>>42354701Nice try, I don't give a shit about the dex. Cut Pokemon was the least of Sword and Shield's problems. The game has exponentially less content even when disregarding cut Pokemon as a factor.
In response to the rest of the post that I "ignored", here you go:
>you’re paying for the higher fidelityIt may be the best looking Pokemon game (not an achievement), but it looks horrid for a Switch title. The game's engine blows and a majority of the models/animations barring the rare exception are still incredibly static and boring to look at. There are a lot of nitpicks with bad visuals that really start to add up too, such as blocky models, muddy textures, flat backgrounds that literally look like they were cut out with the magic wand tool in photoshop, lazy animations, misaligned effects, and a lack of overall polish and care.
>you’re paying for performance inherent to console gamesI wouldn't even count Sword and Shield's performance as a selling point, because 30fps is the absolute bare minimum a game should be able to achieve now. If it was constant, maybe, but the game chugs hard even with a good online connection or when certain models/effects are being displayed.
Sword and Shield is a $60 Switch title with less content than a $40 dollar 3DS title that still has all of the visual, performance, and technical problems that came with crappy hardware of age's past.
