Pokémon Unite

As somebody who's got a thing for complexity, It looks like there's less ability to adapt a team over the course of a match. If I recall correctly, most MOBAs have skill trees with their experience systems, which does not appear to be present here (I don't recall it showing up anywhere in the gameplay demo). Sure, you can swap out moves, but that reads more as a way to compensate for the smaller amount of usable buttons compared to a PC game (where 10 ability hotkeys is pretty easy to obtain) than actually giving as much depth. It's not like a more detailed stat gain system is incompatible with having evolution be the main exp reward, if anything it would work extremely well with certain split lines like Tyrouge or Ralts that could change significantly based on skill decisions. Yet another thing to add onto the "generic low-effort game with pokemon slapped on it" pile, I guess.

I'm also somewhat concerned by the lack of towers at the objective areas. From what I understand, they exist in most MOBAs to ensure that any meaningful push cannot be done by a solo character with little warning. Can somebody more familiar with the genre clue me in on whether the removal leads to centralization around "back-captures"?
 
wasnt gonna post but latter post
Also, I really don't get this jab at mobile games for two things. First, I think the answer to your question should be obvious: Mobile gaming has a way bigger market than console games have. Not that many people actually own a switch, at least compared to the part of the population that owns a cellphone. Second, this game is on the switch! Like, what are you complaining about? If you want that more hardcore experience on an actual console, well there you go! At least let people like me who don't own a switch be able to enjoy the game anyway. I have trouble seeing how they could have made a better compromise than this.
compare to
I get the frustration of the microtransactions (since they're annoying and predatory as fuck), but they are a reality of mobile gaming. Even if this was a Nintendo game, it would still be full of micro transactions (see: FE Heroes, Mario Kart Tour, AC Pocket Camp). Any dev looking to make money on the mobile market (read as: all of them) will be using this system to make their product financially viable.
well thats why we complain its a mobile game
mobile games have the inherent stigma and when nintendo tried to get away from that (mario run) it failed
the mentality is mobile game -> switch, not the other way around 90% of the time. even then things like shuffle would adapt to mobile and change the console version too
They own the company that makes League of Legends (the MOBA it's closest to but still not by any means a carbon copy of) so they haven't plagiarised anything here. You can't plagiarise yourself.
but you can plagiarise yourself
well, technically (not citing your own work in your paper)
even if it isnt plagiarism per se its still recycling and laziness
 
As somebody who's got a thing for complexity, It looks like there's less ability to adapt a team over the course of a match. If I recall correctly, most MOBAs have skill trees with their experience systems, which does not appear to be present here (I don't recall it showing up anywhere in the gameplay demo). Sure, you can swap out moves, but that reads more as a way to compensate for the smaller amount of usable buttons compared to a PC game (where 10 ability hotkeys is pretty easy to obtain) than actually giving as much depth. It's not like a more detailed stat gain system is incompatible with having evolution be the main exp reward, if anything it would work extremely well with certain split lines like Tyrouge or Ralts that could change significantly based on skill decisions. Yet another thing to add onto the "generic low-effort game with pokemon slapped on it" pile, I guess.

I'm also somewhat concerned by the lack of towers at the objective areas. From what I understand, they exist in most MOBAs to ensure that any meaningful push cannot be done by a solo character with little warning. Can somebody more familiar with the genre clue me in on whether the removal leads to centralization around "back-captures"?
Not quite.

Mobas rarely have skill trees (or if they do, they are minor talent systems like Hots or Dota that improve your baseline abilities).
Usually they have item purchases for improving your charachter when leveling.

Mobas also generally have 3 regular skills + one ultimate per character (with the ultimate obtained after a few levels, usually 6 or 10), occasionally with a passive that can interact with them.

The "towers" exist as safety to hide under for champions in order to not be killed easily (expecially in early game), and not for "stopping solo pushes" per se. They are not necessary for that.
 

