• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Speculation Gen 9 Predictions (Development predictions, New Regions, Version names)

Hopefully Ohmori doesn't direct these games. He's worked on 3 games as far. ORAS (which struck out) Sun and Moon (which was give or take) and sword and shield (which is the lowest reviewed mainline game). Where is morimoto? He was so good for the franchise.
 
Hopefully Ohmori doesn't direct these games. He's worked on 3 games as far. ORAS (which struck out) Sun and Moon (which was give or take) and sword and shield (which is the lowest reviewed mainline game). Where is morimoto? He was so good for the franchise.
Didn't the latter sold well, Ohmori can try harder than that.
 
He's worked on 3 games as far. ORAS (which struck out) Sun and Moon (which was give or take) and sword and shield (which is the lowest reviewed mainline game).

Literally every main series game Ohmori has directed has been a massive critical and commercial success. None of these "struck out." Sword and Shield most of all have completely demolished the performance records of the past several generations, creeping right up into third-best for the series (with the tangible possibility of overtaking Gold & Silver as second-best).

Where is morimoto? He was so good for the franchise.

He's still there, but overall game direction has never been his main role within Game Freak. Since 2002, he has mostly been credited as the Battle Director or in other positions that pertain to the battling system.

Do you have a source for this? I can’t seem to find anything to corroborate it.

I assume they're referring to the Metacritic user score. Which, sure, we can talk about (and I'll start us off by saying that 5,301 is 0.0279% of 19,000,000, and also by just loosely gesturing at the phrase "review bombing"), but it's probably also worth mentioning that the critic score of 80/100 is right there next to it, and that's on-par with most other main series Pokémon games.
 
I assume they're referring to the Metacritic user score. Which, sure, we can talk about (and I'll start us off by saying that 5,301 is 0.0279% of 19,000,000, and also by just loosely gesturing at the phrase "review bombing"), but it's probably also worth mentioning that the critic score of 80/100 is right there next to it, and that's on-par with most other main series Pokémon games.
Review bombing isn't going to help. This is why review websites needs to change their policy regarding review bombing. While I usually don't agree to anything to what critics had said, I also don't condone review bombing because most of the review bombs didn't talk about a product and are usually biased as hell.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a source for this? I can’t seem to find anything to corroborate it.

Metacritic scores. Pokemon Sword and Shield is the lowest mainline rated game on metacritic. Thats pretty much the best source there is.

Literally every main series game Ohmori has directed has been a massive critical and commercial success. None of these "struck out." Sword and Shield most of all have completely demolished the performance records of the past several generations, creeping right up into third-best for the series (with the tangible possibility of overtaking Gold & Silver as second-best).



He's still there, but overall game direction has never been his main role within Game Freak. Since 2002, he has mostly been credited as the Battle Director or in other positions that pertain to the battling system.



I assume they're referring to the Metacritic user score. Which, sure, we can talk about (and I'll start us off by saying that 5,301 is 0.0279% of 19,000,000, and also by just loosely gesturing at the phrase "review bombing"), but it's probably also worth mentioning that the critic score of 80/100 is right there next to it, and that's on-par with most other main series Pokémon games.

The metacritic of 80 is the lowest in the franchise though. It's also 7 below Sun and Moon and XY, so I'm not sure why you would call it a critical success when it's the worst reviewed game in the franchise. And sword and shield sold well, but it also would have sold better if the games were better. By the end of the generation, games like Zelda, animal crossing, smash bros, Mario mainline games all would have sold more despite being less popular than Pokemon games in previous generations. Sword and Shields sales are, again, amazing. But look at the other games on switch and you will realise that games like Zelda (which has sold 10 million more on switch) or animal crossing (which has sold 15 million more on switch than its previous title) make Pokemon's success pale in comparison. Trust me, if these games were 90+ metacritic, it would have sold 30 million copies easily.
 
The metacritic of 80 is the lowest in the franchise though. It's also 7 below Sun and Moon and XY, so I'm not sure why you would call it a critical success when it's the worst reviewed game in the franchise.
A different of only 7 points out of 100 isn't a huge dip in quality, and arguing that a game isn't a critical success because its 80% score isn't quite as high as games with an 87% score is being ridiculously picky about what qualifies as a critical success.

Also, Black 2 shares a critic score of 80, and FireRed is only one point above it, so...

