Pokemon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl - Release 19th Nov 2021

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
If I'm allowed to throw out a conspiracy theory, I'm worried they're setting up ILCA (a company who most never heard of and seemingly at this point only looks to have provided additional assistance to Square Enix games) to, not fail since it's still a Pokemon game, but "not to reach expectations" (said expectations to be high goals even GF would have a problem reaching); thus "proving" only GF are the ones who have the know how to make a successful Pokemon game. It's not GF's fault they forced ILCA to use an experimental style, restricted them to a 1:1 remake, and gave them a veteran GF producer who is known for his frustrating leadership; you gotta deal with the cards handed to you, right?
Sounds like how they implemented difficulty settings for BW2. I can imagine it went something like this:

CEO: "We've heard people want difficulty settings in their games now. Add difficulty settings to the next Pokémon game."
Game Director: "I don't wanna!"
CEO: "I am your boss. Difficulty settings go in every Pokémon game from now on."
Game Director: "Will you at least let us see whether players actually use the difficulty settings, and reconsider it if nobody uses them?"
CEO: "Fair enough. The games have online connectivity now, so it should be simple to collect the data. Okay, if nobody uses the difficulty settings, you can make the next games without them."
Game Director: :proceeds to lock the difficulty settings behind completion of the game, so you have to beat the game on Normal if you want to play on Easy, and makes the difficulty settings version-exclusive:
CEO: :is blissfully unaware of all this, because he doesn't play the game himself:
Game Director: "As you can see on the chart here, 95% of players leave the game on the default difficulty. Most players who even engaged with the alternate difficulty settings only did so after they had completed the story mode. Obviously, this is not something players want. We will make the next games without difficulty settings!"

Oh cool, you have BDSP's full changelog and therefore can confirm it doesn't alter as much? Mind showing us?
He's saying that HGSS did more than what has been hinted for BDSP so far. We don't have confirmation, of course, but it currently appears that BDSP will feature fewer changes than what we got from HGSS. Time will tell how well the assumption holds up, but for now, we've been told it's a straight remake without the diverging aspects we had in HGSS.
 
Sounds like how they implemented difficulty settings for BW2. I can imagine it went something like this:

CEO: "We've heard people want difficulty settings in their games now. Add difficulty settings to the next Pokémon game."
Game Director: "I don't wanna!"
CEO: "I am your boss. Difficulty settings go in every Pokémon game from now on."
Game Director: "Will you at least let us see whether players actually use the difficulty settings, and reconsider it if nobody uses them?"
CEO: "Fair enough. The games have online connectivity now, so it should be simple to collect the data. Okay, if nobody uses the difficulty settings, you can make the next games without them."
Game Director: :proceeds to lock the difficulty settings behind completion of the game, so you have to beat the game on Normal if you want to play on Easy, and makes the difficulty settings version-exclusive:
CEO: :is blissfully unaware of all this, because he doesn't play the game himself:
Game Director: "As you can see on the chart here, 95% of players leave the game on the default difficulty. Most players who even engaged with the alternate difficulty settings only did so after they had completed the story mode. Obviously, this is not something players want. We will make the next games without difficulty settings!"


He's saying that HGSS did more than what has been hinted for BDSP so far. We don't have confirmation, of course, but it currently appears that BDSP will feature fewer changes than what we got from HGSS. Time will tell how well the assumption holds up, but for now, we've been told it's a straight remake without the diverging aspects we had in HGSS.
I believe Masada mentioned in an interview with Nintendo that the reason why the difficulty settings behind the key system was because they had hoped that an older brother could give a younger brother a hand by giving the easy key. Whether or not that actually happened in practice is another story.
 
I believe Masada mentioned in an interview with Nintendo that the reason why the difficulty settings behind the key system was because they had hoped that an older brother could give a younger brother a hand by giving the easy key. Whether or not that actually happened in practice is another story.
You know, something that saddens me is that going off some of the most recent interviews to Masuda and/or other GF representatives in last years, I could legitimately believe he was serious and not trolling.