Gravity Monkey

Que des barz comme si jtais au hebs
is a Top Artist
well thats why we complain its a mobile game
mobile games have the inherent stigma and when nintendo tried to get away from that (mario run) it failed
the mentality is mobile game -> switch, not the other way around 90% of the time. even then things like shuffle would adapt to mobile and change the console version too
The distinction here is that this isn't a Nintendo game, this is a Tencent game utilizing a Nintendo IP. And as much as I hate having to give praise to that company, the games that fall directly under the "Tencent Games tree" (not counting stuff released by like SuperCell or Epic Games because Tencent only owns part of them + those studios apparently retain their independance) have far less predatory micro-transactions. Games like Arena of Valor, Ring of Elysium or League of Legends for that matter only include micro-transactions for cosmetics, or like at the very least there's at most one character hidden behind a paywall in the case of AoV (character which could still be unlocked during special events in the past).

Obviously, take that with a grain of salt. Considering we don't know anything yet, I could be totally and utterly wrong. This game could have all the gacha mechanics and energy bars and whatnot... But my point is that compared to the other Nintendo mobile games, this one has an actual chance to be less worse.
 
Actually it's less of not caring about the older audience but rather that they are misjudging us. Game Freak thinks the older audience ONLY cares about online battles, and as a result Sword and Shield (specifically stated to be geared towards older players) has several battling QoL improvements while the non-battling content is stripped barebones.

They do care. They are just bad at caring (why am I not surprised?).
I like to contrast them with Sakurai who knows (or has learnt) what excites fans of his game.
There have been very few sweeping mechanical changes between Smash4 and Ultimate yet hardly any Smash player cares.
However, Ultimate has an unprecedented number of fighters and they keep adding more .
The fighters themselves introduce new ways to play and keep the game fresh while players still get to experience what they love about Smash.
Pokemon, OTOH, seems to read us all wrong by adding things we could pass on while taking out features that were really liked.
Their thinking that the Unite reveal would be "super-effective" after the build-up is just another example of the disconnect, IMO.
 
Cresselia~~ made a thread about this game forever ago

Timi has a really popular game called Arena of Valor, and fans of this game are the ones who are looking forward to this Pokemon game.
However, the majority of Timi games are rather meh, from what I read.


as for the Verilis-like pack complaining "people said this but now sai this! PEOPLE HYPOCRITES!" and "pokemon fandom bad!"

When I said this:
people: a singular entity, not in fact several different individuals most of which are either included or excluded as a matter of convenience to allegedly prove a contradictory or irrational behaviour
I was being sarcastic; people, even groups of people, are comprised of different individuals each which different opinions in different subjects; even when they have a preference for one subject in particular individuals in a group view that subject in their own individual manner

people that want Gamefreak to take a longer time developing their games and people that want the next Let's Go games are different people
do you guys have chokers matching the one he wears? If not I'm sure he'd happy to start selling them if you ask him nicely
 
So it is mentioned that it is not "Nintendo game", but "Tencent game with Nintendo IP". Now, I wonder how much Nintendo has control over it.

Like GO, TPC certainly has Niantic on their leash since the first GO Fest. Now we regularly have main series advertising in GO (recently, Galar formes), despite still being in G5. And I'm not complaining, I really can't wait for fluffy pony and still digging for metal badger guy.

I'll give the benefit of doubt on it being able to be less worse, although I'm still wary since some people cited how even that could cause some fractures in "have and have not" dichotomy. Even Masters got backlash on their gacha, I heard.
TPC or Nintendo better have leash on Tencent too, the way they do Niantic.
 
I've played DotA/DotA2 8 years, and there was no problem with micro transactions. Most of them were skins, and some heroes were just available for some $$$ player
 
I've played DotA/DotA2 8 years, and there was no problem with micro transactions. Most of them were skins, and some heroes were just available for some $$$ player
Just because they are cosmetic doesn't mean can't be harmful or people won't spend money. There are cases in which middle schoolers have spent tons of dollars on cosmetics in Fortnite because they were bullied by other richer players since they could not afford the more expensive outfits.
 
I've played DotA/DotA2 8 years, and there was no problem with micro transactions. Most of them were skins, and some heroes were just available for some $$$ player
The issue with some forms of microtransactions (lootboxes are the most infamous for it) isn't the effect on healthy people.
It's the effect they do on weaker people (usually, underage, or psychologically vulnerable) who can fall prey to the manipulative graphic, auditory and rewarding effect and develop an actual addiction very similar to gambling.
This form of predatory microtransaction is called "whaling" and is mostly used in mobile games, but not limited to them and it's why the scandal about Lootboxes started and some countries are actually considering outright banning them.

