If you don't like the product being put out, you can always... stop participating. That would be a much more valid use of your time than going to a forum for a game you don't like just to complain. It's perfectly okay to just move on to something else.
There's a bajillion pokemon clones out there. Some of them are even good.
idk that new game theyre making thats not Pokemon seems decent and if that game actually ends up being good??
then we would have to wonder why Pokemon game s dont live up to their potential and then we have to look at the other 2 owners of Pokemon
Do people still not get it? Not Nintendo, Gamefreak. They have always been lazy as shit developers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfSKAvbAUUk
Nintendo would put more pressure on Gamefreak to make better games if they were losing money. Yet Nintendo doesn't even feel the need to pressure them as long as the game sells. Gamefreak is allowed to put in the bare minimum work because people still play and enjoy the end result. So nothing will change.If the playerbase either gets content with the slop they buy, then Nintendo doesn't need to put some effort and money to cater to them.
The franchise has always gone out of its way to stay as stagnant as possible. Making a effort not to significantly improve and either do a step back or side step in terms of features and quality.
Which work for a franchise like pokemon I guess. But Im curious how long itll last once the millennials carrying the franchise eventually drop off. Is it even attracting new blood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfSKAvbAUUk
just confirmed sort of what I always thoughtThere's definitely evidence that Pokmon is not like their other franchises though. There are some quirks about how the series is represented in other Nintendo products. For example, you can't extend any Pokmon tracks on the Nintendo music app, which has to be a weird corporate meddling issue.
Nintendo more than likely holds the real power over Pokemon despite it only owning 1/3
they own more of it through relationships and connections
There's definitely evidence that Pokmon is not like their other franchises though. There are some quirks about how the series is represented in other Nintendo products. For example, you can't extend any Pokmon tracks on the Nintendo music app, which has to be a weird corporate meddling issue.
Pokemon has a huge section of its "fanbase" that basically just wants to ruin it for everyone else. And by being loud and obnoxious, they tend to drastically over-represent the widespread opinions of the franchise (especially on forums like here, where there isn't a thing akin to a downvote so its easy to drown out the "regular" opinions). This is pretty common with most "popular" things (damn near everything gets hate-brigaded these days), but something like Pokemon has a disproportionate amount.
It's Pokemon, with a fun twist on the gameplay and a decent little story. You'll probably already know if you enjoy the game or not.
Game Freak are basically indie devs and they could get away with a lot more when the games revolved around tile scrolling and jpegs, but they've struggled keeping up.
Trainer can move around but can't attackGo play Palworld if you wanna shoot guns at shit
But that is of their own making. Arceus has sold just under 15 million copies, S/V sold 27 million and Sw/Sh sold just under 27 million. They absolutely have the revenue to spend more then $13 million on ZA. Heck of their last 4 games the most expensive to make was S/V and that was only $22 million.I'm not going to pretend to know how TPC divide revenue or handle allocating resources amongst the businesses and I wasn't excusing the state of their games, lol.
They 100% have the money to spend on making bigger games and they are choosing not to.
Calling them an indie company is excusing them. They make one of the best selling video game franchises and they spend as little as they can on making their game.That's the joke.
Calling them an indie company is excusing them. They make one of the best selling video game franchises and they spend as little as they can on making their game.I think you need to read my posts again, LOL
I think you need to read my posts again, LOL
It looks ok I guess but so many great games released this year so its not really on my radar especially at full price
Pokemon games don't really go lower in price.Yeah they stay the same for about two console generations than skyrocket in price.
The franchise has always gone out of its way to stay as stagnant as possible. Making a effort not to significantly improve and either do a step back or side step in terms of features and quality.
Which work for a franchise like pokemon I guess. But Im curious how long itll last once the millennials carrying the franchise eventually drop off. Is it even attracting new blood?
Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet sold about 10 million more copies each then any of the DS games so I'd say they are yeah.
Also the Trading card game is vastly bigger then it used to be. Its scalped to hell and back for a reason.
Also I disagree on the stagnancy of late. They've tried open world and not always using the gym formula and the legends Series shakes things up pretty well. Arceus was a Open Zone strictly single player game with action and stealth elements focused much less on battling. And frankly they've been doing much better on characters and story generally. I'd say that started in gen 5. X/Y was a major bump in the road and Sword and Shield...well most the characters were fine but the plot was not.
Z-A meanwhile switches to a Real Time battle system which alone is a huge shake up.