We are talking of the company that goes *way too hard* on the idea of "our games have to encourage players relationships and making friends" as well as, lately, supporting the idea of wanting "games easy to pick and leave at any point" after all.
Yknow, a perfectly rational business decision?
A perfectly rational decision? In MY GameFreaks?
officer, arrest this guy for heresy :puff:
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I believe Masada mentioned in an interview with Nintendo that the reason why the difficulty settings behind the key system was because they had hoped that an older brother could give a younger brother a hand by giving the easy key. Whether or not that actually happened in practice is another story.
Just so you know, I gave your post a frowny Azurill because we don't have a facepalming Aipom.

Now, let me be clear I'm not surprised Masuda thinks this (nd remember, he's leading development for BDSP!), though I'm surprised he was even thinking this way during Gen V (I was hoping that it was sometime after Gen V that Masuda started doing his strange decisions but I guess not, it was always there). But still, that doesn't stop it from being a STUPID decision. Gotta break my thoughts down into a list for this:

  • Well first off, alright, this was the thinking for Easy Mode... what about Hard Mode? For the opposite scenario where the older brother played through the game first and gives it to the older brother?
  • So, the idea here is that the younger sibling has to wait for their older sibling to beat the game before they could even start playing there's? What if the younger sibling wants to play the game NOW? What if the siblings want to play at the same time, making their own teams and battling/trading with one another? And even if one gets done before the other, unlocks their Mode and swap Keys, we've come to the first major issue:
  • To use the keys you need to do so at the start of the game AND THERE'S ONLY ONE SAVE FILE! There's no switching the Modes on or off, your save file either has the key on from the start and no keys at all. So, say older sibling completes game first and unlocks East Mode key. Well, younger sibling wouldn't even want it cause they're in the middle of their game (and honestly probably realized they don't need an easy mode as normal is easy enough). Maybe, MAYBE they would be more willing to restart their file to play it on Hard Mode, but it would have to be for a playthrough they likely didn't put much effort (aka they only complete the main story and caught all the Legendaries that they traded over over to the other game; but this would require pre-planning which I don't think most people who just want to play Pokemon would do). If Easy Mode and Hard Mode both unlocked an additional save file, cool, infact THAT would have made replaying through the games on those mode totally worth it. But no, if you want to even play on these modes you have to delete your save file. It's not even a New Game+ thing where, though your progress is erased you get to keep your Pokemon, Items, & Money. Nope, complete deletion.
  • Also, while it's likely siblings would get both versions for trading exclusives purposes, if we're to take this scenario as what they were thinking than that would mean the older sibling would be "forced" to play White 2. Because, to add another layer of dumb to this, they made the modes VERSION EXCLUSIVES!

There is absolutely NO justifying both locking the difficulty settings behind game completion (and not having an additional save file for them separate from the main/Normal Mode save file) & making the settings version exclusives. Games with difficulty settings usually have easy, normal, and hard mode available from the start, when they have an additional difficulty setting unlocked from game completion its usually a super hard mode (and said games allow for multiple save files).
 
There is absolutely NO justifying both locking the difficulty settings behind game completion (and not having an additional save file for them separate from the main/Normal Mode save file) & making the settings version exclusives. Games with difficulty settings usually have easy, normal, and hard mode available from the start, when they have an additional difficulty setting unlocked from game completion its usually a super hard mode (and said games allow for multiple save files).
Honestly, this isnt something unique to Pokemon (es, I run Yakuza 7 and that one locks Hard and Legend behind finishing the game first).

...however we are talking of a PS4/5 game with like 20 save slots.... :blobshrug:
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
There is absolutely NO justifying both locking the difficulty settings behind game completion (and not having an additional save file for them separate from the main/Normal Mode save file) & making the settings version exclusives. Games with difficulty settings usually have easy, normal, and hard mode available from the start, when they have an additional difficulty setting unlocked from game completion its usually a super hard mode (and said games allow for multiple save files).
Honestly, this isnt something unique to Pokemon (es, I run Yakuza 7 and that one locks Hard and Legend behind finishing the game first).