For reference, the name "Whaling" comes from a metaphor: you drop a fishing net that has huge holes, so big that it'd only catch whales, but this net is big enough to cover the entire ocean. You don't care that the regular fishes don't get caught, because the handful of whales you catch are worth much more than the other fishes combined.
In that case, the fishes are normal people (who'd not spend any money or maybe just a few bucks and nothing else) and the whales are weaker people who would throw several thousand bucks on the MTs.

Hence the concern: harmless microtransaction are the norm, even in Mobas, but in this case we're talking of a scary combination
- Free to play (buy to play games tend to have less or no MTs)
- Mobile
- Developed by a company that's no stranger to predatory MTs
- On a franchise that is known to attract kids

Then again, sadly it is probably correct that the game is mostly aimed at the asian market (notably, China itself) where this sort of "low effort ripoffs" for mobile are extremely popular and not regulated by any real law. So in the end, it might just end up as another forgettable attempt that will have near 0 success in the west, and ripoff a lot of profit on the asian market.
 
Has anyone else noticed this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20200624131809/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWeEGBbJDQ
June 24, 1:18 PM UTC (about 7 minutes after original broadcast)
1.3k likes, 2.5k dislikes (about 34% likes, 66% dislikes)

https://web.archive.org/web/20200624143535/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWeEGBbJDQ
June 24, 2:35 PM UTC (about 1.5 hours after original broadcast)
8.5k likes, 26k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://web.archive.org/web/20200624193324/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWeEGBbJDQ
June 24, 7:33 PM UTC (about 6 hours after original broadcast)
15k likes, 44k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://web.archive.org/web/20200624214901/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWeEGBbJDQ
June 24, 9:49 PM UTC (about 9 hours after original broadcast)
16k likes, 48k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://archive.is/CSF9h
June 25, 1:00 AM UTC (about 12 hours after original broadcast)
17k likes, 50k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://archive.is/l3imw
June 25, 5:18 AM UTC (about 16 hours after original broadcast)
18k likes, 54k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://web.archive.org/web/20200625151411/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWeEGBbJDQ
June 25, 3:14 PM UTC (about 26 hours after original broadcast)
20k likes, 23k dislikes (about 47% likes, 53% dislikes)

As of now:
June 28, 7:27 AM UTC (about 90 hours after original broadcast)
22k likes, 26k dislikes (about 46% likes, 54% dislikes)

At some point between 16 and 26 hours after the original broadcast, about 31,000 dislikes were removed from the trailer (~57% of them, more than half). What happened?

The most benign possible explanation is that someone wrote a bot to spam the video with dislikes. But if you consider this, then it would have to have started less than 1.5 hours after the original broadcast, and continued undetected for over 14 hours, in such a way that the like/dislike ratio remained almost completely constant the whole time.
 
Has anyone else noticed this?

June 24, 1:18 PM UTC (about 7 minutes after original broadcast)
1.3k likes, 2.5k dislikes (about 34% likes, 66% dislikes)

June 24, 2:35 PM UTC (about 1.5 hours after original broadcast)
8.5k likes, 26k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

June 24, 7:33 PM UTC (about 6 hours after original broadcast)
15k likes, 44k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

June 24, 9:49 PM UTC (about 9 hours after original broadcast)
16k likes, 48k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://archive.is/CSF9h
June 25, 1:00 AM UTC (about 12 hours after original broadcast)
17k likes, 50k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

https://archive.is/l3imw
June 25, 5:18 AM UTC (about 16 hours after original broadcast)
18k likes, 54k dislikes (about 25% likes, 75% dislikes)

June 25, 3:14 PM UTC (about 26 hours after original broadcast)
20k likes, 23k dislikes (about 47% likes, 53% dislikes)

As of now:
June 28, 7:27 AM UTC (about 90 hours after original broadcast)
22k likes, 26k dislikes (about 46% likes, 54% dislikes)

At some point between 16 and 26 hours after the original broadcast, about 31,000 dislikes were removed from the trailer (~57% of them, more than half). What happened?

