agreed, i think hms are fundamentally a cool concept that just wasn't given enough thought over the generations. its cool to have your mons help you on your adventure, and in gen 1, aside from flash, they were fine moves and most mons didnt learn 4 useful moves anyways. but then, despite movepools getting better and better, more hms kept getting added and they were pretty much all abysmal moves. i love hoenn but having surf waterfall and dive all be mandatory is just completely idiotic lol
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
Yeah, I also think the fact they were limited and had very specific archetypes helped a lot:
cut -> straight obstacle remover. its a move with bad bp but that was focused for early/mid game. as you advance, you see no cut trees.
strength -> late game obstacle remover. often more engaging in that its related to strength puzzles, and is relegated to late game/post game stuff: as such, its a better move you're much more comfortable keeping around
surf -> mid game traversal. very useful move that makes you not feel bad about needing to use it for traversal, learned by many monsters including as good coverage.
flash -> optional move, who is pretty bad but also very limited. its asking the player if they prefer convenience or doing it the hard way (blind). rock tunnel can be completed and 100% without flash, but flash gives you convenience by sacrificing a resource (moveslot)
fly -> a better move that also asks if you prefer convenience or not. its easier to slot as a move similar to surf, and very useful
But then as gens followed, you have a bunch of extra hms you have to handle, making this balance completely broken. Not only that, but a lot of them are just mechanical copies of the above moves!!!
rock smash, whirlpool, waterfall, rock climb? mechanically the same function as cut: they are simple obstacle removers/skippers
defog? thats just flash (removing inconvenience from an area)
dive? that's fancy surf
Another thing they miss the mark is the balance that gen 1 had with placement of hm usage. the fact later games would make you carry cut copies until the end of the game is stupid as hell. cut was made for early game! why are we being forced to use all these hm moves all the time instead of transitioning them??
HMs get substantially better if you don’t have to reuse them to access things later in the game. It’s one thing when your level 3 Rattata has to learn Cut, and it’s another when you need to backtrack through a route to catch a Postgame legendary and you’ve already used a Super Repel, only to realize you have to choose between giving a good Pokemon a useless move, and going back to the Pokemart to add your hm slave to your party.
That's true of the moves themselves, but personally I love backtracking through old areas and finding new stuff.
Johto is a great region for this - there's Cuttable trees on almost every route and practically every area before Ecruteak has a pond or river or beach in it. Union Cave in particular is a delightful trove of secrets. Even Whirlpool gives you access to a few trainers and items otherwise hidden away. Annoying as it was that they locked evolution items behind it, the addition of Rock Climb areas in HGSS felt 100% in keeping with the originals.
It was kind of the challenge for me, and still is when I replay those games - I could take my whole team (but potentially overwrite their more useful moves with HMs) or leave a couple of them behind in exchange for a weak HM slave and/or a "catching specialist" like something fast with Sleep Powder or Hypnosis if I was trying to catch Lapras or something.
I have 2 thoughts on HMs:
In-battle, they should be utility moves, not damaging ones. Picture things like Flame Charge, Power-Up Punch, and yes, Fly. Make it so that inexperienced players are forced to add utility to their movesets rather than just spamming their strongest STAB, and in tough battles the kids might actually use set-up or stall moves when there's no other way to win. And for experienced players, HMs would then become a balance between what moves you can fit on your combat team vs which moves go to a dedicated mon you only bring along sometimes.
Out of battle, HMs should be chosen for puzzle-solving reasons rather than obstacles(even if they can be used for that). Strength is perfect as-is. But picture Rock Climb that lets you go up over vertical ledges, or Surf's interaction with Currents. "Bring Cut to get through a door" is just boring.
The execution of HM moves has always been poor, though, and I'm somewhat sad GF just decided to execute them.
In-battle, they should be utility moves, not damaging ones. Picture things like Flame Charge, Power-Up Punch, and yes, Fly. Make it so that inexperienced players are forced to add utility to their movesets rather than just spamming their strongest STAB, and in tough battles the kids might actually use set-up or stall moves when there's no other way to win. And for experienced players, HMs would then become a balance between what moves you can fit on your combat team vs which moves go to a dedicated mon you only bring along sometimes.
Out of battle, HMs should be chosen for puzzle-solving reasons rather than obstacles(even if they can be used for that). Strength is perfect as-is. But picture Rock Climb that lets you go up over vertical ledges, or Surf's interaction with Currents. "Bring Cut to get through a door" is just boring.