...however we are talking of a PS4/5 game with like 20 save slots.... :blobshrug:
So you agree with me.

ALSO, let's consider the games we're talking about here. Once you beat a Yakuza game, as far I know, there's no reason for you not to restart and play again if a harder difficulty opens up. Kingdom Hearts locks Proud Mode behind game completion and once you get it you have no reason not to try it out. Not because there's multiple saves available, which there are, but because of what type of game they are. Many games are usually self-contained stories, they may or may not have a post game but once you complete that there's usually no reason not to restart if you want to experience the adventure again. Even games that let you carry over save data like Mass Effect and Dragon Age can all be replayed as soon as you're done with the story either individually or as a collection.

But Pokemon is a different beast entirely which makes Saves a big issue. As much as I would like multiple saves*, it comes with a HUGE asterisk because, putting it as simply and honest as possible, previous gen baggage. Pokemon lets you transfer Pokemon from previous gens up, there are right now Pokemon in people's save files that are nearly 20 years old because they've been transferring that/those Pokemon up since Gen III. Pokemon from Gen IV would be nearly 15, Gen V be 10, Gen VI be 7, even Gen VII Pokemon at the max would be 5 now. And people get attached to these Pokemon, these packets of data that you can easily copy & paste (heck, that's what is actually done when you trade & transfer a Pokemon; their data is copy & pasted into the new system and the old one is deleted, even if you trade back it's a new iteration of that data and not the original. Still, its data is (mostly) the same as the Pokemon they had when it was first created thus has sentimental value attached to it). If Pokemon were to make multiple saves without any additional precautions, they would risk having transferred Pokemon spewed about multiple saves and a greater risk of accidentally getting deleted.

However, people want multiple saves plus difficulty settings. Instead of digging in their heels and insisting on only one save file per game and thus no difficulty settings (which only makes players have to work around GF which may even include hacking), they need to really think about what they have to do with Save Files. It's a tricky topic and I can go into how I think they can do it (basically having a MAIN FILE which is the only one that can transfer into, having extra files with a list of things you can and can't do & ability to copy Pokemon from the main file into it, and difficulty modes & other gameplay options can be turned on & off in the Option menu and instantly applied), but I think I got the main points across (and if GF did do it it'll likely be something different, out-of-the-box, and convoluted, making something that should be straight forward needlessly complicated because on that day Masuda ate an apple instead of an orange).
 

The Mind Electric

Calming if you look at it right.
So you agree with me.

ALSO, let's consider the games we're talking about here. Once you beat a Yakuza game, as far I know, there's no reason for you not to restart and play again if a harder difficulty opens up. Kingdom Hearts locks Proud Mode behind game completion and once you get it you have no reason not to try it out. Not because there's multiple saves available, which there are, but because of what type of game they are. Many games are usually self-contained stories, they may or may not have a post game but once you complete that there's usually no reason not to restart if you want to experience the adventure again. Even games that let you carry over save data like Mass Effect and Dragon Age can all be replayed as soon as you're done with the story either individually or as a collection.

But Pokemon is a different beast entirely which makes Saves a big issue. As much as I would like multiple saves*, it comes with a HUGE asterisk because, putting it as simply and honest as possible, previous gen baggage. Pokemon lets you transfer Pokemon from previous gens up, there are right now Pokemon in people's save files that are nearly 20 years old because they've been transferring that/those Pokemon up since Gen III. Pokemon from Gen IV would be nearly 15, Gen V be 10, Gen VI be 7, even Gen VII Pokemon at the max would be 5 now. And people get attached to these Pokemon, these packets of data that you can easily copy & paste (heck, that's what is actually done when you trade & transfer a Pokemon; their data is copy & pasted into the new system and the old one is deleted, even if you trade back it's a new iteration of that data and not the original. Still, its data is (mostly) the same as the Pokemon they had when it was first created thus has sentimental value attached to it). If Pokemon were to make multiple saves without any additional precautions, they would risk having transferred Pokemon spewed about multiple saves and a greater risk of accidentally getting deleted.

