Sword and Shield director explains why they made it so EXP share can’t be turned off

[Horohorohoro]

I'll never understand why people defend the removal of an option that hurts nobody and only adds a basic "difficulty toggle" for those that would like to have it off. But, y'know. God forbid you criticize a legitimately dumb decision.

"Only a few people turned it off! It doesn't matter!"
Yeah, fuck them I guess.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

These defenses are mind boggling. Makes me feel like I'm in the twilight zone or Alice and wonderland or some shit.

 

[scare_crow]

What long way to say "I got mine"

Click to shrink...

What a short way to pout.

 

[Deleted member 34949]

It's decisions like this that honestly only serve to steer me away from the series these days.

 

[BurritoBushido]

A lot of cool people with cool heads in this thread. I'm really digging fans of things I hope I have a lot of fans one day so they can be this cool to me too

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Threads about software features are always a little painful to read.

From a software dev's perspective, what Game Freak did was efficient and smart. They preserved the ability to do something without writing any additional code.

A toggle would not be simple. From a technical standpoint, it at least doubles the complexity of any code that touches XP, doubling the codepaths the machine can take, and thus doubling the number of test cases in your automated and manual testing.

While long time fans might be put off by losing the feature, it makes a lot of sense, from a software design perspective, to lose it. It's a sign the game is being developed by experienced, competent people, which is good. Right?

Click to shrink...

Having less Pokemon than before is more efficient, too. Creating a game where you just stand on one point and do nothing would be even more efficient and smart. I guess there's no software designer experienced and competent enough to save that much code though.

What a really fucking weird argument for why cutting options and features is appearently a good thing.

 

[Deleted member 8674]

I don't know how less options is a good thing.

 

[Mekanos]

Heh. You sound like a exec arguing about adding time to the schedule for a "simple toggle on the website." And then being confused later on when the schedule is slipping and there are a lot of bugs.

Every feature in a piece of software needs to be thought about. In the past, Game Freak's devs felt like the feature was worthwhile. This time around, they decided to axe it. That's just how software development works. You don't have to like it, but it comes across as naive when people say "just add a checkbox! How hard can that be?"

Click to shrink...

How condescending of a response is this? Jesus. Treat me like an idiot because I'm trying to have a discussion about this.

 

[Kyuuji]

Definitely will hit my enjoyment of it. I like changing my team up a fair bit but hate having some Pokemon spike in level, preferring to train/grind up those lower. Going to the PC each time is a chore that will be annoying in the face of keeping the option more convenient.

 

[TyraZaurus]

What long way to say "I got mine"

Click to shrink...

It's more like a long way to say "I don't have the mental stamina for this shit anymore".

 

[Toxi]

A toggle would not be simple. From a technical standpoint, it at least doubles the complexity of any code that touches XP, doubling the codepaths the machine can take, and thus doubling the number of test cases in your automated and manual testing.

Click to shrink...

if XPall == True:
———>For X in Party:
——————>XPGain(X)
else:
———>XPGain(Party[0])

Obviously Gamefreak aren't coding in python, but I somehow doubt implementing a Boolean variable was a significant part of their workload.

 

[Lark]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

 

[Gold Arsene]

I was very clearly asking about other franchises.

but regardless, I see nothing wrong with removing an option few people use

Click to shrink...

So just fuck anybody who did use the options I guess. Sure the people who already used it gain nothing but as long as I'm not one of the people being fucked over who cares?

 

[Horohorohoro]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for this. Great post.

 

[Mekanos]

The implication that coding and testing is difficult and time consuming enough that these features are routinely cut seems like a roundabout way to call GameFreak incompetent rather than a way to defend them.

 

[Gold Arsene]

Threads about software features are always a little painful to read.

From a software dev's perspective, what Game Freak did was efficient and smart. They preserved the ability to do something without writing any additional code.

A toggle would not be simple. From a technical standpoint, it at least doubles the complexity of any code that touches XP, doubling the codepaths the machine can take, and thus doubling the number of test cases in your automated and manual testing.

While long time fans might be put off by losing the feature, it makes a lot of sense, from a software design perspective, to lose it. It's a sign the game is being developed by experienced, competent people, which is good. Right?

Click to shrink...

And yet they did it just fine in, oh, every other game in the series?

But no getting rid of options is smart now. I look forward to Fire Emblem making casual mode mandatory in the next game.

 

[MicH]

These games are gonna sell 15+ million copies and people are arguing that programming an off switch, that has existed in the previous four games, is too much for Game Freak to handle? Really? I would hope the budget has enough wiggle room for something as minor as that

 

[Space Hunter]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

Bravo, succinctly put.

 

[TyraZaurus]

So just fuck anybody who did use the options I guess. Sure the people who already used it gain nothing but as long as I'm not one of the people being fucked over who cares?

Click to shrink...

Maybe read my other replies here. I don't have an answer for you because it is extremely exhausting to continue these threads like this.

I asked my questions, stated my opinion, and I'm done. This doesn't need to be drawn out like it's some matter of social consciousness.