The execution of HM moves has always been poor, though, and I'm somewhat sad GF just decided to execute them.
Oh no, I love Johto’s hm use for the most part, I like how you use each about perfectly in proportion to its strength as a move and how it provides opportunities to go back and unlock new portions of already visited routes and caves. The Fighting Dojo guy, Ruins of Alph, those three lady trainers, are among my favorite instances in the series.
What I don’t like is when I feel like I have to repeatedly come back to these areas and use niche hms like Rock Smash and Cut, which Platinum and Hoenn made me feel at times. B2W2 postgame is pushing it a bit.
Edit: like for example, if I had to go through Whirlpool Islands multiple times for plot related reasons or to catch multiple legendaries and had to remember all the HM users needed.
I do think Rock Climb in HGSS feels unnecessary because a lot of the stuff it unlocks isn’t that cool to me, like a bunch of evolution items I wish didn’t exist in the first place. Also I understand why but wish you didn’t need flash in Cerulean Cave and Whirlpool Islands because I always forget lol
But for Red, I really appreciate how the only HM move you need to reach him is Rock Climb. Also Rock Climb has the best HM animation
I think the main thing HMs needed was designing them around puzzles and any obstacle removal being one-and-done like a lot of strength shortcuts in later games. Don't make me fish out an HM user every time I have to go back through an area. An added bonus to this would have been the ability to design to avoid Softlocks more easily and not required a specific NPC just to remove the mediocre moves if you weren't carrying specific HM mules.
My take on HMs is that their removal in Gen 7 was a massive overreaction on Game Freak's part to criticism that could have easily been resolved just by making their requirements less harsh. It honestly baffles me that they immediately nixed them altogether after years of sticking with the same old rigid system rather than try to compromise on how they work even once.
Like Bakugames said, HMs were at their best in Gen 1. Each move had clear niches and were designed around specific thresholds in the game. The lack of HM removal was a problem since it was easy to saddle a carry like your starter with a crappy move for eternity, but other than that they were implemented perfectly well. Yet after that, besides adding an HM remover in Gen 3 (and I guess Stadium 2), HMs stayed rigidly fixed in place, while the number of HMs kept ballooning, culminating in dumb bullshit like Defog and Rock Climb in Gen 4. Even in Gen 5 and 6, where the reliance on HMs was heavily decreased (except Kalos Victory Road requiring Strength at the very last minute - that was a nasty surprise back in 2013), they never altered the moves themselves or alleviated the strict rules of "this move must take a move slot and you cannot forget it without going out of your way to do so". Then Gen 7 rolled around, and they were gone with no fanfare.
HMs implement two things that I regard as important: immersion, and friction. Poke Ride and other similar mechanics offer neither, because you're essentially handed the keys to someone else's Pokemon - one that appears after nowhere and vanishes as soon as the job is done. The actual progression is similar enough to HMs, but it makes all the difference that it's not your 'mon doing it. As for friction: I think it's not only fine but good that HMs take up moveslots, because it introduces opportunity cost. I need to use this move to progress - do I give it to a team member in place of a stronger 4th move, or do I hand it off to a weaker 'mon I've caught and have them take up a team slot? Friction isn't necessarily a bad thing - I think these kinds of restrictions can be interesting and lead to some neat player expression if handled properly. There is no such decision making to be had with Ride 'mons. The best form of it are the Raidons in SV, just because they're seamlessly implemented into the flow of the game and because the Raidons are distinctly your 'mon, but I just don't think it's as interesting.
That's not to say HMs are flawless; like I pointed out before, the moves themselves never changed, and the requirements for getting rid of them are just too strict. Making them unforgettable as a means of preventing softlocks was understandable given Cinnabar Island, but that's just one move (Surf), and by the time Gen 2 rolled around, it was already an antiquated means of preventing softlocks. There is no compelling reason why a move like Defog should ever be unforgettable, and there's also not a good reason for them to never increase the power of moves like Cut or Whirlpool if they're going to continue implementing those obstacles further and further into the game. Cut being 50 BP is fine in the context of Gen 1 where you get it before the 3rd gym - it's just a slightly superior version of Tackle and stops mattering after Erika - but rapidly stops making sense when you're seeing Cut trees well into Kanto in GSC. If GF had A. dynamically changed the power of HMs in each game to match progression more evenly and/or B. removed the restriction on forgetting HMs move and simply incorporated more ways around softlocks, it wouldn't have been necessary to remove them at all - and yet they got axed in Gen 7 without even an attempt at compromise.
