• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Reddit user, Sneaky_Pebbles, has scrutinized Pokemon Sword/Shield controversies with evidence and proof

Status
Not open for further replies.
delete12345

delete12345

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 17, 2017
19,727
Boston, MA

Because of the following reasons:
  • It's constantly updated.
  • There are many external links linking to evidences per claims in the scrutinization process.
  • Text is too large to quote every single section of each parts of the entire controversy.
  • The results are neutral and objective, each with reasons indicating what or why this vote is casted.
  • It's a hassle for OP (me!), and for this I 100% apologize for the lack of effort...
I highly recommend people to go visit the link linked above, and read all of the scrutiny.
 
VoltySquirrel

VoltySquirrel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
490
This is some debate club nerd shit. "We need to empirically solve this issue through fact checking and giving out Pinocchio scores." Clearly there's an agenda behind a post like this, just hidden behind the veil of objectivity cause he writes 3 paragraphs in neutral language to takedown some straw man argument. This sucks.
 
Rotobit

Rotobit

Editor at Nintendo Wire
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
10,196
Writing it all out like it's a legal document seems very... over-the-top and cheesy.

Though I will say I didn't consider the point about Pokémon Bank inevitably disappearing. People are gonna be VERY mad when that happens, it might even eclipse the current fallout. Not even sure how Nintendo would go about fixing that, either, outside of porting every game possible to the Switch.
 
Hexa

Hexa

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,743
I don't care about Pokemon at all so I only skimmed the list because I was curious, but I just wanted to say the amount of effort that went into that is really impressive to me. Well done to the poster.
 
Opa-Pa

Opa-Pa

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,810
"Finally somebody put the time and effort to refute all that embarrassing whin-"

Oh.
 
Mugman

Mugman

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,369
Think of all the Pokemon he could've caught in the time it took to write this
 
SpottieO

SpottieO

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,627
I like how the Reddit username is in the title
as if that somehow makes this anything other than a well written temper tantrum
 
oni-link

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,040
UK
Game Freak just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about Pokémon culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it. It's not like Digimon where you can become successful by releasing really solid JRPGs. If you remove all the Pokémon from future games due to a change in policy, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the much maligned Pokémon fanbase, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Sword and Shield, nor will they purchase any of Game Freaks games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Game Freak has alienated an entire fanbase with this move.

Game Freak, publicly apologize and reply to all Sneaky_Pebbles' points, or you can kiss your business goodbye.
 
TreeMePls

TreeMePls

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,258
I feel like Im reading a completely different post than what the rest of you are responding to. Dont really see anything wrong with it
 
Lady Bow

Lady Bow

Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,308
"r/pokemon"

not visiting that toxic as fuck subreddit that it's turned into

Sounds pretty cringe judging from the responses.
 
Miker

Miker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,024
I feel bad for the author, and whatever life events or decisions that made him into the person he is today, who decided that making this would be a good idea. Just a deep, deep sorrow for that sad shell of a human being.
 
oni-link

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,040
UK
SpottieO said:
I like how the Reddit username is in the title
as if that somehow makes this anything other than a well written temper tantrum
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Show some goddamn respect, don't take the name Sneaky_Pebbles in vain

We're in a ruddy Sneaky underscore pebbles thread, you should be grateful the Pebblemesiter would even provide us with this quality content
 
VeePs

VeePs

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,371
David___ said:
I feel like Im reading a completely different post than what the rest of you are responding to. Dont really see anything wrong with it
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Same?

I'll still buy Pokemon Sword (not shield :p) and I'm hopeful I'll enjoy it. But... the post seemed fine? I only skimmed thru it maybe I'm missing something.
 
PeakPointMatrix

PeakPointMatrix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,120
Ok, debate over. Most embarrassing, petty fanbase award goes to the Pokemon community. Congratulations.

And yes, I know obviously it's a vocal minority and not everyone in the fanbase is like this but wow. The rest of yall need to call this obsessive toxicity for what it is. I haven't seen anything this insane since the No Man's Sky spreadsheet.
 
Ailanthium

Ailanthium

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,276
I mean, some of the points made are perfectly valid but the poster makes a lot of assumptions about the development team based on very little known information. For all we know there were issues in development that happened too late to assume the full two years between games was applicable. The narrative they're pushing is that they could've but didn't for some unknown reason, which is not necessarily true. Now it's also possible that it was due to poor planning or management issues, but again... we simply don't know. And while I agree that more people are very unhappy about the change as opposed to those who are very happy with it, the idea that there will always be a "most used" category of Pokemon is a really weird way of suggesting that GameFreak just shouldn't care about balance at all. I'm not really convinced the game WILL be any more balanced than past generations, but I think that it's at least more plausible with certain Pokemon out of the picture. I think anyone who's watched recent competitive matches will recognize that the latest and greatest Pokemon far outmatch previous gens (i.e. power creep).
 
Quad Lasers

Quad Lasers

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,542
1.14 - At some point it would be necessary to remove Pokémon

  • Variable
  • This claim depends on the premise that all existing Pokémon have to be recreated from scratch or altered significantly on a regular basis, i.e. per-generation. This may be necessary with major changes to shading styles, as is currently the case regarding textures and other mappings. A temporary split in the pool of existing Pokémon occurs for this reason, as it takes a significant amount of time to apply the necessary changes to each Pokémon. If this task is not completed during the development period, it serves as reasonable justification for the temporary removal of Pokémon from the total roster. This is, however, in stark contrast with the official statement regarding the issue. The policy change applies to all games in the future, negating the temporary aspect. This leads to the conclusion that the choice is not of technical nature.
  • Furthermore, the premise is invalid. Significant changes do not need to occur each generation. Given a base quality on each model, the assets can be re-used many generations. This principle is confirmed for the 3D vectors, unknown for image mappings. If mapping images have vector-based raw formats, they can be used indefinitively. Even in a future with 5000 Pokémon, this principle applies. The sheer amount does increase the development time in case all assets do need to be updated, but does not negate the temporary nature of such event. The total time required depends on the nature of the alterations as well as available workforce and desired development time. One may argue that at some point the required period spans multiple generations and is no longer worth the effort for each Pokémon. Alternatively, the choice exists to not update the Pokémon at all if their base quality is deemed sufficient. In any case, the decision is based on business factors rather than technical factors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

 
Dyle

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,962
It's a nice idea but I don't think it's written that well. There's still way too much conjecture, particularly around answers 1.15 and 3.7. Those two should absolutely not be listed as incorrect, implausible would be a much better way of describing those situations, labeling them as incorrect without any evidence from Gamefreak/TPC themselves is not a valid conclusion.
 
Remark

Remark

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,571
I mean if you actually read the post a lot of what he saids is pretty fair but I will admit he did make a lot of assumptions which negated his case at times.
 
Liam Allen-Miller

Liam Allen-Miller

Member
Nov 2, 2017
6,816
Shibuya
sneaky_pebbles said:
1.6 - [Specified amount] of Pokémon are rarely used

  • Conjecture
  • Unless accompanied by results of surveys with worldwide significant sample size and proper randomization, claims of this nature can not be validated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think anyone needs a survey to tell you whether or not Politoed or Glalie are rarely used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.