|
Community Links |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
06-13-2019, 06:48 PM | #16271 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,934
|
Quote:
While it is a bit of a bummer, I feel it's being blown out of proportion. The notion that all 800+ old Pokemon must be brought over in order to be a good game is something I find ridiculous. Add in the 100+ new Pokemon we get with every new game iteration, and it's just insane.
Even if including all the Pokemon in the game was actually taxing, it's not ridiculous or insane to have an expectation that the most profitable franchise on the planet be able to get something done. Game Freak isn't some indie startup having unreasonable expectations lobbied at them from overdemanding fans. They have all the money and resources they could possibly need to make as good a game as they can. |
06-14-2019, 12:20 AM | #16272 |
Avi by @CSarracenian
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,186
|
My issue is that it's been the standard for Pokemon games which already have fairly low standards considering how often they reuse the same '8 gyms fight the evil team' formula which get yearly releases since Black and White with only 1 year without a new game iirc, the fact that Pokemon is literally THE most successful franchise on the planet, the fact that they're saying "Pokemon Home will cost money and you're not going ti be able to use it as advertised until we say so" especially if Home is a one way trip (to be fair that might have been misinformation I heard but if it's true then it's awful), they're charging 50 bucks for Mew again while saying "If you used a Pokeball Plus on Let's Go then you'll need to buy a new one to get a Mew on Sword and Shield" alongside a general distaste for people who've been long time fans as seen with the overly long forced tutorials and the Battle Frontier getting cut because Masuda believes "There's probably less people who care about it than people who do care" and now this. It doesn't help they're removing gimmicks from the old game because of their habit of throwing the baby our with the bathwater every generation. The excuses provided to justify this are also incredibly weak "The high quality animation would take too long!" Then you don't make constant yearly releases. The animations aren't even 'high quality', in battle, Pokemon have about 5 animations each and there's stuff like wild Wingull moving without flapping their wings at all. The models were made to be reused to make this easier with people often modding the 3DS to make the Sun and Moon models look better with relative ease. "But what about Balance?" Masuda cries as if the franchise has literally ever cared about it. People aren't asking for every Pokemon to be obtainable in Sword and Shield, people want to be able to use their Pokemon after transfering them. They STILL have the Catch Them All logo on their twitter and there are countless fans who've spent countless hours with individual Pokemon due to breeding for hyper-specific stuff or just personal experiences with a specific Pokemon, in my case for example, a shiny Staraptor which I caught in Platinum as a Staravia. The worst selling mainline Pokemon games still sell over 5 million copies with ease so they absolutely can afford it when Pokemon games aren't even high budget. If I'm somehow getting the game, I'm going to wait for a secondhand copy so Game Freak can't get my money. The backlash to this has been pretty damn hefty as seen with the video confirming that getting absolutely bombarded with dislikes when Pokemon wasn't even the main point of the hour long video and it's even worldwide as seen with angry fans all over the world
__________________
|
06-14-2019, 02:12 PM | #16273 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 10,390
|
Quote:
But it's not really ridiculous. All the models for all of these Pokemon already exist. Their animations already exist. It's not like they're having to remake everything from scratch every generation, these things were made with the intention to be able to keep using them for a long time.