Just because a game sold well doesn't mean it was received well. Sword and Shield was Pokemons first attempt at a Switch 1 game. It was widely criticized. Fans were fine with it being turn-based, but then noted that there wasn't much effort into making the game look proper. Textures were low quality and a lot of moves weren't even animated. Cinderaces double kick was a literal hop.
Scarlet/Violet was their next attempt. Coming off of Arceus, people had high hopes. But somehow they were unable to even run the game at a steady 60 fps, when games like Xenoblade Chronicles X, which came out for the Wii-U ran smoother with much more graphical clutter.
If the issue is budget this should have been addressed years ago. They are charging full price for games that quite frankly aren't worth half that.
When you said stagnant I assumed you were focusing on story/gameplay. Technically stagnant I agree with.
Also Xenoblade X was not 60fps. Not even on Switch. Though it was indeed smoother, bigger and prettier in most ways.
Also ngl 60fps is nice but I'd take more complex/lively pokemon animations, and denser enviroments, more interactivity, less pop in etc over 60fps for turn based pokemon. I think 40FPS would be a nice middle ground if need be but if we get something noticeable better looking then prior games at 60fps of course that is ideal.
Every modern game should be 60 FPS. No exceptions. It's not like 12 gigs of ram isn't capable with that art style. It's not really asking a lot, since 60 FPS is literally just smooth animations. The moment you drop down to 30/40 you can start to see what I call jutting, where you get this kind of jerky quick motions that looks off.Honestly, every modern game should have an option for either.
Honestly, every modern game should have an option for either.
Every modern game shouldn't suffer from issues in the first place. Modern technology is more than capable of running games at 1080p without issues at 60 FPS. If there is an issue then its typically an issue on the developer side that they haven't addressed prior to launching their game. Very rarely is it an issue with the hardware on the hardware manufacturers side.to be fair the S1 isn't quite "modern technology" even back in 2017. Though it should still be more than powerful enough to run something like SV with no problems. At least S1 ZA is actually consistent and stable
It's only going to become an issue if games start implementing clutter either by having too many objects shown on screen, or if we somehow figure out how to design games around the Euclidean Unlimited Detail engine which was proven to be a scam from 10 years ago, but promised some very interesting opportunities. But that would probably only be actually feasible using DDR8 memory and whatever Graphics Card comes around at that time. Mainly because your breaking down polygons into much smaller dots for a hell of a lot more detail and that requires a lot more processing power.
to be fair the S1 isn't quite "modern technology" even back in 2017. Though it should still be more than powerful enough to run something like SV with no problems. At least S1 ZA is actually consistent and stable
It was modern for the time. And I choose to bring up games like Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and X, as well as games like Lost Planet 2, or even Breath of the Wild, which ran on earlier consoles with better graphics and smoother framerates than either Switch Pokemon game. I don't know if its the engine that sucks, or if its the lack of bigger budget but something has to change.it was PS3-tier tech on 2017, and even for handhelds it was using a pretty old nvidia chip by then. SV has absolutely 0 hardware excuse for running and looking as horrid as it does, but all other pokemon games run fine? Like there are no massive frame drops like on some of BotW/TotK's denser areas (even if BotW/TotK do feel like the drops are justififed with how good they look).
Every modern game shouldn't suffer from issues in the first place. Modern technology is more than capable of running games at 1080p without issues at 60 FPS. If there is an issue then its typically an issue on the developer side that they haven't addressed prior to launching their game. Very rarely is it an issue with the hardware on the hardware manufacturers side.As a PC gamer, every game chooses between fidelity and performance, doesn't matter what system you're on. When the consoles cost less than a third of what my GPU alone does, they are going to compromise somewhere, especially when the console in question is portable. This is fine, no one buys consoles for peak specs. However, the user should be able to choose where the compromise falls. Some people genuinely aren't bothered by low frame rates and would prefer better fidelity.
It's only going to become an issue if games start implementing clutter either by having too many objects shown on screen, or if we somehow figure out how to design games around the Euclidean Unlimited Detail engine which was proven to be a scam from 10 years ago, but promised some very interesting opportunities. But that would probably only be actually feasible using DDR8 memory and whatever Graphics Card comes around at that time. Mainly because your breaking down polygons into much smaller dots for a hell of a lot more detail and that requires a lot more processing power.
As a PC gamer, every game chooses between fidelity and performance, doesn't matter what system you're on. When the consoles cost less than a third of what my GPU alone does, they are going to compromise somewhere, especially when the console in question is portable. This is fine, no one buys consoles for peak specs. However, the user should be able to choose where the compromise falls. Some people genuinely aren't bothered by low frame rates and would prefer better fidelity.