ayeee I had this take too lets fucking go
though looking at my pfp... let's just say I don't wanna live in a world without Sylveon
-
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
though looking at my pfp... let's just say I don't wanna live in a world without Sylveon
So, not posting this to start a fight, but when the Pokemon Company themselves are tacitly admitting that yeah maybe our last few releases have been rush-jobs, perhaps we could stop defending the yearly release model and admit that recent games haven't been anywhere near as polished as older ones?
My actual unpopular opinion is this: if there were a 3-year break between this year's release and the next main series game, I think we'd all be much the better for it.
Does it have to be either/or? Call me a utopian but I think it should be possible to live in a timeline where we have good games and workers who aren't nose-to-grindstone.
I'd rather they weren't keeping up their release cadence.
well there are two ways
the current way where devs have 2-3 years to make an open world jrpg
the world where they get more ILCAS to fill year gaps
there is no universe where TPC solves capitalism
I'm not experienced but from my short time in the world of Computer Science, splitting up more projects and giving them more time to ensure quality would imo be better for the devs.Only issue would be a larger lack of direction.
i dont disagree with you necessarily but you can interpret this as better for the workers
I also want that, but I'm going off what's actually being talked right now: making the games better and keeping the same schedule. Brother if life could be a dream i'd have pokemon games release once per 6 years and everyone would work 4 hours a day with paid healthcare etc. I think gamefreak should unionize
I think this is the more optimistic result of this, which can be a net gain (or at least a sidegrade?). I'm just fearful of how easy crunch can be picked up as an industry standard for quality
tangent: maybe ILCA would do a better job with not-remakes? not to defend a universally panned pair of games i haven't even played yet, but maybe they'd do well with an original title with less at stake (but still core series please my extent of interest in spin-offs is pokémon go)
maybe it'd help if they didnt have 1 to 1.5 years of dev time
I'm still thinking ILCA was mostly constrained by having to do carbon copy of DP.
Now, I don't think ILCA are this marvelous developer company bare in mind, their latest release (One Piece Odyssey) was ok but far from an impressive game from what I heard, though once again, it suffered from problems of the *series* (which constantly has to re-tell stories to the newcomers due to being a insanely long series) and not of the game design itself (which iirc had a pretty intriguing combat system).
I do wonder what ILCA could be if given the tools / time to actually make a proper pokemon game and not just "copy this and upgrade it a bit".
Yeah part of me is inclined to believe much of BDSP turning out the way it did is also in part due to the strict creative control Game Freak tends to impose on Pokemon games not directly made by them.
Japan has a philosophy when it comes to art and creations of artists to not tamper with the work of other creators by their own hands, and it's very possible the folks at Game Freak don't really want anyone other than themselves to have a say in how mainline Pokemon games are developed. It's very likely that ILCA was expressly ordered to make sure everything they considered important aspects of DP was kept exactly as it was in the original Diamond and Pearl lest they be lawyered out of existence. That would almost certainly explain why things like the level curves, rosters, etc. were basically a copypaste from Diamond and Pearl, and whatnot.
After all, despite not being directly created by Game Freak, the thing is that Masuda was still involved in BDSP's development himself and oversaw its creation. This is in line with the prevailing philosophy in Japan's culture of artistic creations. Diamond and Pearl is very much the work of Junichi Masuda, and as such he effectively has "ownership" over it from a Japanese culture point of view, so naturally ILCA couldn't do much with what was essentially his work without him overseeing it to ensure it still remained in line with the creative visions he had for it when he created it. As such it wasn't really ILCA's fault inherently, but more to do with them being forced to stay in line with Masuda's visions for DP because they had little creative say in the matter otherwise considering the culture there. In the very few instances where they were able to add something or change something, they actually created something quite solid for the most part in such a case.
This isn't to blame anyone, it's just more a matter of a clear case of two parties being involved in the development of BDSP but their intentions with the product ultimately working antithetical to each other, not in tandem with each other, creating the weird slop of a game we know now.