EDIT: Yeah, for comparison, Metacritic's reviews of the games sorted from high to low:

  • Sun - 87
  • X - 87
  • Heartgold - 87
  • Black - 87
  • Diamond - 85
  • Ultra Sun - 84
  • Omega Ruby - 83
  • Platinum - 83
  • Ruby - 82
  • FireRed - 81
  • Black 2 - 80
  • Sword - 80
  • Emerald - 76

So, no, SwSh isn't the worst-reviewed game, that goes to Emerald. And according to Metacritic themselves, they consider scores like this to be "generally favorable".
And sword and shield sold well, but it also would have sold better if the games were better.
That's true of literally every game.
 
Last edited:
A different of only 7 points out of 100 isn't a huge dip in quality, and arguing that a game isn't a critical success because its 80% score isn't quite as high as games with an 87% score is being ridiculously picky about what qualifies as a critical success.

Also, Black 2 shares a critic score of 80, and FireRed is only one point above it, so...

EDIT: Yeah, for comparison, Metacritic's reviews of the games sorted from high to low:

  • Sun - 87
  • X - 87
  • Heartgold - 87
  • Black - 87
  • Diamond - 85
  • Ultra Sun - 84
  • Omega Ruby - 83
  • Platinum - 83
  • Ruby - 82
  • FireRed - 81
  • Black 2 - 80
  • Sword - 80
  • Emerald - 76

So, no, SwSh isn't the worst-reviewed game, that goes to Emerald. And according to Metacritic themselves, they consider scores like this to be "generally favorable".

That's true of literally every game.

It's the year 2021. Any game that falls to a series low and doesn't get at least high 80's is considered a critical failure. The same would be said if Zelda reached 80 or Mario. Shouldn't we (as pokemon fans) expect the same standard as those other franchises? It's our right as a consumer to expect the best from Gamefreak, and we're not getting that. I really really hope they can turn it around because Pokemon used to be one of the premier franchises in the world. The problem is that Gamefreak are going through the teething pains that other japanese devs went through when they went into HD. I just hope they can get it right, because Sword and Shield was actually the first time that myself a lot of other gamers said no this isn't good enough. If Gamefreak can win us back, then Sword and Shield's commercial success will feel like a blip because an amazing Pokemon game can and will sell 30 Million +
 
Any game that falls to a series low and doesn't get at least high 80's is considered a critical failure.
By who? If metacritic has decided that low 80s is actually bad, then why are they still bothering with this system instead of changing it? Why do they still mark low 80s as "general favorable" just like they do games in the upper 80s?
The same would be said if Zelda reached 80 or Mario.
Paper Mario: The Origami King got 80. Take a look at Wikipedia's reception section for it- it doesn't call it a critical failure. It says people responded positively, with several sites putting it on lists of best releases of the year.

A critical failure is an actually bad game, not something that's just not as great as others.
Shouldn't we (as pokemon fans) expect the same standard as those other franchises?
We can both want better and acknowledge that a score of 80 isn't a critical failure; those aren't mutually exclusive. And personally, I don't really care that much about metacritic scoring, I think it's better to point to specific aspects of the game that I want to see improved rather than just pointing to a reviewer's number that doesn't account for all the different elements of a game.
I just hope they can get it right, because Sword and Shield was actually the first time that myself a lot of other gamers said no this isn't good enough.
I'd argue that's more because of how the dex cut and increased prices brought criticism to the forefront rather than because SwSh had a major dip in quality.
because an amazing Pokemon game can and will sell 30 Million +
The originals already sold more than that, and they're not exactly the cream of the crop when compared to the games now.
 
By who? If metacritic has decided that low 80s is actually bad, then why are they still bothering with this system instead of changing it? Why do they still mark low 80s as "general favorable" just like they do games in the upper 80s?