 

[Odeko]

I wouldn't care about game length if there was a decent amount of stuff to do, especially post game. Given it's GF, I would never be able to justify $60 for a short story game with hardly any post game content.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, there's about 30 asterisks behind my statement. This would be if the story were somehow divorced from gyms, so there's a weird main questline with Team Rocket that you can rush through while the rest of the game still has a full world with 8 gyms and an Elite Four to explore on your own time.

Obviously that's not how it would go down though, so until then I'll refrain from asking for even less content.

 

[CaptainBojangles]

I don't even care about this feature, but what a dumb comment lmao

 

[Gold Arsene]

What a short way to pout.

Click to shrink...

Why do you think this is ok? What do the people using exp share gain from this to make up for the people who lost there preferred option to play? Why do you think the people upset by this are wrong?

 

[Fj0823]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

 

[Jessie]

I hope all of the people who whine about Dark Souls not having an easy mode are taking Game Freak to task for removing player choice.

 

[Gold Arsene]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 19218]

Nice.

I like this in Pokemon Lets Go Pikachu. It makes it easier for me to swap out multiple members with new yet underleveled Pokemon and bring them up to speed.

 

[Serif]

In other words, you're not just asking for someone to code up a toggle. Your asking for many hours in additional testing and bug squashing, and I wish more people were informed enough about software to think about it in that way. Especially before they opine on a forum that likes to think of itself as a smart and well informed forum. :-)

Click to shrink...

People are not suggesting the literal implementation of it is trivial, they are suggesting the solution is trivial. As in - the answer to the question "What if players don't want the experience to be distributed" is trivial - "let them turn it off". The individual steps to implement that solution (whether it be a global flag or something more complicated) are different.

Meanwhile - the solution to maintaining a large number of Pokemon is more difficult and is worth explaining to people why it may not be feasible for these games given the time period. It's not easy to declare "just polish the textures on the 3DS models and add in the stats from the previous games" because that requires exponentially more work and collaboration across multiple departments.

I don't agree that this same degree of explanation is needed for a toggle like this since this seems specific to the game's battle system and Pokemon stats, as opposed to something like a whole additional Pokemon which requires the coordination of 3D modellers, programmers, writers, etc.

 

[Fj0823]

Nice.

I like this in Pokemon Lets Go Pikachu. It makes it easier for me to swap out multiple members with new yet underleveled Pokemon and bring them up to speed.

Click to shrink...

How is the option to have a game do exactly that BUT give the option to turn it off bad?

 

[Deleted member 9584]

I've said it several times before. This is a complete nonissue for me. I get why it upsets some people, but it doesn't change any of my views on the game. Still day one.

 

[Jack Frost]

How long until NPC trainers start surrendering mid-battle?

 

[Odeko]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

But I never use it though, so everyone else that did is a manbaby

 

[Moara]

I've said it several times before. This is a complete nonissue for me. I get why it upsets some people, but it doesn't change any of my views on the game. Still day one.

Click to shrink...

good for you

 

[Rockets]

For the small minority that doesn't, they can just deposit their Pokémon on the PC

Click to shrink...

No offense to the men and women at GF but this is one of the dumbest solutions I've ever heard.

A better solution would be making EXP Share For All a key item that you can turn on/off and making a EXP Share Lite as a held item to replicate the classic games.

 

[Deleted member 19218]

How is the option to have a game do exactly that BUT give the option to turn it off bad?

Click to shrink...

It's not bad. Neither is not having the option. That's just the way the game is designed. Why doesn't Dark Souls have an easy mode? Why does Dragon Ball FighterZ have an auto combo system? Why does Mario Kart Deluxe have me pick up two items rather than one?

It's just how things are and I go with it and have fun.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Nice.

I like this in Pokemon Lets Go Pikachu. It makes it easier for me to swap out multiple members with new yet underleveled Pokemon and bring them up to speed.

Click to shrink...

You could do this in other games as well. They didn't add the option to have Exp. Share on, they removed the option to turn it off.

 

[Serif]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much.

But I agree with N. Tyranno in that participating in threads like these is exhausting. I know I will still enjoy the game despite everything being said here. I just wish more reasoned posts were the center of these discussions instead of the hyperbolic shit-flinging in most of these threads, and I don't know why I keep bothering. Probably a bad habit from the days of defending Gen V Pokemon designs from haters in the GAF days, oof.

 

[Gold Arsene]

Nice.

I like this in Pokemon Lets Go Pikachu. It makes it easier for me to swap out multiple members with new yet underleveled Pokemon and bring them up to speed.

Click to shrink...

So why can't I turn it off if I WANT to swap pokemon?

 

[dunkzilla]

Threads about software features are always a little painful to read.

From a software dev's perspective, what Game Freak did was efficient and smart. They preserved the ability to do something without writing any additional code.

A toggle would not be simple. From a technical standpoint, it at least doubles the complexity of any code that touches XP, doubling the codepaths the machine can take, and thus doubling the number of test cases in your automated and manual testing.