If ILCA were to work on their own Pokemon game, they would probably be decent at it given how great the few original ideas they implemented were.
Japan has a philosophy when it comes to art and creations of artists to not tamper with the work of other creators by their own hands, and it's very possible the folks at Game Freak don't really want anyone other than themselves to have a say in how mainline Pokemon games are developed. It's very likely that ILCA was expressly ordered to make sure everything they considered important aspects of DP was kept exactly as it was in the original Diamond and Pearl lest they be lawyered out of existence. That would almost certainly explain why things like the level curves, rosters, etc. were basically a copypaste from Diamond and Pearl, and whatnot.
After all, despite not being directly created by Game Freak, the thing is that Masuda was still involved in BDSP's development himself and oversaw its creation. This is in line with the prevailing philosophy in Japan's culture of artistic creations. Diamond and Pearl is very much the work of Junichi Masuda, and as such he effectively has "ownership" over it from a Japanese culture point of view, so naturally ILCA couldn't do much with what was essentially his work without him overseeing it to ensure it still remained in line with the creative visions he had for it when he created it. As such it wasn't really ILCA's fault inherently, but more to do with them being forced to stay in line with Masuda's visions for DP because they had little creative say in the matter otherwise considering the culture there. In the very few instances where they were able to add something or change something, they actually created something quite solid for the most part in such a case.
This isn't to blame anyone, it's just more a matter of a clear case of two parties being involved in the development of BDSP but their intentions with the product ultimately working antithetical to each other, not in tandem with each other, creating the weird slop of a game we know now.
If ILCA were to work on their own Pokemon game, they would probably be decent at it given how great the few original ideas they implemented were.
Thanks for noting this clarification. I had been giving this player, who I had not heard of before he used Wolfe's NAIC team, the benefit of the doubt on things (e.g., that he opted to use Wolfe's team after getting beaten by it on ladder and not because he'd heard it was Wolfe's team), but the more I see this guy talk the less he comes off as deserving that benefit of the doubt.
Tbf, does anyone really defend the release schedule? (I mean, I know, it’s the Internet; cast a wide-enough net and I’m sure you’ll find someone, but you know what I mean.) Even people like me who are still generally positive about the games I think are willing to admit that the schedule they keep to for a game as big as Pokémon is pretty absurd on the face of it. I do see people assessing the reason for it being as tightly cyclical as it is and saying, “Well, considering the interconnected, multi-headed beast that the franchise is, it’s probably difficult to start pumping the brakes without causing problems somewhere along the line, and there probably isn’t a lot of motivation to finally pull the trigger that will materialize those problems and force them to need to be dealt with when the product is still doing well enough commercially to get by,” but I don’t typically think that’s a sign of endorsement; it’s just a diagnosis.
At any rate, it’s nice to see them acknowledge the issue. Maybe Nintendo starting breathing down their neck after they had to apologize for SV’s performance issues. (Though the continued absence of any kind of describable plan to improve those issues has me thinking it’s probably not time yet to start holding my breath.)
I mean there’s definitely gotta be some ways to get around the whole needing to press the brakes on other projects without losing too much profit. New toys and merchandise can still be made, we have over a thousand different Mons to work with here. The anime can always make filler of some kind like with the Orange islands and battle frontier, though even they’ve been having issues a little while back. The only thing that could have the biggest issues with slowing down is the TCG cause of the need for new gimmicks, but even then a lot of people have been struggling to keep up with the newest meta.
Last edited:
The release schedule of new game => DLC next year works well enough imo. The main f up was Legends Arceus => Scarlet and Violet since there was less than a year between releases.