There is another factor that I've neglected to mention, and that's models. It's obviously much simpler to model one Sharpedo that every player will use rather than incorporating ride animations for every single species of 'mon that can use a given HM. The generic sprite/model used for HMs like Surf might also have been regarded as antiquated by this point in the 3D era, especially moving into the Switch. I think that's a more fair reason, but I think the gameplay benefits of HMs outweigh any graphical concerns (not to mention that these games aren't lookers regardless). Still, there's something to be said for a visually striking setpiece like riding a giant lizard or leaping into the air on a Basculegion's back.
Like Bakugames said, HMs were at their best in Gen 1. Each move had clear niches and were designed around specific thresholds in the game. The lack of HM removal was a problem since it was easy to saddle a carry like your starter with a crappy move for eternity, but other than that they were implemented perfectly well. Yet after that, besides adding an HM remover in Gen 3 (and I guess Stadium 2), HMs stayed rigidly fixed in place, while the number of HMs kept ballooning, culminating in dumb bullshit like Defog and Rock Climb in Gen 4. Even in Gen 5 and 6, where the reliance on HMs was heavily decreased (except Kalos Victory Road requiring Strength at the very last minute - that was a nasty surprise back in 2013), they never altered the moves themselves or alleviated the strict rules of "this move must take a move slot and you cannot forget it without going out of your way to do so". Then Gen 7 rolled around, and they were gone with no fanfare.
HMs implement two things that I regard as important: immersion, and friction. Poke Ride and other similar mechanics offer neither, because you're essentially handed the keys to someone else's Pokemon - one that appears after nowhere and vanishes as soon as the job is done. The actual progression is similar enough to HMs, but it makes all the difference that it's not your 'mon doing it. As for friction: I think it's not only fine but good that HMs take up moveslots, because it introduces opportunity cost. I need to use this move to progress - do I give it to a team member in place of a stronger 4th move, or do I hand it off to a weaker 'mon I've caught and have them take up a team slot? Friction isn't necessarily a bad thing - I think these kinds of restrictions can be interesting and lead to some neat player expression if handled properly. There is no such decision making to be had with Ride 'mons. The best form of it are the Raidons in SV, just because they're seamlessly implemented into the flow of the game and because the Raidons are distinctly your 'mon, but I just don't think it's as interesting.
That's not to say HMs are flawless; like I pointed out before, the moves themselves never changed, and the requirements for getting rid of them are just too strict. Making them unforgettable as a means of preventing softlocks was understandable given Cinnabar Island, but that's just one move (Surf), and by the time Gen 2 rolled around, it was already an antiquated means of preventing softlocks. There is no compelling reason why a move like Defog should ever be unforgettable, and there's also not a good reason for them to never increase the power of moves like Cut or Whirlpool if they're going to continue implementing those obstacles further and further into the game. Cut being 50 BP is fine in the context of Gen 1 where you get it before the 3rd gym - it's just a slightly superior version of Tackle and stops mattering after Erika - but rapidly stops making sense when you're seeing Cut trees well into Kanto in GSC. If GF had A. dynamically changed the power of HMs in each game to match progression more evenly and/or B. removed the restriction on forgetting HMs move and simply incorporated more ways around softlocks, it wouldn't have been necessary to remove them at all - and yet they got axed in Gen 7 without even an attempt at compromise.
There is another factor that I've neglected to mention, and that's models. It's obviously much simpler to model one Sharpedo that every player will use rather than incorporating ride animations for every single species of 'mon that can use a given HM. The generic sprite/model used for HMs like Surf might also have been regarded as antiquated by this point in the 3D era, especially moving into the Switch. I think that's a more fair reason, but I think the gameplay benefits of HMs outweigh any graphical concerns (not to mention that these games aren't lookers regardless). Still, there's something to be said for a visually striking setpiece like riding a giant lizard or leaping into the air on a Basculegion's back.
I think this is a really good point too. While qol additions are usually good, there is something to be said about making the player be a bit uncomfortable/suboptimal in their gameplay. I always bring up monster hunter stories for this, but I actually enjoyed the question of "if i bring my best monsties around, i wont have monsties with skills like jump/break rocks/climb to explore some areas, but the monsties that have those skills are not my best and very underleveled, what should i prioritize right now?". Its why i wish theyd add a similar system to the games lol.