While long time fans might be put off by losing the feature, it makes a lot of sense, from a software design perspective, to lose it. It's a sign the game is being developed by experienced, competent people, which is good. Right?

Click to shrink...

As a software developer this is the most bizarrely bad post I've seen in a while.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

This decision benefits absolutely no one, and inconveniences many. Not a single player will be better off for losing the option to turn off Exp. Share, so why are people framing this as a positive change?

Gamefreak has never balanced their games to account for people using or not using Exp. Share, so this does nothing to improve the balance or reduce the balancing workload.

Exp. Share Off was already an option in Gens 6 and 7. It's not a new feature that Gamefreak would need to research, develop, and implement.

These games aren't made exclusively for children, so whether children would care about this feature or not shouldn't be the only metric for whether it's worth including. The games have featured adult actors in their advertisement; ad copy has included phrases like "Whether you started your journey on Game Boy, Nintendo Switch, or anything in between"; the official tournaments have a Masters division which includes and is frequently won by adults; the EV, IV, and breeding systems were certainly never designed to be child-friendly, yet Gamefreak continues to advance them.

Pokemon already includes a second difficulty option in the Shift/Set battle style toggle. The Shift battle style is much easier than Set, and is enabled by default. If this feature can stay, why not Exp. Share Off?

It's irrelevant what other RPGs do because this is a conversation about the Pokemon series, and direct comparisons between differing battle systems will always be flawed. This isn't "following the standard set by other RPGs"; it's removing a traditional feature of the series.

Ohmori's understanding of why players choose to turn off Exp. Share is, based on his quote, incomplete. I've yet to meet anyone who turned it off for the sake of powerleveling one Pokemon and no others. The motivation behind it is maintaining access to a full team while reducing Exp. intake, keeping the party underleveled and making the game more challenging. Putting all other Pokemon in the PC to simulate Exp. Share Off is a terrible solution, if it can even be called that, because you no longer have access to your full party in battle, and it would be deeply inconvenient as well.

There are trade-offs to cutting the Dex, and it was a decision made for understandable reasons, even if not everyone would agree with those reasons, the consequences of the cuts, or the implementation. That's not the case here.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for this. This sums up my frustrations perfectly.

 

[Col.Asher]

Pokemon just needs to add a hard mode, which I think will placate both audiences. Since exp share off was hard mode since xy

 

[rochellepaws]

This is a Don Mattrick-ass answer. how can people defend this removal of more OPTIONS?

Click to shrink...

lol I thought the exact same thing, reminds me of his proposal of the Xbox 360 as a solution for those troubled by the always online Xbox One.

 

[Adventureracing]

This is slightly annoying but I'm the scale of things I don't like about Pokémon right now this is low on the list.

 

[Toxi]

Pokemon just needs to add a hard mode, which I think will placate both audiences. Since exp share off was hard mode since xy

Click to shrink...

Honestly, an actual hard mode sounds like a lot more work than just keeping the Exp Share off function.

 

[Horohorohoro]

It's not bad. Neither is not having the option. That's just the way the game is designed. Why doesn't Dark Souls have an easy mode? Why does Dragon Ball FighterZ have an auto combo system? Why does Mario Kart Deluxe have me pick up two items rather than one?

It's just how things are and I go with it and have fun.

Click to shrink...

This isn't the same situation, lol.

What if Dark Souls had an easy mode in one game but took it out in the next game for no reason? What if DBFZ removed Auto Combos in the sequel?

 

[Deleted member 9584]

good for you

Click to shrink...

Most definitely.

 

[scare_crow]

I've said it several times before. This is a complete nonissue for me. I get why it upsets some people, but it doesn't change any of my views on the game. Still day one.

Click to shrink...

No no, you can't post here unless you're throwing a tantrum about the death of player choice and difficulty in, ahem, Pokémon.

 

[floridaguy954]

Click to shrink...

Saving this updated version 😂

 

[Deleted member 19218]

So why can't I turn it off if I WANT to swap pokemon?

Click to shrink...

I don't know and I don't care. I am just saying I like it from Pokemon Lets Go.

This isn't the same situation, lol.

What if Dark Souls had an easy mode in one game but took it out in the next game for no reason? What if DBFZ removed Auto Combos in the sequel?

Click to shrink...

You mean what if it changed the gameplay in a sequel? That's what sequels are meant to do.

 

[Horohorohoro]

No no, you can't post here unless you're throwing a tantrum about the death of player choice and difficulty in, ahem, Pokémon.

Click to shrink...

Nobody is saying no one can post here.

 

[Zarckoh]

Doesn't SwSh now gives a % of exp depending of the level of the pokemon? I believe there is an screenshot about it where a high level corviknight on the team gets little to no exp while the lower level pokemon gets the bulk of the exp.

This was a problem in previous pokemon games because no matter the level the pokemon would get the same exp (not counting traded or exp items) as long as you have exp share turned on which is why some end up overleveled.