However, people want multiple saves plus difficulty settings. Instead of digging in their heels and insisting on only one save file per game and thus no difficulty settings (which only makes players have to work around GF which may even include hacking), they need to really think about what they have to do with Save Files. It's a tricky topic and I can go into how I think they can do it (basically having a MAIN FILE which is the only one that can transfer into, having extra files with a list of things you can and can't do & ability to copy Pokemon from the main file into it, and difficulty modes & other gameplay options can be turned on & off in the Option menu and instantly applied), but I think I got the main points across (and if GF did do it it'll likely be something different, out-of-the-box, and convoluted, making something that should be straight forward needlessly complicated because on that day Masuda ate an apple instead of an orange).
I just don't get why they didn't go for multiple saves as soon as the technology they were working with allowed it.
 
So you agree with me.
Yes, I do I guess, I meant that locking difficulties behind completing the game is fine, but with the caveaut that the way GF kinda forgot they only allow a single save file.
I just don't get why they didn't go for multiple saves as soon as the technology they were working with allowed it.
Thing is, it's not like they are allowing multiple save files now either. It's a "quirk" of the Switch that you can create more saves by swapping profiles, but the games themselves only have one save.

I'm unsure why this is a deliberate choice in some games honestly.
Once more, Pokemon isn't the only one on this, some other console games also stick on a single file with only way to have multiple being using profiles or resetting.
I really have a hard time figuring why myself.
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I just don't get why they didn't go for multiple saves as soon as the technology they were working with allowed it.
I really have a hard time figuring why myself.
Well, I explained why, let me cut down what I said:

Previous gen baggage. Pokemon lets you transfer Pokemon from previous gens up, there are right now Pokemon in people's save files that are nearly 20 years old because they've been transferring that/those Pokemon up since Gen III. If Pokemon were to make multiple saves without any additional precautions, they would risk having transferred Pokemon spewed about multiple saves and a greater risk of accidentally getting deleted.

It's a tricky topic and I can go into how I think they can do it (basically having a MAIN FILE which is the only one that can transfer into, having extra files with a list of things you can and can't do & ability to copy Pokemon from the main file into it, and difficulty modes & other gameplay options can be turned on & off in the Option menu and instantly applied), but I think I got the main points across.
Sure, they have the technology, but the nature of a Pokemon playthrough is designed to be a personal one plus an interactive component with other players. There's also the illusion of the "Gift", "Legendaries" and other "one-of-a-kind" Pokemon you can only get one of in each game; to get another one you need to restart the entire game. My suggestion of there being a "Main File" while you can have additional "Extra Files" that have certain limits but let you replay the game is meant to get around that as one of the limits would be unable to send those one-of-a-kind Pokemon out of that save file (maybe with some exceptions like a Shiny or you're required to exchange a Pokemon of the same species).
 
idk why they care about people sending multiple legendaries from extra savefile, you can already do that with a single file. I could do it rn with my ultra sun file, catch everything, reset the game and just do it again and it'd be the exact same thing as starting a new savefile
 
Sure, they have the technology, but the nature of a Pokemon playthrough is designed to be a personal one plus an interactive component with other players.
Well let me phrase myself better: I don't get why games choose this design in first place.
As I said Pokemon is the obvious one, but there's been others over the years that do it (latest I can think of being Returnal where if you want to start over you have to delete the save data) and same applies, "but why".