I think one of the reasons they removed hms is that i think retooling them is a lot harder than you'd think for modern pokemon. for example, you can just remember any move a pokemon has learned in sv. if hms were forgettable, then all youd have to do is use the hm and then replace it with the move you had before, which pretty much removes any friction that hms had and just turns them into a 30 seconds annoyance. making them stronger helps, but also can end up with the side effect of giving people even stronger tools early game, in games that already have five million ways to make your experience easier. i do think they truly needed to be replaced, but with a system that kept its goal to make the player engage with the pokemon and field instead of ignore it completely
Said this before and will say it again: I'm sure that one day, eventually they'll ditch premade sets of ridemons entirely and just have HM-like functions mapped on a Pokemon-by-Pokemon basis. So, for example, you can just freely fly around on a winged Pokemon of your choice once you achieve a certain progress benchmark, or move around Strength boulders with a designated "strong" Pokemon like Ursaring or Conkeldurr
There's seriously no way this isn't the long-term goal and they might've even gotten around to it by now if their scheduling weren't so screwed up.
There's seriously no way this isn't the long-term goal and they might've even gotten around to it by now if their scheduling weren't so screwed up.
Honestly, make it so field moves are a category for learned moves or specific mons. That way you're not stuck with a crappy slave, but then you still need to vary team building
Like baby mons and some preevos would be barred access from it, so it'd encourage evolving stuff too
Edit: Ah, ninja'd!
Like baby mons and some preevos would be barred access from it, so it'd encourage evolving stuff too
Edit: Ah, ninja'd!
I could see broadening to more moves within a category (e.g., any slashing move can function as Cut), but I'm not currently a fan of having the standard HM suite mapped onto mons directly. Maybe some more diverse obstacles could help (needing to hack a door? letting you burn down as well as cut down trees?), but it currently comes off as being completely free if you happen to like Swampert or something, but still needing to run a full slave if you much prefer the Magnemites and Litwicks of the series.
Sheer cold/snow cloak articuno won a tournament, and fissure ting-lu was a thing at one point I think. I may have overestimated the popularity of Articuno because I saw a lot of ppl made videos on the concept.
And as for a comment I made in the Pokemon Presents thread, there was a time where in a big tournament everyone was using Urshifu/Tornadus/Flutter Mane/Chien Pao/Amoongus/Iron Hands or something similar, and there were like 8 Pokemon represented in the top ten finishers of a prominent tournament. I would like to see more diversity in teams, nothing too crazy but like maybe 4-5 good team archetypes with a few fringe strats
Maybe I’m just uneducated but I’d think you could have something like this without the games turning into some Rock/Paper/Scissors in terms of matchups, and I’m also not saying every Pokemon should be relevant.
the articuno team was good even if it got 0 RNG procs and it's been gone ever since
and fissure ting lu isn't a thing anymore
vgc is much less about your team of 6 and much more about what mons you bring to each match, making every bo3 set very different and much more focused on the players outplaying each other than just their matchup or whatever
current season
and according to the usage stats, there are 11 more common moves than Fissure on ting lu (it's literally not even listed, it's in "Other")
I like the flexibility of not having to decide beforehand what mon will get to use the big gimmick.
With that said, there's a difference between, say, Terastalization and Dynamax.
As for the HM topic... It ain't rocket science. The big problem with HMs was that they sucked as moves.
Imagine willingly teaching this to one of your mons after Gym 8
And this is AFTER it got buffed.
And that's in a game with Surf and Waterfall. You may be willing to burn a moveslot on Waterfall just to not have to get something else just for it. Whirlpool as well? That's 3/4 moveslots on a single mon, it's unreasonable to try and use it.
I don't think its just them being good moves, its also about how theyre often the same types: normal or water. normal can be a decent ish coverage but even then its not the best, and having 3 water moves is really bad because well.. this isnt gen 1 anymore, often the only pokemon that learn it are the shitmon rodent or a water type lol
One thing I wish was brought up more in the HM conversation is that around the time when Game Freak started winding them down, they were consistently (tbf XY exception imo) making games where HMs were not actually used as any more than a story progression block.
As in, in a Metroidvania, you see locks and do other things. You get the new power, then you go back and check that lock. In a game like Black and White, it's more of "Here is Cut HM. Now you open the Cut Tree right there to do the next cutscene. Now Cut barely matters for the rest of the game."
Most HMs in the game generally just exist for what is going to happen directly after, where Game Freak also started becoming more invested in non-HM checks to routes starting in Gen 4 and it only got worse over time. So they didn't really have much of a need for HMs.