The most benign possible explanation is that someone wrote a bot to spam the video with dislikes. But if you consider this, then it would have to have started less than 1.5 hours after the original broadcast, and continued undetected for over 14 hours, in such a way that the like/dislike ratio remained almost completely constant the whole time.
I wonder if the backlash will be significant enough for an impact to the game's success. Unlike BBND and SwSh, this game doesn't have the " main series " tag to back it up. Not to mention the dislike ratio is drastically worse than original SwSh presentation that started Dexit, since they have began to remove dislikes.

Anyway, here's my post on Bulbagarden explaining what and potentially why this is a big deal.

For those that don't know what Tencent is, its company that manages Film, Insurance, Advertising, Shopping, Video Games, Virtual Pay, Medicine to name a few. In other words, its monopoly in China on pretty much everything. The company has hit 500 Billion dollar mark, putting on par with Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and being the first Asian Company to do so.

Its influence doesn't solely exist in China though, let's talk about video games, this Tencent's monopoly on the video game industry; in fact, it is the largest video game company in the world:

This is from wikipedia by the way. Anyway, this is huge. So what's the problem? Well Tencent has had a strong history of selling personal information to Chinese Communist party, a party infamous for its Human Rights violations. Supporting the Communist parties also translates to fighting against Hong Kong's Independence, enough said about that. And there's also the issue of a lot of Tencent's apps being ripoffs with just different names, lot of companies have called out Tencent for being stealing their ideas. Pokemon Unite fits into the category- it literally looks like League of Legends but with Pokemon Characters. In fact, my father told me that the reason his company does not have a branch in China and Hong Kong out of concern of their IP being copied/absorbed by Tencent. So why do companies like Tesla and Snapchat invest in Tencent? Well, its the easiest way to get into the Chinese market.

So what does this have to do with The Pokemon Company? 2 major concerns come to mind.

1. The political stance on The Pokemon Company will change in a negative way. Going back to the time Blizzard stripped an esport champion for supporting the Hong Kong protests, the almost certainly-real reason why Blizzard stripped the title was because they did not want to sabotage their relationship with Tencent. Now imagine if a Play!Pokemon champion supported the Hong Kong protests and the Unite was a success. There would be a very good chance that the TPC would strip the title to ensure the relationship with Tencent would remain stable, causing a huge backlash similar to the Blizzard Incident, but the more obvious red flag that the TPC effectively supports the Chinese Communist Party, and opposes Hong Kong.

2. Games like Fortnite and Clash of Clans have had history of children spending too much money trying to get the best in-app purchases to the point that families have gone broke. I would never suspect a Pokemon game to have the potential for huge money loss. Based on the current gameplay of Unite, I imagine that the micro transactions will be similar to LoL mostly cosmetic but with some experience gain to make it faster as well as new characters to play as, which doesn't seem too bad at first until you realize that in a competitive game, you want to save as much time grinding and straight to competitive battles, AKA spending tons of money to save time.

Here's a brief summary of Tencent's influence:
 
I wonder if the backlash will be significant enough for an impact to the game's success.
That would really depend on how "success" is defined for Unite. There's no benchmark we can use because it's the first of its kind for TPC, unlike the main series games where we can look back on previous generations and titles. And needless to say, it would certainly be unrealistic to compare it to other mobile games like Go, Masters, and Shuffle.
 
That would really depend on how "success" is defined for Unite. There's no benchmark we can use because it's the first of its kind for TPC, unlike the main series games where we can look back on previous generations and titles. And needless to say, it would certainly be unrealistic to compare it to other mobile games like Go, Masters, and Shuffle.
Well, you could compare it to Wild Rift... :smogthink:
 
Actually, at the near end before they reset the likes, it was around 75:151 dislike ratio. Nintendo Treehouse stream that dropped the Dexit bomb had it at around 23:89 or something.
That said, the raw amount of dislikes seemed enough to make them resort to this. Also, this makes me worry since the less dislike ratio could actually mean more divisive or polarising views among fans....

Now I still can't imagine our garden variety white knights defending that. But....
 
Meh. That’s all I got.