Even if including all the Pokemon in the game was actually taxing, it's not ridiculous or insane to have an expectation that the most profitable franchise on the planet be able to get something done. Game Freak isn't some indie startup having unreasonable expectations lobbied at them from overdemanding fans. They have all the money and resources they could possibly need to make as good a game as they can. Quote:
My issue is that it's been the standard for Pokemon games which already have fairly low standards considering how often they reuse the same '8 gyms fight the evil team' formula which get yearly releases since Black and White with only 1 year without a new game iirc, the fact that Pokemon is literally THE most successful franchise on the planet, the fact that they're saying "Pokemon Home will cost money and you're not going ti be able to use it as advertised until we say so" especially if Home is a one way trip (to be fair that might have been misinformation I heard but if it's true then it's awful), they're charging 50 bucks for Mew again while saying "If you used a Pokeball Plus on Let's Go then you'll need to buy a new one to get a Mew on Sword and Shield" alongside a general distaste for people who've been long time fans as seen with the overly long forced tutorials and the Battle Frontier getting cut because Masuda believes "There's probably less people who care about it than people who do care" and now this. It doesn't help they're removing gimmicks from the old game because of their habit of throwing the baby our with the bathwater every generation. The excuses provided to justify this are also incredibly weak "The high quality animation would take too long!" Then you don't make constant yearly releases. The animations aren't even 'high quality', in battle, Pokemon have about 5 animations each and there's stuff like wild Wingull moving without flapping their wings at all. The models were made to be reused to make this easier with people often modding the 3DS to make the Sun and Moon models look better with relative ease. "But what about Balance?" Masuda cries as if the franchise has literally ever cared about it. People aren't asking for every Pokemon to be obtainable in Sword and Shield, people want to be able to use their Pokemon after transfering them. They STILL have the Catch Them All logo on their twitter and there are countless fans who've spent countless hours with individual Pokemon due to breeding for hyper-specific stuff or just personal experiences with a specific Pokemon, in my case for example, a shiny Staraptor which I caught in Platinum as a Staravia. The worst selling mainline Pokemon games still sell over 5 million copies with ease so they absolutely can afford it when Pokemon games aren't even high budget. If I'm somehow getting the game, I'm going to wait for a secondhand copy so Game Freak can't get my money. The backlash to this has been pretty damn hefty as seen with the video confirming that getting absolutely bombarded with dislikes when Pokemon wasn't even the main point of the hour long video and it's even worldwide as seen with angry fans all over the world
Honestly the reactions to this are like if everyone got mad that the next Smash after Ultimate removes characters. |
GoseiWonder |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by GoseiWonder |
06-14-2019, 03:19 PM | #16274 |
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 19
|
Smash and Pokemon are entirely different games.
Some people like to raise a team, and then when the new gen comes, raise a team for those games, and then eventually bring the old into the new game. It sounds minor if you don't do it that way, but for a lot of people, hence the backlash, it's the only way to play. We could understand the no transfer between gen 2 and 3, as there was no physical way to link a GB game to a GBA game, but you had all the 251 previous mons programmed in with movesets and abilities. But this is different, you can very easily connect these, hence how you can transfer some. They straight up refuse to delay for something many call vital, because it would interrupt their "Game a year" style. Also instead of being upfront with any of this, they drop a confusing, passed over line during some stream. Only after the outrage happened did they step in to explain that it's a new "development philosophy" to only have so many pokemon, not all of them. And hey, if they wanna change that, they can, I'm just not buying the games with that style to them. If you want Sword and Shield, more power to you. But there's reasons some of us aren't happy, and are simply not buying a game. We're allowed to do that. |
06-14-2019, 03:34 PM | #16275 |
Gokai Platinum Ranger
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Viva Las Vegas!
Posts: 2,056
|
__________________
Nintendo 3DS Friend Code (Pokémon Ultra Moon): 5155-3940-2343 (Name: Chad) Ultimate Samurai Combination: Samurai Gigazord, We Are United! |
06-14-2019, 04:09 PM | #16276 |
New Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 51
|
Hey...crazy idea here, but how about we just wait for the game to come out, play it, and form opinions in it based around our own personal experience.
At least thats what I plan to do. No sense in complaining about something before I even get a chance to try it myself. If this fan backlash actually gets the developers to change things for the better, then great. If not...well we shall see how things pan out in November. |
06-14-2019, 04:16 PM | #16277 |
Showa Girl
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 9,064
|
I think as well, something that's being missed out of the conversation -- there's not really an upside here.
