Ehhh imo Pokken is too detailed in the wrong waysd Pokken look good
It got that Smash Bros Brawl effect kinda
Ehhh imo Pokken is too detailed in the wrong waysd Pokken look good
"Power is not the issue" is a lot more nuanced than I think a lot of people say I thinkThe problem Pokemon's graphics have:
1000 monsters
1000 moves with unique animations
20 human characters
All the mons have to have animations that fit each move as well as picnics etc
Player Customization
Large environments
A variety of biomes
Everything above has to be viewed from a variety of angles and zooms
Also it's multiplayer
Power is not the issue there. Yes the Switch is underpowered and Pokemon games are unoptimized, but that matters a lot less than the sheer amount of manhours it takes to build everything above, in a consistent style, and not looking like trash. And then bug test all of it.
I'm not saying I disagree with people saying they should go more stylized, or that the latest graphics have been poor, just that the sheer scale of the problem is extremely intimidating and I think a lot of companies would do even worse at this if they tried.
The solution to this that Game Freak probably can't ever do: Shrink The Dexes For God's Sake. Aim for 250-300 max, refine the animations, do balance changes and other stuff so every slot feels meaningful and carefully considered. Legends Arceus more or less did this imo, or at least was a good start. Even though it was using a pre-existing dex as a foundation very little felt like arbitrary filler.The problem Pokemon's graphics have:
1000 monsters
1000 moves with unique animations
20 human characters
All the mons have to have animations that fit each move as well as picnics etc
Player Customization
Large environments
A variety of biomes
Everything above has to be viewed from a variety of angles and zooms
Also it's multiplayer
Power is not the issue there. Yes the Switch is underpowered and Pokemon games are unoptimized, but that matters a lot less than the sheer amount of manhours it takes to build everything above, in a consistent style, and not looking like trash. And then bug test all of it.
I'm not saying I disagree with people saying they should go more stylized, or that the latest graphics have been poor, just that the sheer scale of the problem is extremely intimidating and I think a lot of companies would do even worse at this if they tried.
Pretty sure that would've killed the franchise. Gen 3 was already a low point for the franchise saleswise.Brb, traveling back in time to 2000-2001 so RS have a purely new mon cast with no way to get old mons back even data wise
Huh. Gen 1, 3, and 5 all focused heavily on new mons. 2, 4, and 6 went all-in on reusing existing mons. And I think the fanbase tends to prefer the odd-numbered gens to the even-numbered ones, at least with the benefit of a decade+ of hindsight. But 3 and 5 are both known to be sales disappointments. Is it any surprise GF learned the wrong lessons from that?Pretty sure that would've killed the franchise. Gen 3 was already a low point for the franchise saleswise.
I think that a different wrong lesson was learned. Cutting existing mons will always go against the concept of lifelong partners that the franchise tries to sell itself as, Other factors being equal, it would make sense for games that are perceived as doing that sell lower than ones that don't. That the other factors aren't equal is why gen 3 and especially 5 are well-liked in spite of that. I see a lot of praise for BW's story, overworld presentation, and not being painfully slow to drain HP bars like gen 4, but little for its mon reset. If anything, a common talking point is how several gen 5 mons are worse-looking versions of the gen 1 mons their niche is fulfilling (Machamp/Conkeldurr, Magnemite/Klink, Garbodor/Weezing, etc.), indicating that the games would be thought of as even better had they not run completely new for the regional dex. But since the polish was initially overshadowed by the mon selection, they didn't sell well. As a result, GF no longer appears to care about adding polish to the new games.Huh. Gen 1, 3, and 5 all focused heavily on new mons. 2, 4, and 6 went all-in on reusing existing mons. And I think the fanbase tends to prefer the odd-numbered gens to the even-numbered ones, at least with the benefit of a decade+ of hindsight. But 3 and 5 are both known to be sales disappointments. Is it any surprise GF learned the wrong lessons from that?
So like is there any evidence at all that 15 million copies seller BW1 - the only game on the DS' top 10 best sellers made in the 2010s - which got a 10/10 from Japan's foremost gaming publication was internally deemed a failure? If there's some fiscal report or developer interview I missed let me know
Games? DebateablePretty sure that would've killed the franchise. Gen 3 was already a low point for the franchise saleswise.
I think that is just part of the phenomenon best described by Dunkey as "Thankfully, gamers were never wrong again."Remember: the 'worst pokemon games ever' Scarlet and Violet (according to the internet) have actual record breaking sales.
Them enlisting Capcom for help to do "realistic"/deatailed designs wen?
Funny enough SV's lack of art focus can be seen on human models. Despite *trying* to do more standard lighting, human faces are forcibly flat for shading due to tweaking normals. This is a technique modern "anime" games do to have extremely basic shadingthat I despise cuz why are your faces so flat!?