A lot of people are making the assumption that Unite is going to be the Second Coming of GO (a successful spinoff with years of sustainability and innovation) and not just another Pokken ( a re-skin of an existing game that’s hot for a month or two and then dies).

Pokémon is a juggernaut because, early-on, it monopolized a genre (turn based RPG collect-a-thon) and stuck to the (simple and very effective) formula for its mainline games with some creative variation. In regards to spin-offs, they seem to live or die based on how much of “Pokémon” they retain. For example, GO was successful because it retains collection and the battle formula but sacrifices role-play. Snap was successful because it retained collection and role-play over battling. Mystery Dungeon, Stadium, Colosseum, etc. all saw decent success because, while they deviated from the mainline games in various ways to various degrees, they still felt like Pokémon games.

With all that said, while there is still quite a bit we don’t know, Unite doesn’t seem to feel like a Pokémon game. There’s battling but it’s not turn-based and type advantages, abilities, etc. are not taken into account. There’s evolution but the roster is minuscule and will not likely expand to include more than two dozen Pokémon lines (unless you can re-skin existing mons, which again, makes the game feel more alien). You can play against and talk to other people but Pokémon Battling, even on Smogon, isn’t as competitive and toxic, as MOBA fights.

So my question is, who is this game for? If you play MOBAs hardcore you have a plethora of options to choose from besides Unite that, as far as we know, play more or less the same. Would that player base be willing to drop another game (and all the ranks and perks they invested time and energy in) to start over in a clone that is filled with people that never played a MOBA before (if TPC/Tenacent’s buisness plan is to be believed? If you play Pokémon, would Unite keep your attention enough to play because charizard is in the game but doesn’t behave like a charizard in any other Pokémon title? For both those questions, just like with Pokken, similar to Masters even, my assumption is no, and after the new toy effect wears off the player base is going to plummet.

Overall, I’m not mad that Pokémon is expanding outside of the mainline games. I just wish it wasn’t so lazy, and filled with questionable ethics. If TPC wants to try a different game genre they should try a farming simulator (herd and sheer your Wooloo! Milk your Miltanks! Keep Wurmple/Murkrow/Ratatta away from your crops!). Snap, based on the fanbase reaction, is also going to sell decently so maybe consider remaking Stadium, Colosseum, and Hey You! Pikachu for the Switch as well (and isn’t there supposed to be a new Detective Pikachu game?). Hell, if you want to push boundaries, why not make a game where you play as Nurse Joy and have to cure and heal Pokémon? There was an idea a few years ago about a prequel where you play as a young Oak who has to study Pokémon without a Dex and with only Apricot Balls that older fans would salivate over. What I’m saying is, the franchise is rich in terms of spinoff ideas, but they won’t happen as long as TPC is willing to follow the herd on popular trends in order to make as much money as possible.
 
Actually, at the near end before they reset the likes, it was around 75:151 dislike ratio. Nintendo Treehouse stream that dropped the Dexit bomb had it at around 23:89 or something.
That said, the raw amount of dislikes seemed enough to make them resort to this. Also, this makes me worry since the less dislike ratio could actually mean more divisive or polarising views among fans....

Now I still can't imagine our garden variety white knights defending that. But....
Even in maths there's Kanto pandering.

I dunno, even in the terms on why the dislike I see division of views. Some disliked because Tencent then China, some disliked because they find MOBAs to be toxic, some disliked because it's a mobile game, some disliked because they thought "big project" meant something bigger...
 
Meh. That’s all I got.

A lot of people are making the assumption that Unite is going to be the Second Coming of GO (a successful spinoff with years of sustainability and innovation) and not just another Pokken ( a re-skin of an existing game that’s hot for a month or two and then dies).
I would argue that Pokken isn't all that much of a reskin despite every fighting game looking the same. Even without the literal 2.5d stuff, there's a pretty noticable emphasis on stat buffs/debuffs that works really well with a pokemon base (burns are modeled as an attack drop, poison as a defense drop, paralysis as a speed drop, for instance) and isn't there in the trendsetter fighting games. That said, It's easy to see where you might get the impression of a reskin since the most shown characters (lucario and pikachu) are also some of the least creative (I don't think lucario has any special buff/debuff interactions at all). But I do think it's desinged to be a pokemon fighting game rather than a fighting game that happens to have pokemon in it.
 