Usually a feature being taken away - in video games in general; not Game Freak's weird little world - just means that they're focusing on offering a new type of experience this time. Super Mario Galaxy doesn't have Sunshine's FLUDD and gameplay mechanics -- not only would it not fit, but it's going for something completely different and new in terms of the motion controls, the gravity mechanics and the planetary travel. Metroid Prime 2 doesn't have Metroid Prime 1's Wave/Ice/Plasma beams which were even a constant of the series outside of Prime 1; but that's because they generally wouldn't fit and there's something new in its place. We instead have the Light and Dark beams which not only are more thematically appropriate, but interact with the world in important ways that the other beams would both interrupt and not add anything meaningful despite being a series staple. Sword and Shield have removed a huge swath of Pokémon, the ability to transfer them, Mega Evolutions and Z-Moves; and in their place is offering... ... Uh... I actually can't think of any new features outside of Dynamax. Which as a new toy kinda makes sense that they wouldn't have Megas and Z-Moves back - they're similar concepts which could potentially overshadow Dynamax and just make it less impressive and dynamic that there's three different concepts running around doing similar things - but that's not even close to a feature that cutting Pokémon would allow, even before getting into arguments about whether it's exciting or not. (personal opinion? Dynamax looks really really lame, but I'll wait for more info about it before reserving judgement) The funny thing is, I can even point to an example within Pokémon itself that was very recent where a similar thing occurred that made sense -- LGPE. Outside of Meltan and Melmetal, it featured no Pokémon outside of the original 151 and you couldn't transfer from any previous game aside from Go. While I personally believe that it was overpriced for what it was, LGPE's decision to do this made sense for what it was going for -- it was not only a remake of Yellow which only featured those Pokémon, but it was also a way to introduce both new players and GO players to the franchise. Having a smaller number of Pokémon would help ease in newer players without overwhelming them with a humongous selection of Pokémon, while Go players would mostly just be familiar with Gen 1 Pokémon at that point. I believe Go had added Gen 2 Pokémon by LGPE's release date, but not only had the userbase waned by then but Go players would still be most familiar with your Charmanders and Poliwags and Bellsprouts. The decision to give less content had an alternative reason behind it that made sense for the demographic it was aiming at and the purpose it was going for. I could even use an example from Sword/Shield itself! Standard tall grass seems to be gone in favour of the Wild Area. While that's a feature that has disappeared, it has been replaced by something else in function that gives a totally different feel while still keeping intact what's important. It might be a decision you don't like, but at least it's clear what the reason is and that they're just attempting something new and interesting. Here, there is no good apparent reason for it; and in fact it was made abundantly clear to us that it was purely on technical and time-saving reasons -- even the way Masuda was talking seemed to indicate that it's something he was deeply disappointed with having to do. There is nothing we are getting in return for this; there is no new feature for which this is a benefit; there is no replacement. The fact is we simply have less content than the previous game - which was on a technically far inferior console to boot - which while for understandable reasons, still means we have less. There was a Smash comparison earlier, so let me make another one -- Sakurai wanted to bring back Ice Climbers for Smash, and there was no non-technical reason for not bringing them back. He's talked in multiple interviews about how the development team tried literally everything they could to try and make Ice Climbers work on the 3DS' tech, but despite their best efforts; it's just not something that was achievable. Similarly, Zelda/Sheik and Samus/Zero Suit Samus had to be separated into different characters while Squirtle and Ivysaur were removed entirely to turn Pokémon Trainer into a solo Charizard. It seems clear as well that mechanics like Rosalina's Luma were an attempt to preserve a multiple-character fighter while still being workable on the 3DS' tech. And the thing is? This is that in absolute hyperdrive. It's not just a handful of characters that had to be unfortunately cut, changed or replaced by a similar mechanic; oh no, this is on a far bigger scope by cutting out entire, huge swaths of creatures. We don't know how many Pokémon precisely won't exist in the game, but from how it's being talked about it doesn't exactly seem like it'll be a small percentage. And the big difference with Smash 4? It still had a hell of a lot more total characters than the previous games; meaning while cut characters like Ice Climbers and Snake did sting, it wasn't nearly as much of a negative in the face of the sheer amount of newcomers which made for a far bigger and juicier roster. The reality is that this game right now just looks vastly inferior to the previous offerings, and rather than there being any tangible benefit to it; the best defence is "it's not that bad". Does it justify an outrage? Honestly, not really; and even without looking at the worst examples like people harassing Masuda's twitter over it (seriously, people, STOP DOING THIS SHIT) I think we could all do with a little chilling out, a little bit of perspective, and a little bit more realistic understanding of why and how these problems occur (I would point to the absolutely bizarre and unconventional schedule of releasing a main game every single year, it's had a clear unhealthy effect on these games for a while and this is it reaching its tipping point). But at the end of the day, it's still a negative, and one that is going to severely impact the enjoyment of these games for a lot of people; myself included. Last edited by Kurona; 06-14-2019 at 04:21 PM.. |
06-14-2019, 05:00 PM | #16278 |
Avi by @CSarracenian
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,186
|
Quote:
I think as well, something that's being missed out of the conversation -- there's not really an upside here.