One more thing I'll add is that SV IMO has one of the best implementations. For some reason SV has better movement than like 99% of RPGs and the HM equivalents make that even better. Run being an actual Run that feels good while also letting you do more stuff (with platforming and that one hill) feels like the next best thing, and the other half of Metroidvania that makes it more worthwhile than just axing it imo- making it feel better to play when you have them, which HMs used to not really do.
As in, in a Metroidvania, you see locks and do other things. You get the new power, then you go back and check that lock. In a game like Black and White, it's more of "Here is Cut HM. Now you open the Cut Tree right there to do the next cutscene. Now Cut barely matters for the rest of the game."
Most HMs in the game generally just exist for what is going to happen directly after, where Game Freak also started becoming more invested in non-HM checks to routes starting in Gen 4 and it only got worse over time. So they didn't really have much of a need for HMs.
One more thing I'll add is that SV IMO has one of the best implementations. For some reason SV has better movement than like 99% of RPGs and the HM equivalents make that even better. Run being an actual Run that feels good while also letting you do more stuff (with platforming and that one hill) feels like the next best thing, and the other half of Metroidvania that makes it more worthwhile than just axing it imo- making it feel better to play when you have them, which HMs used to not really do.
At this point the "Pokémon games always have bad graphics" spiel feels performative. It's always the same arguments without any thought put into them, no examination of why someone feels that way, almost like the person feels expected to say that. I just read a whole article on Eurogamer about this debacle and they couldn't articulate why they felt Z-A looked bad except for bad roof textures (?) and "smooth looking humans" while making an appeal to nostalgia with the pixel art games. It would feel much more intellectually honest to admit you're just not a fan of an artstyle.
So the problem the friction argument runs into for me is that it continues a trend I've felt since branching out from Pokemon into other RPG's when I was a Teenager: Pokemon teaches bad habits if you play it as an RPG or try to transplant habits from one to the other.
The most famous example of this is how most kids play the game: all attack moves, use every mon as a beater, probably just power leveling a few that hit hard already like their starter. Beaters win faster, so you're inclined to use them more immediately, they get more EXP, and it becomes a feedback loop. Meanwhile if you try to play an RPG like Dragon Quest, certain Final Fantasy entries, or something from Atlus in this manner (Persona or SMT), you're not going to get very far without using buffs and status effects to deal with asymmetrical stat systems that Pokemon lacks by nature. If you want proof, look at Tera Raids: players who bring full Support Pokemon (some of which can't inflict damage themselves) contribute significantly more than random players jumping in with their Level 100 Main story legendary or a fresh caught Mightiest Mark Pokemon when the battle has 4 much weaker targets up against a much stronger Tower.
HMs work in a similar manner, trying to have a give-and-take by tying your ability to progress to a handicap in battle for the areas where the field moves are required. The problem here becomes that kneecapping your Pokemon or having to constantly rotate the HM carriers in and out of your team isn't strategic so much as an inconvenience, which just led to running HM mules (find me a Sinnoh playthrough that doesn't run Bibarel and wouldn't be smoother if it did) and doubling down on the above mentioned "small team Unga EXP" loop to make up for being down a slot. The HMs are a failed system in that as designed they're not a crossroads for decision making, the optimal strategy is always just to compartmentalize and completely ignore the resources the system takes away from you because the moves are such garbage and so stuck to the user that you're just flat out making them worse than designed outside of Surf and some Strength/Waterfall users (and in that case it's mostly down to Water being a horribly balanced and overly abundant type which minimizes the "I'm not running one of these" scenario).
I have a particular comparison to make on this point as well: Final Fantasy 3 (original numbering, the NES game) was groundbreaking for many aspects such as the Job system that in several ways feels like what Pokemon was trying to emulate with Kanto's original design ethos: a spread of character types to build a team of multiple units from that you could rotate or replace on the fly (in some cases being strict upgrades over prior versions) at the expense of having to do additional grinding/leveling up to maintain more options for build flexibility. One of FF3's more infamous aspects is several sections in which you're made to utilize particular classes to continue (dungeons requiring the Physical-nerfing Mini status, casting Toad to enter certain areas, Garuda essentially saying "Dragoons or GTFO," the Dark Cave enemies that just multiply without a Mystic/Dark Knight weapon specifically) because it actively punishes you for not playing with the pieces the game wants you to use, and in several cases does not permit you to attempt unless you're going the one specific method they tell you to use (i.e. Mages for the Mini Dungeon). It even manages to encompass both HM situations because the Mini dungeons require being stuck playing it, Dark Cave has alternatives that are possible but significantly more tedious, and the Toad gates can also just be done by switching, casting Toad to go through, and then switching back (albeit with some trash grinding to get the Points to swap Jobs).