Have you not been in the gaming community for a while? Trust me, any game that doesn't hit high 80's is considered a failure. There are lots of devs on record noting the high standards that gamers have these days
Paper Mario: The Origami King got 80. Take a look at Wikipedia's reception section for it- it doesn't call it a critical failure. It says people responded positively, with several sites putting it on lists of best releases of the year.
A critical failure is an actually bad game, not something that's just not as great as others.
Using Paper mario is a bit of a reach considering its not Mario's premier franchise. That would be like me saying Pokemon ranger is the premier franchise. I'm talking about a mainline Mario game or a BOTW sequel. If any of those games were to score what Pokemon did, it would be considered a failure.
We can both want better and acknowledge that a score of 80 isn't a critical failure; those aren't mutually exclusive. And personally, I don't really care that much about metacritic scoring, I think it's better to point to specific aspects of the game that I want to see improved rather than just pointing to a reviewer's number that doesn't account for all the different elements of a game.
Then let's look at the user scores? There's a clear disconnect between gamefreak and its fans if those games were reviewed bombed while older games were not. Consumers have the right to have their demands heard and Gamefreak have not met those demands in a long while. And the idea of improving features is irrelevant considering Gamefreak continually removes features each games. Where are Pokeseals? Where are contests? Where is the Pokemon World Tournament? The Battle Frontier? Megas? I could go on. You can't expect a linear progression of improvement if Gamefreak continually removes features that need improving
I'd argue that's more because of how the dex cut and increased prices brought criticism to the forefront rather than because SwSh had a major dip in quality.
I actually believed the dexcut was a good idea, it was just awfully excuted. You can't use the excuse of we will be removing these Pokemon for quality control, then deliver the lowest mainline reviewed game in the franchise history.
The originals already sold more than that, and they're not exactly the cream of the crop when compared to the games now.
The originals are also games that were released in 1996 and shouldn't be held to the same standard today.

By the way, I think there are a lot of good things about the franchise today. Take away Dynamax, and the battle system and overall gameplay has never been better. But Pokemon is a franchise that is currently 50% good and 50% not good. For every good there is a bad. But they have the gameplay nailed, and they only need to bring the rest of the franchise to a modern standard and the franchise can return to its peak.
 
Last edited:
Have you not been in the gaming community for a while? Trust me, any game that doesn't hit high 80's is considered a failure.
Again- by who? Internet forums don't represent a large part of the population.
There are lots of devs on record noting the high standards that gamers have these days
Then why not quote them?
Using Paper mario is a bit of a reach considering its not Mario's premier franchise. That would be like me saying Pokemon ranger is the premier franchise. I'm talking about a mainline Mario game or a BOTW sequel. If any of those games were to score what Pokemon did, it would be considered a failure.
Bit of goalposting, but okay.
Then let's look at the user scores?
Uh, no, my point was, again, that ranking a game on a scale of 1-100 and not even giving it separate categories is not giving the full picture. Graphical quality, difficulty, character design, story, gameplay length, map design- these are all separate elements of a game, and jumbling them together into one number isn't going to be accurate.

Also, even setting aside review bombs, the user reviews include takes like:
1611111279991.png

"The Pokemon are weird"

1611111313319.png

0/10, absolutely nothing said about the game other than "it's not great"

1611111393416.png

0/10 because of the dex cut, graphics, and handholding, because the entirety of a game's quality is dependent on how invasive you find the tutorials I guess?

1611111454392.png

"Cutted dex", "bugs and crushes", "and etc"

1611111608135.png

0/10 they removed Pokemon and moves
1611111641654.png

0/10 they removed Pokemon
1611111718274.png

Literally nothing but "it's bad"
1611112038403.png

"They did not even try, no I will not elaborate"
There's a clear disconnect between gamefreak and its fans if those games were reviewed bombed while older games were not.
Like, say (and just a guess here), a controversial development decision that lead to a lot of social media backlash?
There's a clear disconnect between gamefreak and its fans if those games were reviewed bombed while older games were not. Consumers have the right to have their demands heard and Gamefreak have not met those demands in a long while
Wait, so which is it? Game Freak hasn't been meeting demands for a while, or should we examine the fact that SwSh was review-bombed and other games weren't to look for a difference between the two?
And the idea of improving features is irrelevant considering Gamefreak continually removes features each games. Where are Pokeseals? Where are contests? Where is the Pokemon World Tournament? The Battle Frontier? Megas? I could go on. You can't expect a linear progression of improvement if Gamefreak continually removes features that need improving
I was referring to core elements of gameplay, like story, difficulty, locations. That's something you can expect progression on. I didn't say anything about side content, and while I do think those should be brought back, I would think it was pretty obvious that wasn't what I was referring to.

(Also, the PWT? That feature included in BW2, which only scored a lousy 80 points? I dunno, I think that was a critical failure...)
I actually believed the dexcut was a good idea, it was just awfully excuted. You can't use the excuse of we will be removing these Pokemon for quality control, then deliver the lowest mainline reviewed game in the franchise history.
Exactly my point- people were going to critically examine the quality of these games more because they cited quality as a reason for removing Pokemon.
The originals are also games that were released in 1996 and shouldn't be held to the same standard today.
Which makes it even more impressive that they sold so well, no?
 