Usually a feature being taken away - in video games in general; not Game Freak's weird little world - just means that they're focusing on offering a new type of experience this time. Super Mario Galaxy doesn't have Sunshine's FLUDD and gameplay mechanics -- not only would it not fit, but it's going for something completely different and new in terms of the motion controls, the gravity mechanics and the planetary travel. Metroid Prime 2 doesn't have Metroid Prime 1's Wave/Ice/Plasma beams which were even a constant of the series outside of Prime 1; but that's because they generally wouldn't fit and there's something new in its place. We instead have the Light and Dark beams which not only are more thematically appropriate, but interact with the world in important ways that the other beams would both interrupt and not add anything meaningful despite being a series staple. Sword and Shield have removed a huge swath of Pokémon, the ability to transfer them, Mega Evolutions and Z-Moves; and in their place is offering... ... Uh... I actually can't think of any new features outside of Dynamax. Which as a new toy kinda makes sense that they wouldn't have Megas and Z-Moves back - they're similar concepts which could potentially overshadow Dynamax and just make it less impressive and dynamic that there's three different concepts running around doing similar things - but that's not even close to a feature that cutting Pokémon would allow, even before getting into arguments about whether it's exciting or not. (personal opinion? Dynamax looks really really lame, but I'll wait for more info about it before reserving judgement) The funny thing is, I can even point to an example within Pokémon itself that was very recent where a similar thing occurred that made sense -- LGPE. Outside of Meltan and Melmetal, it featured no Pokémon outside of the original 151 and you couldn't transfer from any previous game aside from Go. While I personally believe that it was overpriced for what it was, LGPE's decision to do this made sense for what it was going for -- it was not only a remake of Yellow which only featured those Pokémon, but it was also a way to introduce both new players and GO players to the franchise. Having a smaller number of Pokémon would help ease in newer players without overwhelming them with a humongous selection of Pokémon, while Go players would mostly just be familiar with Gen 1 Pokémon at that point. I believe Go had added Gen 2 Pokémon by LGPE's release date, but not only had the userbase waned by then but Go players would still be most familiar with your Charmanders and Poliwags and Bellsprouts. The decision to give less content had an alternative reason behind it that made sense for the demographic it was aiming at and the purpose it was going for. I could even use an example from Sword/Shield itself! Standard tall grass seems to be gone in favour of the Wild Area. While that's a feature that has disappeared, it has been replaced by something else in function that gives a totally different feel while still keeping intact what's important. It might be a decision you don't like, but at least it's clear what the reason is and that they're just attempting something new and interesting. Here, there is no good apparent reason for it; and in fact it was made abundantly clear to us that it was purely on technical and time-saving reasons -- even the way Masuda was talking seemed to indicate that it's something he was deeply disappointed with having to do. There is nothing we are getting in return for this; there is no new feature for which this is a benefit; there is no replacement. The fact is we simply have less content than the previous game - which was on a technically far inferior console to boot - which while for understandable reasons, still means we have less. There was a Smash comparison earlier, so let me make another one -- Sakurai wanted to bring back Ice Climbers for Smash, and there was no non-technical reason for not bringing them back. He's talked in multiple interviews about how the development team tried literally everything they could to try and make Ice Climbers work on the 3DS' tech, but despite their best efforts; it's just not something that was achievable. Similarly, Zelda/Sheik and Samus/Zero