Ironically, despite Gen 1 being touted as the best usage of the mechanic overall (non-deletion aside), it's also the entry that scrapped what I think would have been the best compromise: using tools in your limited inventory vs an HM on your more flexible Pokemon slots. The tradeoff there instead is two different inconveniences rather than an inconvenience vs a straight nerf: do I carry an HM user, or give up a bag slot that I could use for TMs/Repels/Pokeballs during this dungeon visit? Mystery Dungeon had a similar approach where you could either bring a teammate with the move, or carry the HM and risk losing it to a failed run or trap in the Dungeon.
I get where people are coming from when they say Arceus and (especially) SV look bad, but honestly Z-A looks perfectly fine to me? Like it’s not a visual wonder or anything, and I’m not going to contend with anyone who thinks it could be improved, but I just fundamentally don’t look at the trailer or the screenshots and think “this is ugly.” It’s decent. Nothing special, but fine.
And I get that there’s a larger, long-standing discussion about how Pokémon games could achieve so much more in the graphical space, considering how much money the games make, and sure, I think that’s a fine discussion to have (or at least it would be, were this fandom not so badly poisoned), but just because I don’t think Z-A looks as good as it theoretically could doesn’t mean I think it looks distinctly “ugly.” I’ve seen some truly ugly-looking games.
And I get that there’s a larger, long-standing discussion about how Pokémon games could achieve so much more in the graphical space, considering how much money the games make, and sure, I think that’s a fine discussion to have (or at least it would be, were this fandom not so badly poisoned), but just because I don’t think Z-A looks as good as it theoretically could doesn’t mean I think it looks distinctly “ugly.” I’ve seen some truly ugly-looking games.
Really the big thing for improving the graphics is just time. We've seen before these games don't really have that long a development cycle, two-three years depending on how you define it versus five years or so from AAA titles. By my not-well-educated guess, Gamefreak has been using the same production timelines that worked alright in the DS and 3DS years but aren't adequate when trying to make bigger games for a mainline console.
Here's the thing, they could definitely list examples of it. I've complained a bit about how some of the generic buildings looked and how bad the windows and balcony textures look, and you have other people who can make educated complaints and critiques while illustrating examples and don't devolve into a barely more insightful form of RETVRN memes. Frankly, I think part of this is just how bad gamer culture is at criticism, i.e. understanding of the medium on an artistic and frankly business standpoint, as a whole as well as how gaming journalism is still not good either and really lacking the professionalism or insight of other media journalism despite existing for 30+ years already.
You could make a point about texture quality, but come on. Smooth humans? That's a smooth-brained criticism. Imagine anime-esque humans with PS5 skin textures. Wtf do they want, Jump Force?
Yeah, this is rage-baiting at its finest.
Gaming journalism is somehow even worse than sports journalism and has been for a long time. The saying that "You can't spell ignorance without IGN" has been around for at least 15 years now, maybe even two decades. And we all know there are many reasons for that.
It's also nigh-impossible to be taken seriously, as most of it is seen as bought-out and extremely shallow.
Same deal as reviews while I'm at it.
Eh, I consider game reviews as another part of game journalism, and as such subject to the exact same problem. Granted, influencer reviewers/critics tend to be just as bad, and user reviews... lol, just lol, so not like we have many other options.Gaming journalism is somehow even worse than sports journalism and has been for a long time. The saying that "You can't spell ignorance without IGN" has been around for at least 15 years now, maybe even two decades. And we all know there are many reasons for that.
It's also nigh-impossible to be taken seriously, as most of it is seen as bought-out and extremely shallow.
Same deal as reviews while I'm at it.
It'd be nice if we had some actual journalism regarding things like this, digging into details from the Teraleak about game development cycles, sources either who worked on Pokémon games before or generally knowledgeable people in the industry for more detailed breakdowns on how these things work and their own takes, or things that generally require more journalistic skill than knowing what keywords work well on whatever hellsite people want it trending on. A shame that there's, from what I know, only one good gaming journalist out there, but then again he's also working for Bloomberg, something read by people involved in business who have a very keen interest in getting things right, and even he has some issues now and then with social media culture wars.