I have a hard time thinking why a game should purposely negate to allow the player to have multiple save files. Moreso in modern age, while for very old hardware like GameBoy you could have made a point about cart space, it definitely doesnt work out for modern ones.
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Well let me phrase myself better: I don't get why games choose this design in first place.
As I said Pokemon is the obvious one, but there's been others over the years that do it (latest I can think of being Returnal where if you want to start over you have to delete the save data) and same applies, "but why".

I have a hard time thinking why a game should purposely negate to allow the player to have multiple save files. Moreso in modern age, while for very old hardware like GameBoy you could have made a point about cart space, it definitely doesnt work out for modern ones.
It's pretty simple: $$$.

Or, well, ¥¥¥ I suppose. The game is all about collecting, and bonding with your collection. I've always held that the "meat" of the Pokémon games is the adventure you're having, from humble beginnings in a small town to becoming the national champion with a full Pokédex and dozens of trusty monsters on your side. This experience of growth and progression is what really drives the games ... and if you want to re-experience it after finishing it, you have to start over. This involves losing your entire collection permanently. Not only your Pokémon, but also your completed sidequests, item collection (TMs, Mega Stones, Berries …), your Pokédex, all gone. Some of it can be saved by trading (which requires you to buy another copy ... and maybe even another console), but most of it would be irreversibly lost by starting over. That is, of course, unless you buy a new cartridge.

By restricting things to one save per cartridge, players need to buy multiple cartridges to play the game again, or face the loss of everything they've worked for. The games are cleverly designed (possibly not intentionally, but that's the effect of it) to give you great attachment to your collection, but also enticing you to play again. There are three starters to choose between, for instance. How would it feel to play the game with another choice? To find out, you must sacrifice everything ... or fork over a few more dollars, er, yen. Look, there's even a paired version you could try instead.

Also consider the situation of siblings playing the game. One save per cartridge means each sibling would need to have their own copy. Maybe even their own console, since so much of the game is about playing together. You need multiple cartridges cooperating to complete your collection, after all.

The one-save-per-cartridge model is a massive sales driver. Just like the two-versions model. It's not friendly to players, it arguably doesn't make the game any better, but TPC rakes in So. Much. Cash. because of it.

Come to think of it, I wonder how well Pokémon would fare on the bestselling games lists if one corrected for the factor of people buying multiple copies of what is essentially the same game. They would still be massively popular, of course, but they'd be knocked down a few spots on the lists, I think.
 
Yes, I get why *pokemon* does it, and I figured that ages ago, not exactly difficult either. (Plus, it creates artificial attachment to the stuff you caught, on top of it).

What I don't really get is why other games do, or why the practice exists in first place.
 
Come to think of it, I wonder how well Pokémon would fare on the bestselling games lists if one corrected for the factor of people buying multiple copies of what is essentially the same game. They would still be massively popular, of course, but they'd be knocked down a few spots on the lists, I think.
Adding on to this, I’ve always wondered how much Pokémon games make on their own- bear in mind that Pokémon games are technically separate games- Pokémon are exclusive to each version make different gameplay, and the games are marketed at full price for each, Sword and Shield cost 60$ each. So Pokémon already has an innate advantage over other games simply because it double dips for barley and significant changes for each version. And we know for a fact that super fans will indeed buy both versions. We do know for a fact that Sword did outsell Shield according to the Eshop so there is indeed a clear difference in sales between versions. I wonder how much Sword outsold Shield by though? Granted the games would have still sold very well, just probably not as well as Animal Crossing or Smash when counted separately. It may also explain why third versions don’t sell nearly as much as predecessors- there’s no option to double dip.
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
bear in mind that Pokémon games are technically separate games- Pokémon are exclusive to each version make different gameplay
Does it? Honestly your Starter choice I feel has more of an effect on what mons you pick up than the version exclusives.

Though that did give me a wild idea: A set of paired games BUT most if not all the dex uses different Pokemon. They could even add onto that theme, like one version uses Dual-types & has a focus on Double Battles while the other uses Mono-types and has a focus on Inverse Battles. Now THAT would certainly mix things up!