Part of it could be that their spinoffs have done so poorly that they want to go with a type of game that's had success. Yes, it's lazy, but based off their history of spinoffs, it feels like they're going the safe route. Is it lazier than remaking a game and selling it because muh nostalgia? Probably not.
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I like they used a Talonflame, of all things.
Maybe they're appealing to the competitive player base? Talonflame was super popular at one time.

Anyway moba games aren't my thing at all and Iwas laughing at just how hard they were trying to pus the gameplay segment as exciting but my friends who do play mobas thinks it looks fine. nothing special. Tencent will at least keep it updated frequently, their previous moba offerings have been Fine, etc. It'll probably be a bigger hit in China, if I had to guess.
If I had to guess, that was likely on Tencent's request. There was no reason to keep this as a separate announcement or try to sell it as hard as they did. BUT Tencent told them if they want that Chinese market money they want their own announcement, for them to sell it like it's more exciting than a new Pokemon Snap, and they want someone to go through their bowl of Skittles and remove all the green ones because their supreme leader doesn't like that flavor so banned it.

If it's just skins with no gameplay impact, or permanent unlocks (don't some MOBAs have some sort of rotation of free characters?), it wouldn't be much of an issue.
What skins could they offer? I don't think many would pay just for a palette swap. Only thing I could think is using another Pokemon of same Type and general build, though doing that would mean they'd have to make the Pokemon easily exchangeable between a group when players would want all the Pokemon units to have some uniqueness. They could try a Magikarp Splash though I'd imagine they would have to get approval from the Pokemon Company every time and, even if the Pokemon Company agrees with the alternate designs each time, would still probably be a tedious process.

They are, LOL & DOTA are both very popular in the west as they are in Asia (well maybe not AS popular? unsure). I just think I could see Pokemon MOBA not penetrate the market as well here as opposed to there. I figure Tencent Pokemon is a bigger selling point there, but thinking on it I can only imagine how crowded the moba market is there too so I suppose we'll see how this shakes out.
And that's why I'm not sure if this would make any waves. Maybe if another company was handling it and giving it a unique spin on the premise, but as everyone said this just looks like a League of Legend reskin with Pokemon. Why play Pokemon Unite when you can play League of Legends? Is there really going to be that big of a Pokemon base to play a Pokemon LoL, or at the very least for a long time?

Granted, I don't know enough about LoL to know if Pokemon Unite is just a reskin, I'm just going off from what I heard from everyone else. Pokemon Unite will probably at least have the Type Chart which I don't think LoL had so that is something (then again Pokken didn't bother with the Type Chart but they put a focus on making each playable Pokemon have a unique fighting style).

Looks alright, but MOBAs aren't really a thing that I'm a fan of. Call me when we get a Pokemon first person shooter, though.
*ring ring* New Pokemon Snap *hangs up*

There's healthier ways to get that money (personally, I don't dislike skins and cosmetics like LoL and Dota do as an approach since they are relatively harmless and completely "opt-in"), there's way more predatory ones (hello lootboxes) that can create addiction, and in this case, we're talking of a infamous company, and a game notably aimed at asian market which is filled with gachas and F2P games with whaling systems all over the place.
To be fair, it's not like Pokemon Company hasn't already done a loot box system: Pokemon Masters and scouting new trainers. You can buy gems which can be used to scout for a random trainer, so it counts as a lootbox.

Well, the thing is, a child wouldn't know how to use a credit card
Plus credit card entering pages sometimes comes with helpful images so you know exactly what numbers they want you to punch in.

I don't really buy the "Gamefreak needs money to keep its employees fed" narrative when Pokémon makes billions of dollars every year from merchandise alone
Especially since this isn't GF, this is Pokemon Company who sells all the merch.