Last edited:
I think the disconnect between Gamefreak and their fans are more than that. Just look at these two examples

89e.gif

Remind yourself that this passed Gamefreaks quality control
maxresdefault.jpg

And these two images are games running on the same Hardware. Sword and Shield will have sold 20 million plus, while Dragon Quest likely sold between 6-7 million

Gamefreak released a game that in many retrospects looked like it was still in pre-alpha stage. I firmly believe the game was rushed for release considering in 2018 Ishihara proclaimed the Switch would be a failure, meaning these were likely 3DS games upressed onto a new system. Therefore, rushed for release. I'll be honest. The bottom image alone was enough for me not to buy the games because as a consumer I (like many others) feel as though it wasn't worth the money they were asking for. Gamefreak has a lot to do to win us back, and I hope they do it. But right now, there are a lot of people in the gaming community who has lost trust in them and it will take a while for Gamefreak to win them/us back.
 
Some people aren't wholly obsessed with graphics.

Also the sprite-based games were comparitively less impressive, given what couldh ave been accomplished on 90's era hardware,
 
I think the disconnect between Gamefreak and their fans are more than that. Just look at these two examples

89e.gif

Remind yourself that this passed Gamefreaks quality control
maxresdefault.jpg

And these two images are games running on the same Hardware. Sword and Shield will have sold 20 million plus, while Dragon Quest likely sold between 6-7 million
Neither of those things really detract from actual gameplay at all. The first one is an eye-roll-worthy nitpick that everyone goes after, which begs the question of why everyone has to point at the same animation if the game as a whole is full of them. The second one...I don’t even really see anything wrong? Just less grass?

Gamefreak released a game that in many retrospects looked like it was still in pre-alpha stage.
Respectfully, this is a vastly hyperbolic dramatization. If you don’t like the final product then fine, but at least make reasonable criticisms.

I firmly believe the game was rushed for release considering in 2018 Ishihara proclaimed the Switch would be a failure, meaning these were likely 3DS games upressed onto a new system. Therefore, rushed for release. I'll be honest.
I don’t see much evidence that these were ever 3DS titles. GameFreak had several years notice knowing they were going to have to move to the Switch. Problems in a game do not automatically mean they were rushed, either, although there were obviously concessions made (Dexit) due to lack of time. I am on-board with a non-annual release schedule. But the games turned out more than good in my personal opinion.
Look, if Game Freak want to still work on SwSh and that's fine.
Nobody is saying it’s not okay. Everybody is saying that they won’t and aren’t.
 
Neither of those things really detract from actual gameplay at all. The first one is an eye-roll-worthy nitpick that everyone goes after, which begs the question of why everyone has to point at the same animation if the game as a whole is full of them. The second one...I don’t even really see anything wrong? Just less grass?


Respectfully, this is a vastly hyperbolic dramatization. If you don’t like the final product then fine, but at least make reasonable criticisms.


I don’t see much evidence that these were ever 3DS titles. GameFreak had several years notice knowing they were going to have to move to the Switch. Problems in a game do not automatically mean they were rushed, either, although there were obviously concessions made (Dexit) due to lack of time. I am on-board with a non-annual release schedule. But the games turned out more than good in my personal opinion.

Nobody is saying it’s not okay. Everybody is saying that they won’t and aren’t.

Look at it this way. The next generation of Pokemon games began development just before, if not just after the latest generation is released. So, let's assume that Sword and Shield started planning stages in 2016.
Ishihara is on record stating he didn't believe in the Switch in 2017, and considering Black and White were released on the DS (after the 3DS) you have to assume that Pokemon Sword and Shield were still in development for the 3DS during 2017. When it became apparant that the 3DS was dying rapidly, they switched their focus and announced a Core RPG in May 2018, but they didn't show anything. Not a title, or anything. Pokemon has never done this, therefore you can assume (again) that development switched sometime in 2018. And they didn't want to show a title without any footage. That gives roughly a year and a half of development to turn a 3DS game into a switch game. Then there is the issue with creatures inc. (This is actual evidence). Something happened between the Pokemon models and if we believe Gamefreak, then they couldn't bring all the Pokemon over to the switch. This infers two things. Developmental problems or the games were being rushed so they couldn't possibly animate every single Pokemon out there. Creatures was also removed from Gamefreaks listed partners, which tells us that something did go wrong. Ohmori also stated that roaming Pokemon and Wild Area were late additions (which explains why the wild area looks awful). It's obvious that something happened behind the scenes. I mean, Gamefreak moved offices to be in the same building as nintendo just after they purchased and renovated a building. Why would they do that? Why would Creatures be removed as Gamefreaks Partner? Just look at sword and shield. If you removed the wild area, the game is exactly in the same scope as the 3DS games, despite the switch being a far more powerful device that allows for a scope significantly larger than what we got. It's so obvious that something happened. And i'm not against it. I mean, even Joe Merrick noted that Gamefreak has to follow the marketiting cycle and they were likely forced to release something they didn't want to release. Even Masuda looked upset when he announced that Sword and Shield were not going to feature every Pokemon because that went against everything he believed in. I just hope this doesn't happen again.
 