In general I think SV genuinely hurt the Pokemon brand to the average joe. It was used as a punching bag in IGN'S review of TotK, I see lots of normie gaming channels regularly trash on the game (with 18 hour videos of everything wrong w/ SV that I'm guessing say a whole lot of nothing) and it seems like more hardcore players have issues in how stuff like competitions have been handled due to various bugs. This may be the last straw on the Camerupt's back to force delays on the next release.
In general I think SV genuinely hurt the Pokemon brand to the average joe. It was used as a punching bag in IGN'S review of TotK, I see lots of normie gaming channels regularly trash on the game (with 18 hour videos of everything wrong w/ SV that I'm guessing say a whole lot of nothing) and it seems like more hardcore players have issues in how stuff like competitions have been handled due to various bugs. This may be the last straw on the Camerupt's back to force delays on the next release.
Sure, you’re never going to please everyone. But I think a lot of the complaints they’d still get from people who want more frequent releases would be outmatched by the amount of people (and press) that would have better things to say about the games if the quality improved.
For example, I don’t typically see people saying that, say, Tears of the Kingdom took too long to come out. The extra year they spent on polish is generally praised as a good decision, and not many people are demanding that the next installment by ready for launch in 2025. People know it’s gonna take a while, but they also know, based on the strength of TOTK (and Breath of the Wild before it) as products, that the wait will likely be worth it. Granted, it may take some Pokémon fans a while to wean off of the near-annual releases and get accustomed to a new schedule, but I think it’d broadly work out in the end.
Ok, I don't know about the TCG but otherwise, where oh where does Pokemon hurt if new games are not released? or even have their sales increase?
definitely not in its merchandise; most of it is of first gen mons with a few select popular ones from other generations, latest generations have at most significant merchandise of the new starters first forms and that's only out of tradition, they sell ok but they're nothing special
I don't think anyone would notice if no new pokemon were released for the next three years, heck I don't think anyone would care if no new pokemon had merchandise of them released in the next five
the anime doesn't care about new games, ratings straight out increased when it stopped caring about introducing new pokemon and certainly never cared about following the games' story
same thing for the movies, even if they go back to releasing a new mythical each year, it's not as if the presence or absence of new pokemon will affect the popularity of the new mythical mon
so why does the Pokemon Company want to release a new game with new characters so often if:
a) new characters and pokemon have basically no impact on the rest of its products
b) constant new releases reduce the quality of the games and thus the customer confidence in the brand as a whole is reduced as well
like seriously, does the TCG need new mons that often? cause otherwise I don't see the incentive to keep the rushing of games and services for those games
definitely not in its merchandise; most of it is of first gen mons with a few select popular ones from other generations, latest generations have at most significant merchandise of the new starters first forms and that's only out of tradition, they sell ok but they're nothing special
I don't think anyone would notice if no new pokemon were released for the next three years, heck I don't think anyone would care if no new pokemon had merchandise of them released in the next five
the anime doesn't care about new games, ratings straight out increased when it stopped caring about introducing new pokemon and certainly never cared about following the games' story
same thing for the movies, even if they go back to releasing a new mythical each year, it's not as if the presence or absence of new pokemon will affect the popularity of the new mythical mon
so why does the Pokemon Company want to release a new game with new characters so often if:
a) new characters and pokemon have basically no impact on the rest of its products
b) constant new releases reduce the quality of the games and thus the customer confidence in the brand as a whole is reduced as well
like seriously, does the TCG need new mons that often? cause otherwise I don't see the incentive to keep the rushing of games and services for those games
Not sure if you're aware of this but releasing games makes money? "Why do they release games" because they can sell those games and make a profit? Your post implies they give the games away for free or something.
Also you bring up "customer confidence in the brand" but pokemon game sales have gone up recently. SV and SwSh massively outsold every gen except gen 1.
Oh, and as far as new characters for other media - you don't mention the big money makers for pokemon besides the main series, which are the mobile games. Go and Masters EX regularly bring in over 50 mil and 10mil a month respectively and their business model relies on a drip feed of new purchasable content
In terms of TPC looking into longer release cycles, we'll likely see additional studios get brought in to work on the games so that the yearly release can be kept up while still allowing for two or three year dev cycles. Maybe eventually reaching CoD style where multiple studios are permanently hired into the rotation. Nintendo has actually experimented with this recently - Fire Emblem 3 Houses and Fire Emblem Engage were actually developed at largely the same time by completely different teams at different companies. Engage had its release delayed due to the pandemic coming at the very end of it's development so it wasn't a perfect test but sales figures showed there was a market for games in the same franchise by different studios. And the fact that there's actually another unrevealed FE game that was either done or close to done at Engage's release means they might even have 3 studios working on the franchise.
Last edited:
On top of what spookysocialist said, there's one specific reason.
The games are the "introduction" to the new generation.
The "Pokemon" franchise since its debut on the great stages always goes "Game releases introducing new mons / region / characters" -> Anime gets announced with new region and/or new protagonists -> New Pokemon and NPCs start showing up in the various mobile Pokemon games
With the merchandise (and the anime, obviously) already being "ready" probably months before the new games releases and basically having the stores on "put this on sale as soon as the game releases" which is likely what demands the strict release schedule.
It's a well oiled machine, and it's been functional to most degrees since forever. Changing it would require a new way to "introduce new generations", and honestly I can't think of one that'd make as much of a splash as the games do. Expecially as they are the one part of the franchise which has users of all ages and social status, whereas most adults do not interact with the anime or movies, and most kids are not interacting with the gacha mobile games and rely on their parents to acquire the dolls and whatnot, with the TCG being its own thing and generally only interacted with by competitive TCG players in first place.
It's also not even just used by Pokemon, other franchises that have been long going and have significant merchandise and/or other media related to them also "announce" the new entry via games first.
TLDR: Changing the "Pokemon machine" to not have the games as "launch platform" for a generation would require a massive restructuring which understandably TPCI doesn't want to do.
Also, an addendum:
While obviously true, I'd also add that Covid conveniently buffed the sales of SwSh due to the coincidence of the quarantine having people looking for ways to kill time while stuck at home. Hard to say if the Switch and Pokemon sales would be the same if the quarantines never happened obviously, but regardless fact is way more people than it would have happened normally got exposed to the game and franchise, most notably increasing the potential casual playerbase.
And the casual playerbase is the one that likes the games. While there is a very vocal minority that yells at "pokemon games stopped being good in gen 2 reeeee" on the internet, sales don't lie, and SwSh / SV were well received by the intended base. The main reason for which TPCI / Nintendo seem to aknowledge there is some issues with the release schedule is that people started to criticize that Nintendo, the company that's always been so proud of releasing fully functional games, is allowing Pokemon games to release in the state they are.
People used to say "There's Bethesda bad, and Nintendo bad. Bethesda bad are full of bugs and unplayable, Nintendo bad are stuff like Mario Sports which may not be a impressive game but it's still clean and functional". SV released in a pretty sorry state, I am not pretending it was a good release. Most of the problems got fixed since then, but while you could give some mileage to GF for SwSh as it was their first full 3d title, SV having the performance problems it had felt very unjustificable, expecially after Legend Arceus was running perfectly, and the Switch is host to games with much more demanding graphics like Xenoblade and Bayonetta, and much bigger openworlds like the two Zeldas, and those have no issues.
Nintendo cannot afford to be compared to the other companies, because the "perfection" of their releases is what they pride themselves on, so they have reasoning to not want to repeat the SV situation,
Obviously, it'll have to be seen if the gen 10 games will actually be performing, or will be another shitshow of performance problems. For what matters this could just be some PR to shut up people without actually doing anything, since as I said above, you can't just "delay" the pokemon machine.
2015 RSE theory hit different
I think another layer to this is that Nintendo's hardware has historically been behind competing consoles of the same generation (whether it has an appreciable effect or is mostly market points varies by generation), so part of their brand became "look how impressive our games can be with less than others use!" That point is a legitimate appeal to some people, be it for allowing features and convenience (Switch's Portability frequently comes up) or simply a perception that their games have to be more solid to "make up" for the weaker tech on both presentation and performance.
Pokemon games looking so bad from a technical standpoint, with a game Nintendo's brand is heavily attached to vs a 3rd Party developer or port, is going to damage that image heavily. Despite TotK and Xenoblade demonstrating some impressive worlds and visuals for the technology, SV started a conversation (whether sincerely or as an excuse) that the console's aged hardware is holding back releases on it, which doesn't look good for people debating picking up a Switch or Publishers considering a Switch game/version. Compare this to so many other AAA Publishers and series, which generally have very buggy releases but continue to put up with it because they can stomach the bad press. In Nintendo's case (not Pokemon's maybe but one of its big 3 Entities), this press is not simply bad, but runs directly counter to an aspect their brand sells itself on, and the last thing they want is swiss-cheese coding in Pokemon to shake peoples' confidence in buying the next Mario or Zelda or Metroid Prime 4 in 2025.
Calyrex-Shadow, Koraidon, Miraidon, and (Gen 8) Zacian-Crowned are all more broken than Mega Rayquaza ever was.
Same goes with various Dynamax Pokemon, such as Xerneas, Yveltal, and Necrozma Dusk Mane.
Did Mega Rayquaza create Anything Goes? Yes. People fail to acknowledge that this was just the beginning and the game has gotten significantly more powercrept since....
Same goes with various Dynamax Pokemon, such as Xerneas, Yveltal, and Necrozma Dusk Mane.
Did Mega Rayquaza create Anything Goes? Yes. People fail to acknowledge that this was just the beginning and the game has gotten significantly more powercrept since....
There's also the issue of the fact that the Switch is now a completely different beast from every portable platform that came before it. Previously, Nintendo would have a separate home console and a portable console per console generation that co-existed with one another. The Game Boy, DS, and 3DS were all coexisting alongside the N64, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U as a sister platform that was a dedicated portable console. Handhelds were cheaper, were weaker in power, and games on dedicated portable consoles were smaller in scope and were accepted as such. Games on them were also cheaper accordingly in line with their scope.
However, the Switch is a completely different beast. It is pulling double duty as both a portable and a home console at once. Nintendo is no longer making two separate platforms for two separate markets, like the DS and Wii or the 3DS and Wii U. The Switch is the one and only, and the successor that has been in rumors is setting up to be similar as well. However, when it comes to scope, price, and whatnot, the home console aspect of the Switch reigns supreme. Games are priced strictly at console level, 60 USD and presumably 70 for the successor, and console scale games are the expectation.
Game Freak has always historically been a portable-scale game oriented developer, and Pokemon games were pretty much smaller in scope and being strictly on handhelds, were appreciated as small scope quirky handheld games. Unfortunately, being on the Switch means the handheld aspect asked for Pokemon to jump ship to the Switch itself, but the fact that it's also a home console means the expectations for a Switch game are much higher now than they were for the Game Boy, DS, and 3DS. The first seven generations of Pokemon were never compared to the likes of Mario, Zelda, or Metroid games on the corresponding home consoles. They were just what they were. Now, they're being compared to the likes of Mario Odyssey, BOTW+TOTK, Xenoblade, and whatnot, all these experiences that show off what the Switch can really do.
And the prevailing issue here is that it showed with SwSh, PLA, and SV altogether, but Pokemon games on the Switch have been incredibly below par with what is expected of even a Switch title, even if Switch games aren't the pinnacle of power compared to a PlayStation or Xbox game. Sword and Shield was ridiculed for its graphics, but it was also comically underwhelming in scope for a Switch game, especially one that is at standard console game price. Legends: Arceus has been panned for looking mediocre. Scarlet and Violet is more like a console scale Pokemon game compared to SwSh, and actually feels like one, but the technical shortcomings are well documented.
Which is to say, what worked historically for Pokemon since the very beginning is clearly not working here. What was considered acceptable for a Game Boy/DS/3DS game is considered unacceptable for a Switch game. Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet both have different types of problems that show that they clearly had too little time for what they *wanted* to be to come into full fruition. The scope the Switch commands is much higher now, and none of the Switch games have been up to par in that regard.
For Gen 10 specifically though, they can absolutely afford to wait another year at the very least to 2026. That's Pokemon's 30th anniversary, which makes it just the right time from a capitalism standpoint to release a new generation as part of an anniversary celebration. It gives the flagship Gen 10 game more time to be refined, which it needs if they don't want another SwSh or SV. It would also be a few years after the Switch successor presumably releases which gives Game Freak more time to get used to its assets so they can release a proper debut game for it. Horizons the anime also started so late it's gonna need that extra year, especially after Journeys suffered production issues towards the end of 2022.
The main issue would be padding out the filler games between, which we'll see how that goes. Mid-generation games by the B team are often fillers between new gen games.
However, the Switch is a completely different beast. It is pulling double duty as both a portable and a home console at once. Nintendo is no longer making two separate platforms for two separate markets, like the DS and Wii or the 3DS and Wii U. The Switch is the one and only, and the successor that has been in rumors is setting up to be similar as well. However, when it comes to scope, price, and whatnot, the home console aspect of the Switch reigns supreme. Games are priced strictly at console level, 60 USD and presumably 70 for the successor, and console scale games are the expectation.
Game Freak has always historically been a portable-scale game oriented developer, and Pokemon games were pretty much smaller in scope and being strictly on handhelds, were appreciated as small scope quirky handheld games. Unfortunately, being on the Switch means the handheld aspect asked for Pokemon to jump ship to the Switch itself, but the fact that it's also a home console means the expectations for a Switch game are much higher now than they were for the Game Boy, DS, and 3DS. The first seven generations of Pokemon were never compared to the likes of Mario, Zelda, or Metroid games on the corresponding home consoles. They were just what they were. Now, they're being compared to the likes of Mario Odyssey, BOTW+TOTK, Xenoblade, and whatnot, all these experiences that show off what the Switch can really do.
And the prevailing issue here is that it showed with SwSh, PLA, and SV altogether, but Pokemon games on the Switch have been incredibly below par with what is expected of even a Switch title, even if Switch games aren't the pinnacle of power compared to a PlayStation or Xbox game. Sword and Shield was ridiculed for its graphics, but it was also comically underwhelming in scope for a Switch game, especially one that is at standard console game price. Legends: Arceus has been panned for looking mediocre. Scarlet and Violet is more like a console scale Pokemon game compared to SwSh, and actually feels like one, but the technical shortcomings are well documented.
Which is to say, what worked historically for Pokemon since the very beginning is clearly not working here. What was considered acceptable for a Game Boy/DS/3DS game is considered unacceptable for a Switch game. Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet both have different types of problems that show that they clearly had too little time for what they *wanted* to be to come into full fruition. The scope the Switch commands is much higher now, and none of the Switch games have been up to par in that regard.
For Gen 10 specifically though, they can absolutely afford to wait another year at the very least to 2026. That's Pokemon's 30th anniversary, which makes it just the right time from a capitalism standpoint to release a new generation as part of an anniversary celebration. It gives the flagship Gen 10 game more time to be refined, which it needs if they don't want another SwSh or SV. It would also be a few years after the Switch successor presumably releases which gives Game Freak more time to get used to its assets so they can release a proper debut game for it. Horizons the anime also started so late it's gonna need that extra year, especially after Journeys suffered production issues towards the end of 2022.
The main issue would be padding out the filler games between, which we'll see how that goes. Mid-generation games by the B team are often fillers between new gen games.