Granted I hate how 99% of the time they make the face itself flat even in anime games, but for Pokemon it sticks out worse cuz...why are you even doing this? It looks like a weird gradient cuz of the lighting
Pokemon is too big to fail for anyone to be afraid of low sales numbers. This applies to both today and back then bc of how huge Pokemania was. I'd like to think that losing fans was expected, Pokemon cannot fade away but not everyone was going to stick around for gen 3 and beyond, so Gen 3 cannot be a commericial failure in any way. Gen 4 was more popular but tbbf it more much more going on in terms of merchandise. It also helped that Lucario was this new Mewtwo-level (literally, he replaced him in Brawl lol) popular mon, and ofc being on the Nintendo DS, which sold much higher than the GBA did.It's hypothetical of course, but we have literal graphics logs for RS of the devs themselves doing merch designs. They were making money either way
I maintain the position that the lack of full transfers has made the games a worse experience for me. This is because most of my time and fun with the games has come from the teambuilding process, which ends up being something of a creative or artistic exercise. This is a known playstyle in other parts of the gaming sphere (MTG refers to this player archetype as Johnny, for example).The first time I saw the Gen 9 starters in-game I was repulsed… looked like they were in some d-list comedy voiced by JLo and Chris Pratt…
I wonder what the future of Pokemon holds, because you’ve got 1000 + pocket monsters already, and there are only so many archetypes/niches you can make without overlapping and making the same Pokemon over again. Not to mention ideas for designs.
I wonder how kids perceive these games. My friends’ kid was more familiar with the Gen 1-2 Pokemon that you might think. And frankly, in game, it’s becoming harder and harder to learn the type chart between the pure number of Pokemon, type combinations, and abilities that affect damage.
Like originally it was pretty easy, because if a Pokemon was blue it had water involved, and if it had a poison typing it looked poisonous and used some sort of poison move, that you could identify over time you fought it over and over.
Now you see most of these freaks once or twice a game in battle, and between the 3d models and everything else, I’d be genuinely surprised if a kid knew the type chart as well as they did 10-15 years ago.
When you have that many Pokemon, of course you can’t have anywhere near that many Pokemon in every game, it would be too much work. Collecting 400 Pokemon is a challenging enough task, there isn’t a reward in the game worth collecting 1,000 for.
I’ll never understand Dexit because if your biggest complaint is you can’t use a specific set of pixels in one version of a game, you must have a spoiled life. Like you’re 30 years old at this point, don’t you have anything better to complain about? I love Lapras but if I can’t use it in a game oh well. I’ll just use something else.
And ofc Pokemon will put their most popular Pokemon in more games. That’s how capitalism works. You can’t affirmative action Beedrill to get all the same spotlight as Pikachu because these aren’t real creatures, people as a whole like Pikachu more
I wonder what the future of Pokemon holds, because you’ve got 1000 + pocket monsters already, and there are only so many archetypes/niches you can make without overlapping and making the same Pokemon over again. Not to mention ideas for designs.
Like originally it was pretty easy, because if a Pokemon was blue it had water involved, and if it had a poison typing it looked poisonous and used some sort of poison move, that you could identify over time you fought it over and over.
Now you see most of these freaks once or twice a game in battle, and between the 3d models and everything else, I’d be genuinely surprised if a kid knew the type chart as well as they did 10-15 years ago.
I had the rare opportunity to watch my sibling who was I think 12 at the time play through LGPE for their first Pokemon game, and he struggled with type matchups even when it was just 151 Pokemon.Now I do wish the graphics looked better. I would spend more time on Scarlet if the Pokemon actually looked cool enough to collect instead of reminding me of times when they did.
But more presciently, i just finished the Platinum postgame, or well, the Heatran stuff.
I def liked it, but it seems like a slightly beefed up version of Sevii Islands which everyone hated on.
Like you get to catch a few legendaries, get a few more routes to explore, in the form of islands. There are battle centers for more serious battle fans.
And again, Platinum has slightly better versions of those things compared to FRLG but it’s pretty much the same premise. Pokeradar is cool too. There are some routes or paths you could have missed during the game too.
But compared to B2/W2 they don’t hold a candle. B2/W2 has more competitive facilities, more story, more routes and dungeons to explore, more legendaries to catch, not to mention the whole White Tree thing.
And it’s fine that every game doesn’t have that, there’s nothing you can do about it. But when discussing PostGames, Platinum, Emerald, HHSS, and B2/W2 are all considered “up there” which seems reasonable at first, but the gap between B2/W2 and the others is literally double than the other three and the “bad” postgames like FRLG’s Sevii Islands.
I didn’t really discuss HGSS, but honestly Kanto is really pared down, if it takes an afternoon to finish Platinum’s (exploration/new routes/finish story) then it takes two to finish HGSS’s, minus Red, which will take grinding if you challenge right after the 16th gym.
I never played White’s postgame because I heard White 2’s was better, but I may do so shortly and lowkey it may beat out some of the top 4’s.
More money for less optionsI’ll never understand Dexit because if your biggest complaint is you can’t use a specific set of pixels in one version of a game, you must have a spoiled life. Like you’re 30 years old at this point, don’t you have anything better to complain about? I love Lapras but if I can’t use it in a game oh well. I’ll just use something else.