It may also explain why third versions don’t sell nearly as much as predecessors- there’s no option to double dip.
Eh, looking at a sale chart B2W2 and USUM didn't sell as much either.
 
It may also explain why third versions don’t sell nearly as much as predecessors- there’s no option to double dip.
Nah, third versions don't sell as much mainly because a lot of people get the feeling of "playing the same game again".
This doesn't work well with the casual playerbase, which is the one that actually buys the most, aka (once again) the kids that play the story and drop the game after.

It's also not exactly a "Pokemon" thing, other games that use "enhanced version" re-releases model (say, Persona, or DQ, or FF, etc) also tend to sell less on their remastered version than the original one i they release within short time of each other, because they cannot bank on the availability on a new platform or simply being a 20 year old game that most modern players couldn't manage to play.
In general a "normal" buyer will not be inclined to buy a "game +" if they already played the base version, expecially if it's a full priced game.
 

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Nah, third versions don't sell as much mainly because a lot of people get the feeling of "playing the same game again".
This doesn't work well with the casual playerbase, which is the one that actually buys the most, aka (once again) the kids that play the story and drop the game after.

It's also not exactly a "Pokemon" thing, other games that use "enhanced version" re-releases model (say, Persona, or DQ, or FF, etc) also tend to sell less on their remastered version than the original one i they release within short time of each other, because they cannot bank on the availability on a new platform or simply being a 20 year old game that most modern players couldn't manage to play.
In general a "normal" buyer will not be inclined to buy a "game +" if they already played the base version, expecially if it's a full priced game.
Considering this is the case, crazy how good of a gamble Mario Kart 8 Deluxe was for Nintendo. They must have saved a lot of money simply porting that rather than creating a new Mario Kart for the Switch, especially as its going to end up the best selling Mario Kart of all time.
 
Considering this is the case, crazy how good of a gamble Mario Kart 8 Deluxe was for Nintendo. They must have saved a lot of money simply porting that rather than creating a new Mario Kart for the Switch, especially as its going to end up the best selling Mario Kart of all time.
Note that I put
because they cannot bank on the availability on a new platform or simply being a 20 year old game that most modern players couldn't manage to play.
this for a reason.

Releasing on the Switch (a extremely popular console) a remaster of a game that was on previous less common and niche one actually works well, and it's also why the Switch is primarily bombarded by rereleases of older games.

Much different than rereleasing essentially the same game 1 year later on same console with just slightly more content.
That's what (unironically) DLCs are for.
 

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Note that I put

this for a reason.

Releasing on the Switch (a extremely popular console) a remaster of a game that was on previous less common and niche one actually works well, and it's also why the Switch is primarily bombarded by rereleases of older games.

Much different than rereleasing essentially the same game 1 year later on same console with just slightly more content.
That's what (unironically) DLCs are for.
I wasn’t disagreeing with your post at all. I will however say that Deluxe was released only a month after the Switch, so it obviously had been their plan for a while, and they couldn’t have known how popular the Switch was to become at that stage, thus being a good (and extremely profitable) gamble.
 
I wasn’t disagreeing with your post at all. I will however say that Deluxe was released only a month after the Switch, so it obviously had been their plan for a while, and they couldn’t have known how popular the Switch was to become at that stage, thus being a good (and extremely profitable) gamble.
True, though let's be fair, Switch was such a good design for the moment it came out that it was a guaranteed success.
People had demanded a "Nintendo home console" for a while, and the 3ds was starting to suffer horribly due to its hardware limitations (see how poorly even USUM performed).
A Hybrid Home/Portable Nintendo console was going to be a success, filling a market hole with high demand and no competition. To the point that several Switch games are carried more by the Switch itself than the game's quality (see, Sword and Shield for one)
I'm not sure if they expected *THAT* big of a success, but it was guaranteed to sell in my opinion :blobuwu:
 

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

Top