to complain about, which is what most games are leaning towards nowadays. What i'm saying is it's still more than likely going to be half assed, so they can make more DLC that you have to pay for to fix it. And in the end, should I have to pay almost 200$ to fully enjoy a game?

Also, what exactly is your definition of "done right"?

[Etrurian emperor]

12 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I don't understand the complaints about DLC. It's not like this is a new concept. The idea has actually been around for decades. It's just back then, they were just done for computer games, were called expansion packs, and weren't digital, but took the form of extra discs to use to install the content on your already installed base PC game.

And on top of that: those expansion packs were more expensive than DLC today. In fact, I remember paying the same price for a Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 expansion that I paid for the base game! So in that sense, we're getting better deals on this stuff today than we used to.

And at the very least, the idea of DLC can help ensure that certain content is not rushed and half-assed. I bet if we'd gotten these new areas in the base game, they'd be boring. I'd rather pay some money for quality content than get rubbish for free.

Expansion pack were typically made a good deal after the game was finished and often felt complete. With DLC its often very likely the content was always supposed to have been in the base game before being taken out to be sold separately. DLC is often also on a smaller scale than the expansion packs of the past. Rather than DLC helping to ensure a game isn't rushed and halfpassed its often suspected of being the reason for it. This negative attitude regarding DLC isn't always justified but the game industry is scummy enough to make this cautionary mindset rather deserved. 

[Anacybele]

2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

No, what you said was this:

And I gave an example as to why it's fair to complain about, which is what most games are leaning towards nowadays. What i'm saying is it's still more than likely going to be half assed, so they can make more DLC that you have to pay for to fix it. And in the end, should I have to pay almost 200$ to fully enjoy a game?

Also, what exactly is your definition of "done right"?

To put it simply, DLC should add to the game, not complete it. The base game of Sword and Shield has a complete story and all. The new areas and Pokemon are just being added. They're not required to complete the game or anything. Also, DLC should be reasonably priced, of course. I won't say $30 is cheap for DLC, but this DLC has a lot of content, so it seems justified at the moment to me.

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

With DLC its often very likely the content was always supposed to have been in the base game before being taken out to be sold separately.

Sure, but for all we know, this was done because of time constraints or just a desire to polish up that content more before releasing it.

[Lightcosmo]

2 hours ago, Anacybele said:

To put it simply, DLC should add to the game, not complete it. The base game of Sword and Shield has a complete story and all. The new areas and Pokemon are just being added. They're not required to complete the game or anything. Also, DLC should be reasonably priced, of course. I won't say $30 is cheap for DLC, but this DLC has a lot of content, so it seems justified at the moment to me.

Sure, but for all we know, this was done because of time constraints or just a desire to polish up that content more before releasing it.

I dont think your definition of "alot" is the same as mine. I don't think you get what you pay for, personally. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by lightcosmo

[Ottservia]

17 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I don't understand the complaints about DLC. It's not like this is a new concept. The idea has actually been around for decades. It's just back then, they were just done for computer games, were called expansion packs, and weren't digital, but took the form of extra discs to use to install the content on your already installed base PC game.

And on top of that: those expansion packs were more expensive than DLC today. In fact, I remember paying the same price for a Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 expansion that I paid for the base game! So in that sense, we're getting better deals on this stuff today than we used to.

And at the very least, the idea of DLC can help ensure that certain content is not rushed and half-assed. I bet if we'd gotten these new areas in the base game, they'd be boring. I'd rather pay some money for quality content than get rubbish for free.

I feel the main problem people have with the DLC is that SWSH was already pretty lacking in content to begin with. I hold by the the opinion that SWSH should not cost $60. For what you're getting, the game is worth $50 at most. For a full home console triple A title, SWSH is comparatively lacking when faced up against games like Botw, Smash, Mario odyssey, FE3H, and that's not even mentioning the plethora of games made by other companies like persona 5.  This was fine when the series was still on handheld and only cost around $40 but for a full home console $60 triple A experience, it's not unreasonable to expect a little more from the base game. And I know game freak was on severe time constraints(as the game was in development for about three years while the team was also split between USUM and the Let's go games) but if Sakurai and his team can make smash ultimate along with all of it's content within 2 years then surely Game Freak can do the same if not more in three. What I'm trying to say here is that to some people this DLC just feels like salt in the wound.

[Anacybele]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I feel the main problem people have with the DLC is that SWSH was already pretty lacking in content to begin with. I hold by the the opinion that SWSH should not cost $60. For what you're getting, the game is worth $50 at most. For a full home console triple A title, SWSH is comparatively lacking when faced up against games like Botw, Smash, Mario odyssey, FE3H, and that's not even mentioning the plethora of games made by other companies like persona 5.  This was fine when the series was still on handheld and only cost around $40 but for a full home console $60 triple A experience, it's not unreasonable to expect a little more from the base game. And I know game freak was on severe time constraints(as the game was in development for about three years while the team was also split between USUM and the Let's go games) but if Sakurai and his team can make smash ultimate along with all of it's content within 2 years then surely Game Freak can do the same if not more in three. What I'm trying to say here is that to some people this DLC just feels like salt in the wound.

Yeah, in this case it's not absolutely perfect, no. But it's not the worst by far.

[Dragoncat]

38 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I feel the main problem people have with the DLC is that SWSH was already pretty lacking in content to begin with. I hold by the the opinion that SWSH should not cost $60. For what you're getting, the game is worth $50 at most.

It may be, but aren't all Switch games 60 dollars? I don't think Game Freak has control of that. Something like Barbie Horse Land would also be 60 dollars. Only indie games are cheaper now.

Not saying it's a good thing, but yeah.

[Azure the Scale Tipper]

I get the feeling some of these devs either do not really know what paying $60 means or they do not care because they get and spend money in droves.

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Dragoncat said:

It may be, but aren't all Switch games 60 dollars? I don't think Game Freak has control of that. Something like Barbie Horse Land would also be 60 dollars. Only indie games are cheaper now.

Not saying it's a good thing, but yeah.

Yeah but for $60 I can get a game like Persona 5 with dozens more hours of content, better polish, and a complete and fulfilling experience. With pokemon, I can only get like one of those things. I'm not saying SWSH is bad(in fact I think it's the best pokemon games we've had in a while). It's just that for $60 I expect a little more.

[Dragoncat]

14 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah but for $60 I can get a game like Persona 5 with dozens more hours of content, better polish, and a complete and fulfilling experience. With pokemon, I can only get like one of those things. I'm not saying SWSH is bad(in fact I think it's the best pokemon games we've had in a while). It's just that for $60 I expect a little more.

I totally get that, yeah.

[Lightcosmo]

I understand that DLC can fix things, but they do not put enough in them to warrant being that expensive most of the time, when like others mentioned, other games are made fully playable games without it.

[Florete]

I actually like the new bird designs. Well, Zapdos is a little weird but Articuno is great and Moltres is pretty cool too.

2 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

It may be, but aren't all Switch games 60 dollars? I don't think Game Freak has control of that. Something like Barbie Horse Land would also be 60 dollars. Only indie games are cheaper now.

Not saying it's a good thing, but yeah.

There's no rule stating games need to launch for $60 (or your regional equivalent) on Switch. These big name Nintendo brands usually will be, but when you start looking at titles from lesser-known companies (not necessarily indie) you'll find cheaper games.