Tencent has a habit of sharing their data with the Chinese government.
Guess this would be a good as time as any to mention my issue with Tencent being involved, and it's rather simple. The Chinese government is very totalitarian and aren't afraid to issue bans or "heavily imply to change" things, some things which have affected the gaming market. For instance Chinese government has a thing against the supernatural, especially skeletons and ghosts, so while I don't think it's outright illegal to have a skeleton or ghost in your game the Chinese government would very much not like you having it in your game so change it or you may not be making as much China money as you thought you would. I don't want this kind of thing anywhere near the video games I play, even if it's only for games that is made by a Chinese company. It feels like it's giving a potential for a "leg in a door".

And of course I'm just against a company who uses their power to censor people because that person's belief goes against their country's government totalitarian decision. Kind of start getting into "big brother" territory.

Can we have a thread for this where people can actually talk about what strategies they see, gameplay, etc.?
By all means, talk about it. No one is stopping you.

Because gamers do not care. All their cries of protecting children and protesting the CCP's injustices are all a mask to hide their true, selfish intentions: A videogame company made a choice they did not like and it got them into a temper tantrum.
Geez, who cut you off in traffic?

Apparently Tencent has it in their contract that their games can't be revealed alongside games developed by other companies, so that's why it got its own direct. Just... lol.
Sounds like someone is compensating...

So i want to ask a question: if i were trying ro make my game more popular in China, is there any alternatives to Tencent i could have used with a Similar appeal? Cause it sounds like Tencent is a huge monopoly and collaboration was inevitable.
If you're thinking Pokemon Company went to Tencent, think again. Tencent likely went to the Pokemon Company. Or Pokemon Company let it out there they were thinking/wanting to enter the Chinese market and Tencent got word and stepped in.
 
So it's been a few days since the "announcement" of this project either ways.

I am curious, does anyone know what the reception on the ""intended market"" has been? As in, likely Japanese and expecially Chinese audience.

I wouldn't really know where to look, but I know some of you people have better knowledge of Asian press sites, and I am curious to find if (as I expect) the project was well received in China or not.
 
So it's been a few days since the "announcement" of this project either ways.

I am curious, does anyone know what the reception on the ""intended market"" has been? As in, likely Japanese and expecially Chinese audience.

I wouldn't really know where to look, but I know some of you people have better knowledge of Asian press sites, and I am curious to find if (as I expect) the project was well received in China or not.
Not Chinese or Japanese but the Pokemon Unite reveal generated positive reception here in the Philippines since MOBAs are uber popular here while Pokemon is also popular in terms of merchandise. People mostly saw it as a mashup of two worlds. Seeing as MOBAs are popular in a lot of Eastern Asian countries, that may also be the case there.

pokemon unite.PNG


I never played MOBA before so Pokemon Unite would be my 1st MOBA gaming experience. I'm just glad that Pokemon gaming could have the chance to be popular again here lol.
 
So it's been a few days since the "announcement" of this project either ways.

I am curious, does anyone know what the reception on the ""intended market"" has been? As in, likely Japanese and expecially Chinese audience.

I wouldn't really know where to look, but I know some of you people have better knowledge of Asian press sites, and I am curious to find if (as I expect) the project was well received in China or not.
Japan's not very happy, although that's maybe because MOBA isn't big compared to other mobile games, compounded with other reasons this is hate dumped (like having its own pointless Direct). And I heard that Chinese (including mainland people) are mocking this too, although I have only heard of it and can't verify that.
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
By the way, TPC reuploaded the video.... And the backlash is still the same. Currently 1,700 dislikes to 599 likes. Well, this is officially worse than BBND.
Really Pokemon Company? You've sunk so low that you actually tried the delete & reupload "trick"? And worst you thought it was actually going to work? If anything now you're probably going to get even MORE dislikes. It would be better to just leave the initial trailer buried and hope that the next video going into more details about the game (you know, one without trying to nostalgia bait) would get less dislikes as only those who has any interest in Unite would probably watch it. But you've just now assured from now on all Pokemon Unite videos will get a massive amount of dislikes because you actually tried to hide everyone's initial dislike for it. I want to know, was this a choice TPC made or did someone in Tencent order them to do it? I would be worried eitherway but I would like to know in what ways I direct my worried. If the former my worries is that Pokemon Company is turning into a company like EA or Activation. If the latter my worries is that a company directly tied to a censor-happy government has begun telling TPC what to do and they're doing it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top