Neither of those things really detract from actual gameplay at all. The first one is an eye-roll-worthy nitpick that everyone goes after, which begs the question of why everyone has to point at the same animation if the game as a whole is full of them. The second one...I don’t even really see anything wrong? Just less grass?


Respectfully, this is a vastly hyperbolic dramatization. If you don’t like the final product then fine, but at least make reasonable criticisms.


I don’t see much evidence that these were ever 3DS titles. GameFreak had several years notice knowing they were going to have to move to the Switch. Problems in a game do not automatically mean they were rushed, either, although there were obviously concessions made (Dexit) due to lack of time. I am on-board with a non-annual release schedule. But the games turned out more than good in my personal opinion.

Nobody is saying it’s not okay. Everybody is saying that they won’t and aren’t.
Arceus-dammit, I should have edit that reply instead of removing. What I meant to say was SwSh is not really a bad game per se but it could have been a lot better (in my humble opinion). I do like the new Pokemon and features especially Grimmsnarl and the curry making game. I also liked the game designs too (kudos to James Turner). I played the game and I beat the whole game.

Anyway, what I do want to see in the next gen is a Grass-type or Electric-type Elite Four member, we never ever had an any elite four member who is a Electric or Grass type expert. I also want the Grass-type starter to be based on a extinct plant (that is not also an based on an animal like Bulbasaur). I also want to see Bug-type box legendaries (based on a rhinoceros beetle and a stag beetle), we never had insect-based Pokemon that are box legendaries.
 
Last edited:
I think the disconnect between Gamefreak and their fans are more than that. Just look at these two examples
89e.gif
Remind yourself that this passed Gamefreaks quality control
maxresdefault.jpg
And these two images are games running on the same Hardware. Sword and Shield will have sold 20 million plus, while Dragon Quest likely sold between 6-7 million

Gamefreak released a game that in many retrospects looked like it was still in pre-alpha stage. I firmly believe the game was rushed for release considering in 2018 Ishihara proclaimed the Switch would be a failure, meaning these were likely 3DS games upressed onto a new system. Therefore, rushed for release. I'll be honest. The bottom image alone was enough for me not to buy the games because as a consumer I (like many others) feel as though it wasn't worth the money they were asking for. Gamefreak has a lot to do to win us back, and I hope they do it. But right now, there are a lot of people in the gaming community who has lost trust in them and it will take a while for Gamefreak to win them/us back.
This is still in response to my post, right? Because you've switched gears entirely from your original point that SwSh was a critical failure, and focused on your personal opinions about it. You're still welcome to have those opinions, and I even agree with you on some points, like the ZWolf animation, which was at a major point in the story and should have had more thought put into it. (I don't agree with the "pre-alpha stage" claim, though, that's a huge exaggeration IMO) But that's not going to convince anyone that SwSh was actually a critical failure, because that's not about the critical response to SwSh. You can say that the praise was undeserved, that critics should have pointed out flaws like this, etc., but that doesn't mean it was actually a critical failure.
 
This is still in response to my post, right? Because you've switched gears entirely from your original point that SwSh was a critical failure, and focused on your personal opinions about it. You're still welcome to have those opinions, and I even agree with you on some points, like the ZWolf animation, which was at a major point in the story and should have had more thought put into it. (I don't agree with the "pre-alpha stage" claim, though, that's a huge exaggeration IMO) But that's not going to convince anyone that SwSh was actually a critical failure, because that's not about the critical response to SwSh. You can say that the praise was undeserved, that critics should have pointed out flaws like this, etc., but that doesn't mean it was actually a critical failure.
You know what happened when Red, Blue, Green and Yellow first came out. There are problems in the games but that does not mean a critical failure as these games started it all. Without these games, Pokemon would have not existed (obviously).
 
Last edited:
Please note: The thread is from 2 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom