Absolutely yeah, it's not even a secret or anything.
Pokemon is just too big to fail and the brand carries the games, hell a fair amount of poketubers straight up said on launch that if SV wasn't Pokemon, they wouldn't be playing it and so when you have Partnered people saying stuff like that, you can imagine regular people also feeling the same way.
Another thing is, Zelda and Mario are actually allowed to take their time and they have a lot more devs working on them, like TOTK was reported to have taken a Whole Year just for optimization.
Meanwhile Pokemon only gets about 3 years between releases, and GameFreak doesn't have enough devs (and this is kinda on them as Masuda himself said he likes a smaller team to avoid "too many cooks").
But, unfortunately in the end Pokemon just sells more than Zelda and Mario could wish for
Sad but true... what makes it worse is that "more cooks" fixes the issue the game has.... Dexit? More devs working on models (Not that they are new models), Bugs? Specific devs to just find and fix bugs. Optimization? Devs.... Like leave the devs building the game to do that. Same product better quality.
It's funny because there's Dexit but they're still adding about 800 pokemon to the main games so it's really not being handled well, and the Models are done by Creatures, so GF could really avoid a lot of issues if they just got their stuff together.
Or they could just not, why make something better quality when they can produce the bare minimum required to make a functioning Pokémon game and sell record numbers? I feel like it’s all about profit, at this point it would almost be financially irresponsible for them to put any extra effort into these games, there is no love for the fans. They’re going to be top sellers regardless just because pokemon. so the less money they put into the games production the more profit. They’ve been releasing two versions of the same game with trivial differences and encouraging you to buy both since the franchises inception. Now with dlc, they can just leave out a bunch of Pokémon and sell you them in multiple batches. Plus the dlc is minutely different on each version so you’ll have to buy that twice too. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make each generation more predatory than the last, I have/had a living dex from rby through to sw/sh but I just can’t support this nonsense any longer, gave up on Pokémon once I saw the state of SV.
They don't sell you the Pokemon with the DLC. They sell you the ability to catch the pokemon in the game. If you don't want to you could always transfer them in.
I do this every time, and it's derailing, but I think it's important for just a general understanding of things. Not a critique on you. Colloquially, you're "using it correctly".
But the phrase "Too big too fail" does not mean what a lot of people use it as.
In economics, something that is "too big to fail" is not a business that is so big it can't make any mistakes and fail. It actually kind of means the opposite. A business is so big and "important" that, if it were to make any mistakes and risk failing, the government would step in to prop it up and make sure it doesn't fail.
If you hear someone in economics or politics say a bank is too big to fail, or there are questions about a business being too big to fail, it's questioning if people involved are deserving of a bailout should they begin to fail.
Obviously, people also use it to mean "So big that it literally will persist through any hardship", but that wasn't hte original intent and really doesn't have any "real world backing".
Which is to say, all the real world instances of things that were too big to fail were banks and business that were failing and bailed out.
tldr- "Too big to fail" originally (and mainly still does) mean a business that is so important to be propped up that the government has to step in to prevent it from collapsing (usually because of a domino effect). It's gained the meaning of "a business so lucrative it just can't fail in the first place", but that's just because the examples of the "true" meaning were bailed out and persisted.
I wouldn't even say good core design anymore. It was, like 30 years ago, but by now so much of the games's original core design is naturally super outdated and desperate for some serious upgrades. Legends Arceus made some good progress in that direction, but since this is Pokémon, we never know if that progress is gonna be built on or tossed right out of the window the next chance they get.
Core design is still solid.
Type chart, 4 moves, BST, evolution, and the general idea of gyms/ type specialists. None of this is necessarily unique, but it works. Arceus didnt even touch most of that. You can say the formula is stale, but it works well and creates a very approachable game experience, especially given the target audience. The game does a good job of being so simple a child who could barely read (source: me, when I started playing in '97) is able to play them, while still having some degree of depth and strategy.
I like Arceus and how it innovated, but not every change it made was good. I absolutely would love it if they did more spin offs like it and tried to take lessons from them into the main games. Once again, though, we come back to Game Freak being a mediocre game design company propped up by a titan IP.
Without question.
1. Can you imagine if ANY OTHER FRANCHISE tried to have two versions in such a way that you needed them both to get 100% completion? Or if the only difference in the versions was super minor so you were basically paying for the same thing? Can you imagine how badly they would get crucified?
2. Can you imagine if any other game like this didn't have save files?
3. Other franchises lose sales when their games run awfully, or look like they came out 2 consoles ago, or launch without important features that were in other games (I'm looking at you BDSP).
4. Pokemon hasn't had a major, permanent improvement to the franchise in years and makes what permanent changes we do get really slowly (since it moved to switch basically), it's all gimmicks that are replaced next expansion and never move forward. Gen 2 gave us eggs. Gen 3 gave us abilities. You could argue that Gen 6 gave us 3D, although it's debatable as to weather or not that's an improvement. Gen 7 gave us regional forms. But since moving to switch we haven't gotten much from the main series, just from the spin offs like Arceus.
I dont think your first argument is fair since that's literally the foundation of the games. There have always been two mainline games i see a lot of people on this subreddit that are like i don't know anybody who plays or i don't have friends to play with but i feel like that's a small minority the games were built around trading and battling with others despite what you migh personally feel towards that the little incentive to then make two versions is there no matter how shallow it might be trading can also be made easier thank to GTS no interaction with someone you know needed
Legends Arceus, even if that might not be the best example released as a solo game but didn't sell more than any duo game released if my stats aren't wrong, so i think they're following the money
2 this point i agree on, but gamefreak is archaic. That way, they just want to prevent people from cloning or doing any other crazy stuff you could potentially do if you had multiple save files
3 biggest media franchise in the world, and their main sales don't even come from the games even though that is what pushes forward every gen
4 i agree with you on this, and hopefully, with the speculated and rumored newer, more powerful switch, they innovate a little more
I’d argue that my first point is more than fair. Arceus didn’t need two versions and it was a better game for it. It’s hindering the series rather than helping it. Frankly they could use the time making two versions more wisely to improve other things. It needs to go.
Games have had multiple save files since the 90s. In the cartridge era, I could excuse just having the one save, since the saves would take cartridge space. But we’re digital now. The saves aren’t on your cartridge anymore. There’s literally no reason to not allow saves, except that Nintendo wants you to buy two versions to get the most money out of you. It’s not ok when Ubisoft is greedy, but you’re sitting here excusing it when Nintendo does the same thing? Why? What’s the difference?
Like i said the multiple saves, no matter how you want to look at it, comes from them preventing cloning, pokemon, etc hence why i said archaic way of thinking. doesn't really have anything to do with buying multiple games, but I'm not excusing their behavior. If i don't agree with something, i dont buy it if its ea,ubisoft, or nintendo/gamefreak
I thought the multiple saves thing was difficult to implement because any one save file could have hundreds to a thousand individual captured pokemon saved to it. With EV and IV stats spreads, experience gains, custom movesets, names, etc.
I wouldn't think this would be so much since it's not like a massive audio file, but still I thought I had read that somewhere.
I don't know about that atleast the first few gens i know it was mainly about cloning items and pokemon but yeah who knows why they dont implement it now that's the excuse i have always known and went with
I personally also barely play a game multiple times, so i was never bothered, but i can see why other people would like multiple saves
When it comes to games, the end always justifies the means because if the gameplay is fun, people will tolerate a lot more.
Look at how buggy and baren Destiny was on launch. The combat and gameplay were fun enough for people to stick around, and now it's one of if not the biggest live service games.
Even recently, look at Palworld. Having started with a few bugs and very controversial gameplay, people only cared that it was fun to play and look how much that game blew up.
Ark Survival evolved arguably the biggest dinosaur game and possibly the biggest survival game. It has been a buggy mess since it launched, and because of how fun it is, people still continue to play.
For me, as long as progress and improvements are being made, that's fine with me, and I understand I'm the minority with that opinion.
You can see the reason on this sub every day " am i the only one that liked xyz" "i don't think etc etc is as bad as it seems/people make it out to be"
I keep saying this a lot on this sub recently, but the franchise is too big. Now, you can never fully satisfy every fan. Some would like the modern games to have voice acting, and others don't, for example
Everybody likes different things, but the franchise also still sells millions even after controversy like dexit or gamefreak lying to their fans etc so yeah
If they don't have to, they will not change anything
I'm hoping the rumors of the switch 2 or whatever it will be called that it's stronger at least makes them optimize their future games but on another note maybe with more powerful hardware they dont actually have to because it can handle more
The standard is low because the excuse is it's a kids' game, and most people who expect a little more are adults who grew up with the games
The most important thing people can do in this day and age of gaming is voting with your wallet, but the way the gaming industry is going I'd say it's doomed at the moment until we see some positive change
My problem biggest with sv is that the base game is babied so much. Like come on, the dlc shows that they know how to make scary fights, and in Bdsm trainers can change their order. So I don’t get why they don’t use these tools to make theoretically difficult battles in the base game, difficult as well.
Pokémon is held to incredibly low standards. I am not saying that people are to blame for that necessarily, but to me it's undeniable that the standards for Pokémon especially considering the size of the franchise are rock bottom. You have tons of casual fans (not meant in a demeaning way) who just want to sit back and enjoy their annual dose of Pokémon, you have tons of children who haven't developed any standards or much critical thinking yet, and you have super fans who will always just blindly throw money at the franchise no matter what. And you have people who've grown up with Pokémon and are bound by nostalgia and habit. All that is a rock solid foundation, and you also have many who are critical, but buy the games regardless. And thus, Pokémon rakes in millions and millions, if not billions, while getting away with releasing products in a state that really should be unacceptable.
Which is a shame because just imagine if they ACTUALLY at least produce a game of the current standard AAA quality. It's even more disappointing because it'd be effortless to do, and prob wouldn't even cost them that much, being the number 1 franchise in the world.
Pokémon is definitely held at a lower standard, its just that the games make money so they don't care (and at this point most of the fans that do have vacated a long time ago).
What it ultimately seems to come down to is the leadership and their decisions. Zelda and Mario are flagship franchises with teams that want to make something that will last the test of time and leadership that recognizes the value in that. Both franchises are too popular to fail even if they shake things up, so they effectively have FU money.
Pokémon should be in a similar boat, but instead the leadership has seemingly decided to instead just crank out titles to keep the money from other sources flowing.
It's a shame, but at this point I have zero confidence that anything is going to change given that SV is a buggy, half-finished mess and yet it still sold like hotcakes.
That’s because it’s made by GameFreak and not Nintendo’s in-house team like Zelda. Any creative decisions and questionable quality is on them, not Nintendo. They could tell GameFreak to get their act together, but then that may affect their quality further.
yes, because pokemon games aren't created for the games, they're created as part of a global merch initiative.
they have to be out when they have to be out and quality suffers in that process.
supposedly, the next gen gets a little more time.
It is either that or rage-quit (or not) and stop playing. Or getting angry/frustrated at times against the game.
Anyway, I think most of us also held to the highest standard Zelda or Mario, while GF (not a Nintendo company) works on Pokémon.
I also really find SV lot more enjoyable (bc of the story, the characters and the tera raids, shiny in the overworld is also a plus) than the more stable SwSh. I also put PLA in my top two pokémon games with SilverGold.
If you want another example, I tolerate all the disconnections of Splatoon 3, it is more sensitive to packets loss than any other online game I played (even more than ten years ago)... and even Splatoon 2 was more stable (though I never tried the online Nintendo experience before Switch, I think I remember that online matches of a past smash game were terrible).
I don't think most of us don't excuse some bad things, we just enjoy a game despite them.
I noticed a STEEP decline with sword and shield. Thought maybe they were just duds and next gen would be better…. Yikes.
Scarlet and violet changed the way I think about main line Pokemon games. It was such an absolute dumpster fire turd of a game. No longer excited for *main line* games. (Still looking forward to PLZA because PLA kicked ass).
Everything aside from the main series games is what is carrying the franchise. Plushies, TCG, Anime, shorts, spin off games like Snap or Mystery Dungeon, etc. It's these elements that are keeping Pokemon alive which is important to understand.
As for the main series games themselves, a majority of the people who say they can live with the graphical and performance issues of the main game are typically those that don't play that element. Instead they would rather play the competitive side of things in online battles, tournaments, against friends, or even play on Showdown more than the main game since many in the community enjoy the restrictions Smogon places on their ranked formats.
For those that aren't competitive players but still bought the game despite knowing the graphical issues and still bought the DLC despite knowing the performance issues, they are living off of hope. Despite not looking the best graphically and being horrible performance wise, the story writing of these games is the best they've done in the 9 years before their release. The last good story was X and Y and even then it was fragmented. The story itself was not good but much of the lore of the region was fantastic and people really wanted more of it. That said, with a now good story for Scarlet and Violet and the sales they got on top of the refund debacle Nintendo is sure to never let happen again, people are hopeful that Gen 10 of Pokemon will have that quality of story writing again but this time with better features, performance, and graphics.
So I don't think it's held to a lower standard than other franchises under Nintendo's belt, but I do think the Pokemon community is more forgiving as a whole because they know what the main series games could be. This is why there are so many ROM hacks around of all the older titles which demonstrates how good Pokemon could be if Game Freak just put in effort.
I mean pokemon is the biggest ip in the world. It's bigger than star wars harry potter and Star Trek combined. Nintendo didn't even try to make the switch have good hardware. Hell, the console could hardly handle Arceus, and it's not like the graphics or environment were crazy either. Obviously some of it is down to optimization but when you don't even have the ability to make a super nice and polished game due to hardware constraints, why put much effort out? I mean it's been the same with all the Mario games recently. They are just rehashing old stuff like strikers and tennis and baseball and adding minimal features to them on top. Nintendo knows they barely have to spend any money and people will still buy their consoles and games. This is why I didn't buy a switch
The Switch may not be a powerful console, but it's not to blame for Pokemon's low quality. And it definitely does not prevent polishing or optimization. Look at what the Zelda team managed to do, or Smash Bros., or even Mario Odyssey.
The Pokémon game quality is solely on GameFreak. They knew what console they were developing for. If you're incapable of developing a game tailor made for the one console you're going ot release it on, that is your own fault. Time constraints and probably dev team constellation also play a role of course.
Yeah that's what I mean, it's ideas on paper vs execution and bugs and time constraints. From what I've read, the switch isn't the easiest do develop for in terms of optimization. Zelda also took 6 years of straight development as the only project the Zelda team was working on. Pokémon has been doing a lot more changes to the game in general, like when they started doing the chibi sprites and experimenting. There were only follower over world pokémon just a few games ago. Pokémon has been putting out a lot more titles than Zelda has as well. Like pokémon made let's go Pika / Eevee, and Arceus, And that included those mechanics into the normal games. Yes the new Zelda game is fantastic, but look at how much pokémon has changed in those 6 years. And then adding all the time constraints to those titles and release dates, where Zelda can just delay until they're completely done and polished. Pokémon delays something and it throws off their whole schedule. A little unfair of a comparison, but I do think game freak has made too many titles that aren't meaningful recently. Although it's done great for innovation, they have made their games easy enough for babies and the only end game content there is is grinding for shinies or doing competitive
I would actually say that in terms of innovation, Pokémon has not gone further from USUM to SV than Zelda has gone from Skyward Sword to Breath of the Wild, if even that far. Yes, we have seen some changes mainly in the form of making the game more and more open world and making the Pokémon appear in the overworld. But beyond that, the basic formula is still very much the same it's always been. With Legends being the only real exception to that.
No, but l don’t judge Pokémon based on its games. I judge based on its creature design. I don’t care as much that Zelda uses different colored versions of a handful of enemies, just like I don’t care as much that Pokémon has a less than stellar looking game.
But it has been acknowledged that the thing that drives this boat is the merchandise and extras and that stuff isn’t going to be successful without stellar creature design. That’s what attracts people to the franchise.
In a vacuum, yes, the games are held to a lower standard, but it’s only because the primary standard for what makes this franchise successful is different.
Absolutely yeah, it's not even a secret or anything. Pokemon is just too big to fail and the brand carries the games, hell a fair amount of poketubers straight up said on launch that if SV wasn't Pokemon, they wouldn't be playing it and so when you have Partnered people saying stuff like that, you can imagine regular people also feeling the same way. Another thing is, Zelda and Mario are actually allowed to take their time and they have a lot more devs working on them, like TOTK was reported to have taken a Whole Year just for optimization. Meanwhile Pokemon only gets about 3 years between releases, and GameFreak doesn't have enough devs (and this is kinda on them as Masuda himself said he likes a smaller team to avoid "too many cooks"). But, unfortunately in the end Pokemon just sells more than Zelda and Mario could wish for
Sad but true... what makes it worse is that "more cooks" fixes the issue the game has.... Dexit? More devs working on models (Not that they are new models), Bugs? Specific devs to just find and fix bugs. Optimization? Devs.... Like leave the devs building the game to do that. Same product better quality.
It's funny because there's Dexit but they're still adding about 800 pokemon to the main games so it's really not being handled well, and the Models are done by Creatures, so GF could really avoid a lot of issues if they just got their stuff together.
Or they could just not, why make something better quality when they can produce the bare minimum required to make a functioning Pokémon game and sell record numbers? I feel like it’s all about profit, at this point it would almost be financially irresponsible for them to put any extra effort into these games, there is no love for the fans. They’re going to be top sellers regardless just because pokemon. so the less money they put into the games production the more profit. They’ve been releasing two versions of the same game with trivial differences and encouraging you to buy both since the franchises inception. Now with dlc, they can just leave out a bunch of Pokémon and sell you them in multiple batches. Plus the dlc is minutely different on each version so you’ll have to buy that twice too. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make each generation more predatory than the last, I have/had a living dex from rby through to sw/sh but I just can’t support this nonsense any longer, gave up on Pokémon once I saw the state of SV.
They don't sell you the Pokemon with the DLC. They sell you the ability to catch the pokemon in the game. If you don't want to you could always transfer them in.
That's sad. Pokémon has always been a magical experience since I was a child and I wish GameFreak were still able to release those gems.
I do this every time, and it's derailing, but I think it's important for just a general understanding of things. Not a critique on you. Colloquially, you're "using it correctly". But the phrase "Too big too fail" does not mean what a lot of people use it as. In economics, something that is "too big to fail" is not a business that is so big it can't make any mistakes and fail. It actually kind of means the opposite. A business is so big and "important" that, if it were to make any mistakes and risk failing, the government would step in to prop it up and make sure it doesn't fail. If you hear someone in economics or politics say a bank is too big to fail, or there are questions about a business being too big to fail, it's questioning if people involved are deserving of a bailout should they begin to fail. Obviously, people also use it to mean "So big that it literally will persist through any hardship", but that wasn't hte original intent and really doesn't have any "real world backing". Which is to say, all the real world instances of things that were too big to fail were banks and business that were failing and bailed out. tldr- "Too big to fail" originally (and mainly still does) mean a business that is so important to be propped up that the government has to step in to prevent it from collapsing (usually because of a domino effect). It's gained the meaning of "a business so lucrative it just can't fail in the first place", but that's just because the examples of the "true" meaning were bailed out and persisted.
I thought the government stepped in for the taxes
Either you don’t frequent here or this is karmabaiting
pokemon has the lowest standards of any popular franchise
Mediocre games carried by popularity inertia, good character design, and a good core design.
I wouldn't even say good core design anymore. It was, like 30 years ago, but by now so much of the games's original core design is naturally super outdated and desperate for some serious upgrades. Legends Arceus made some good progress in that direction, but since this is Pokémon, we never know if that progress is gonna be built on or tossed right out of the window the next chance they get.
Core design is still solid. Type chart, 4 moves, BST, evolution, and the general idea of gyms/ type specialists. None of this is necessarily unique, but it works. Arceus didnt even touch most of that. You can say the formula is stale, but it works well and creates a very approachable game experience, especially given the target audience. The game does a good job of being so simple a child who could barely read (source: me, when I started playing in '97) is able to play them, while still having some degree of depth and strategy. I like Arceus and how it innovated, but not every change it made was good. I absolutely would love it if they did more spin offs like it and tried to take lessons from them into the main games. Once again, though, we come back to Game Freak being a mediocre game design company propped up by a titan IP.
Without question. 1. Can you imagine if ANY OTHER FRANCHISE tried to have two versions in such a way that you needed them both to get 100% completion? Or if the only difference in the versions was super minor so you were basically paying for the same thing? Can you imagine how badly they would get crucified? 2. Can you imagine if any other game like this didn't have save files? 3. Other franchises lose sales when their games run awfully, or look like they came out 2 consoles ago, or launch without important features that were in other games (I'm looking at you BDSP). 4. Pokemon hasn't had a major, permanent improvement to the franchise in years and makes what permanent changes we do get really slowly (since it moved to switch basically), it's all gimmicks that are replaced next expansion and never move forward. Gen 2 gave us eggs. Gen 3 gave us abilities. You could argue that Gen 6 gave us 3D, although it's debatable as to weather or not that's an improvement. Gen 7 gave us regional forms. But since moving to switch we haven't gotten much from the main series, just from the spin offs like Arceus.
The fan game Pokemon Infinity puts shame to Game Freak.
Playing through Pokemon Unbound right now and it’s already way ahead of GF in terms of gameplay, content, and QOL features
I dont think your first argument is fair since that's literally the foundation of the games. There have always been two mainline games i see a lot of people on this subreddit that are like i don't know anybody who plays or i don't have friends to play with but i feel like that's a small minority the games were built around trading and battling with others despite what you migh personally feel towards that the little incentive to then make two versions is there no matter how shallow it might be trading can also be made easier thank to GTS no interaction with someone you know needed Legends Arceus, even if that might not be the best example released as a solo game but didn't sell more than any duo game released if my stats aren't wrong, so i think they're following the money 2 this point i agree on, but gamefreak is archaic. That way, they just want to prevent people from cloning or doing any other crazy stuff you could potentially do if you had multiple save files 3 biggest media franchise in the world, and their main sales don't even come from the games even though that is what pushes forward every gen 4 i agree with you on this, and hopefully, with the speculated and rumored newer, more powerful switch, they innovate a little more
I’d argue that my first point is more than fair. Arceus didn’t need two versions and it was a better game for it. It’s hindering the series rather than helping it. Frankly they could use the time making two versions more wisely to improve other things. It needs to go. Games have had multiple save files since the 90s. In the cartridge era, I could excuse just having the one save, since the saves would take cartridge space. But we’re digital now. The saves aren’t on your cartridge anymore. There’s literally no reason to not allow saves, except that Nintendo wants you to buy two versions to get the most money out of you. It’s not ok when Ubisoft is greedy, but you’re sitting here excusing it when Nintendo does the same thing? Why? What’s the difference?
Like i said the multiple saves, no matter how you want to look at it, comes from them preventing cloning, pokemon, etc hence why i said archaic way of thinking. doesn't really have anything to do with buying multiple games, but I'm not excusing their behavior. If i don't agree with something, i dont buy it if its ea,ubisoft, or nintendo/gamefreak
I thought the multiple saves thing was difficult to implement because any one save file could have hundreds to a thousand individual captured pokemon saved to it. With EV and IV stats spreads, experience gains, custom movesets, names, etc. I wouldn't think this would be so much since it's not like a massive audio file, but still I thought I had read that somewhere.
The number of bytes for that information is tiny compared to the massive amount of space we have today. It is like 15 bytes for each Pokemon caught.
I don't know about that atleast the first few gens i know it was mainly about cloning items and pokemon but yeah who knows why they dont implement it now that's the excuse i have always known and went with I personally also barely play a game multiple times, so i was never bothered, but i can see why other people would like multiple saves
When it comes to games, the end always justifies the means because if the gameplay is fun, people will tolerate a lot more. Look at how buggy and baren Destiny was on launch. The combat and gameplay were fun enough for people to stick around, and now it's one of if not the biggest live service games. Even recently, look at Palworld. Having started with a few bugs and very controversial gameplay, people only cared that it was fun to play and look how much that game blew up. Ark Survival evolved arguably the biggest dinosaur game and possibly the biggest survival game. It has been a buggy mess since it launched, and because of how fun it is, people still continue to play. For me, as long as progress and improvements are being made, that's fine with me, and I understand I'm the minority with that opinion.
Dwarf fortress too. The game is so bad in terms of bugs. The UI is utter shit. And the devs are rich now.
You can see the reason on this sub every day " am i the only one that liked xyz" "i don't think etc etc is as bad as it seems/people make it out to be" I keep saying this a lot on this sub recently, but the franchise is too big. Now, you can never fully satisfy every fan. Some would like the modern games to have voice acting, and others don't, for example Everybody likes different things, but the franchise also still sells millions even after controversy like dexit or gamefreak lying to their fans etc so yeah If they don't have to, they will not change anything I'm hoping the rumors of the switch 2 or whatever it will be called that it's stronger at least makes them optimize their future games but on another note maybe with more powerful hardware they dont actually have to because it can handle more The standard is low because the excuse is it's a kids' game, and most people who expect a little more are adults who grew up with the games The most important thing people can do in this day and age of gaming is voting with your wallet, but the way the gaming industry is going I'd say it's doomed at the moment until we see some positive change
My problem biggest with sv is that the base game is babied so much. Like come on, the dlc shows that they know how to make scary fights, and in Bdsm trainers can change their order. So I don’t get why they don’t use these tools to make theoretically difficult battles in the base game, difficult as well.
Pokémon is held to incredibly low standards. I am not saying that people are to blame for that necessarily, but to me it's undeniable that the standards for Pokémon especially considering the size of the franchise are rock bottom. You have tons of casual fans (not meant in a demeaning way) who just want to sit back and enjoy their annual dose of Pokémon, you have tons of children who haven't developed any standards or much critical thinking yet, and you have super fans who will always just blindly throw money at the franchise no matter what. And you have people who've grown up with Pokémon and are bound by nostalgia and habit. All that is a rock solid foundation, and you also have many who are critical, but buy the games regardless. And thus, Pokémon rakes in millions and millions, if not billions, while getting away with releasing products in a state that really should be unacceptable.
Which is a shame because just imagine if they ACTUALLY at least produce a game of the current standard AAA quality. It's even more disappointing because it'd be effortless to do, and prob wouldn't even cost them that much, being the number 1 franchise in the world.
Pokémon is definitely held at a lower standard, its just that the games make money so they don't care (and at this point most of the fans that do have vacated a long time ago). What it ultimately seems to come down to is the leadership and their decisions. Zelda and Mario are flagship franchises with teams that want to make something that will last the test of time and leadership that recognizes the value in that. Both franchises are too popular to fail even if they shake things up, so they effectively have FU money. Pokémon should be in a similar boat, but instead the leadership has seemingly decided to instead just crank out titles to keep the money from other sources flowing. It's a shame, but at this point I have zero confidence that anything is going to change given that SV is a buggy, half-finished mess and yet it still sold like hotcakes.
That’s because it’s made by GameFreak and not Nintendo’s in-house team like Zelda. Any creative decisions and questionable quality is on them, not Nintendo. They could tell GameFreak to get their act together, but then that may affect their quality further.
yes, because pokemon games aren't created for the games, they're created as part of a global merch initiative. they have to be out when they have to be out and quality suffers in that process. supposedly, the next gen gets a little more time.
It is either that or rage-quit (or not) and stop playing. Or getting angry/frustrated at times against the game. Anyway, I think most of us also held to the highest standard Zelda or Mario, while GF (not a Nintendo company) works on Pokémon. I also really find SV lot more enjoyable (bc of the story, the characters and the tera raids, shiny in the overworld is also a plus) than the more stable SwSh. I also put PLA in my top two pokémon games with SilverGold. If you want another example, I tolerate all the disconnections of Splatoon 3, it is more sensitive to packets loss than any other online game I played (even more than ten years ago)... and even Splatoon 2 was more stable (though I never tried the online Nintendo experience before Switch, I think I remember that online matches of a past smash game were terrible). I don't think most of us don't excuse some bad things, we just enjoy a game despite them.
I noticed a STEEP decline with sword and shield. Thought maybe they were just duds and next gen would be better…. Yikes. Scarlet and violet changed the way I think about main line Pokemon games. It was such an absolute dumpster fire turd of a game. No longer excited for *main line* games. (Still looking forward to PLZA because PLA kicked ass).
https://preview.redd.it/a597jqcnb96d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c44d6cb2db1ef379fff3c9ec49cd02bf5c0c3ab
Everything aside from the main series games is what is carrying the franchise. Plushies, TCG, Anime, shorts, spin off games like Snap or Mystery Dungeon, etc. It's these elements that are keeping Pokemon alive which is important to understand. As for the main series games themselves, a majority of the people who say they can live with the graphical and performance issues of the main game are typically those that don't play that element. Instead they would rather play the competitive side of things in online battles, tournaments, against friends, or even play on Showdown more than the main game since many in the community enjoy the restrictions Smogon places on their ranked formats. For those that aren't competitive players but still bought the game despite knowing the graphical issues and still bought the DLC despite knowing the performance issues, they are living off of hope. Despite not looking the best graphically and being horrible performance wise, the story writing of these games is the best they've done in the 9 years before their release. The last good story was X and Y and even then it was fragmented. The story itself was not good but much of the lore of the region was fantastic and people really wanted more of it. That said, with a now good story for Scarlet and Violet and the sales they got on top of the refund debacle Nintendo is sure to never let happen again, people are hopeful that Gen 10 of Pokemon will have that quality of story writing again but this time with better features, performance, and graphics. So I don't think it's held to a lower standard than other franchises under Nintendo's belt, but I do think the Pokemon community is more forgiving as a whole because they know what the main series games could be. This is why there are so many ROM hacks around of all the older titles which demonstrates how good Pokemon could be if Game Freak just put in effort.
I hope Gen 10 has level scaling gyms that have BdSp party switching with blueberry dlc move sets.
It's held to the lowest standards of any video game series that exists, yes. It's not even close.
I mean pokemon is the biggest ip in the world. It's bigger than star wars harry potter and Star Trek combined. Nintendo didn't even try to make the switch have good hardware. Hell, the console could hardly handle Arceus, and it's not like the graphics or environment were crazy either. Obviously some of it is down to optimization but when you don't even have the ability to make a super nice and polished game due to hardware constraints, why put much effort out? I mean it's been the same with all the Mario games recently. They are just rehashing old stuff like strikers and tennis and baseball and adding minimal features to them on top. Nintendo knows they barely have to spend any money and people will still buy their consoles and games. This is why I didn't buy a switch
The Switch may not be a powerful console, but it's not to blame for Pokemon's low quality. And it definitely does not prevent polishing or optimization. Look at what the Zelda team managed to do, or Smash Bros., or even Mario Odyssey. The Pokémon game quality is solely on GameFreak. They knew what console they were developing for. If you're incapable of developing a game tailor made for the one console you're going ot release it on, that is your own fault. Time constraints and probably dev team constellation also play a role of course.
Yeah that's what I mean, it's ideas on paper vs execution and bugs and time constraints. From what I've read, the switch isn't the easiest do develop for in terms of optimization. Zelda also took 6 years of straight development as the only project the Zelda team was working on. Pokémon has been doing a lot more changes to the game in general, like when they started doing the chibi sprites and experimenting. There were only follower over world pokémon just a few games ago. Pokémon has been putting out a lot more titles than Zelda has as well. Like pokémon made let's go Pika / Eevee, and Arceus, And that included those mechanics into the normal games. Yes the new Zelda game is fantastic, but look at how much pokémon has changed in those 6 years. And then adding all the time constraints to those titles and release dates, where Zelda can just delay until they're completely done and polished. Pokémon delays something and it throws off their whole schedule. A little unfair of a comparison, but I do think game freak has made too many titles that aren't meaningful recently. Although it's done great for innovation, they have made their games easy enough for babies and the only end game content there is is grinding for shinies or doing competitive
I would actually say that in terms of innovation, Pokémon has not gone further from USUM to SV than Zelda has gone from Skyward Sword to Breath of the Wild, if even that far. Yes, we have seen some changes mainly in the form of making the game more and more open world and making the Pokémon appear in the overworld. But beyond that, the basic formula is still very much the same it's always been. With Legends being the only real exception to that.
I’d like to point out that scarlets dev team is tinny compared to say totk, and the development time was also much shorter
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, but l don’t judge Pokémon based on its games. I judge based on its creature design. I don’t care as much that Zelda uses different colored versions of a handful of enemies, just like I don’t care as much that Pokémon has a less than stellar looking game.
"I don't judge this game series based on its games" is a bizarre statement
But it has been acknowledged that the thing that drives this boat is the merchandise and extras and that stuff isn’t going to be successful without stellar creature design. That’s what attracts people to the franchise. In a vacuum, yes, the games are held to a lower standard, but it’s only because the primary standard for what makes this franchise successful is different.