Suit Samus had to be separated into different characters while Squirtle and Ivysaur were removed entirely to turn Pokémon Trainer into a solo Charizard. It seems clear as well that mechanics like Rosalina's Luma were an attempt to preserve a multiple-character fighter while still being workable on the 3DS' tech. And the thing is? This is that in absolute hyperdrive. It's not just a handful of characters that had to be unfortunately cut, changed or replaced by a similar mechanic; oh no, this is on a far bigger scope by cutting out entire, huge swaths of creatures. We don't know how many Pokémon precisely won't exist in the game, but from how it's being talked about it doesn't exactly seem like it'll be a small percentage. And the big difference with Smash 4? It still had a hell of a lot more total characters than the previous games; meaning while cut characters like Ice Climbers and Snake did sting, it wasn't nearly as much of a negative in the face of the sheer amount of newcomers which made for a far bigger and juicier roster. The reality is that this game right now just looks vastly inferior to the previous offerings, and rather than there being any tangible benefit to it; the best defence is "it's not that bad". Does it justify an outrage? Honestly, not really; and even without looking at the worst examples like people harassing Masuda's twitter over it (seriously, people, STOP DOING THIS SHIT) I think we could all do with a little chilling out, a little bit of perspective, and a little bit more realistic understanding of why and how these problems occur (I would point to the absolutely bizarre and unconventional schedule of releasing a main game every single year, it's had a clear unhealthy effect on these games for a while and this is it reaching its tipping point). But at the end of the day, it's still a negative, and one that is going to severely impact the enjoyment of these games for a lot of people; myself included.
__________________
|
06-14-2019, 06:31 PM | #16279 |
Stronger Than You
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: nyet
Posts: 25,326
|
I think it's healthy to exclude some Pokemon.
Gives the new Pokemon an opportunity to shine, rather than just be undermined by older Pokemon with possibly better stats. Gives the meta game a chance to evolve in a different direction, rather than players just defaulting back to the same old bullshit that's been working for the past 2 gens. It removes the annoying and, honestly gamebreaking Z-Moves that basically just guaranteed a free one shot on any annoying Pokemon on your opponent's team. By removing the comfort zone, players will have to look at things in a different light. It's similar to Black and White having no one beyond their new 151 until post game. However, it's taking a larger step forward by being far more selective. There is such a thing as having too many options, and when presented with that, players will always default to their standard favorites, rather than be willing to truly branching out. This whole debacle is both eyerollingly annoying, and disappointingly hilarious, as I feel it's a massive overreaction. If Sunkern didn't return, no one would be bitching, but because generic, overdesigned dragon number 8 isn't coming back, everyone is howling like a bunch of monkeys. It's embarrassing, and it's needlessly producing a split in the Pokemon fanbase. People complain about Pokemon always being more of the same, meanwhile, all people want is exactly that. The amount of people asking for a game that has every region solidifies that point. Removing Pokemon was an inevitability for a franchise that routinely introduces 100 minimum every 3 years. Z-Moves were over powered garbage that were basically just 100% accurate OHKOs. I'm sad to see Mega Evolutions go, I will admit, though. While I would want Game Freak to stick to their guns, the amount of nonstop crying as well as personal attacks on the devs will eventually force them to fold (Or Nintendo will step in and force them to add what the people are crying for), simply to make the fans who literally judge the merits of the game based on whether the 46 super forms, half of which are generally considered worthless, are in the game or not satiated again.
__________________
|
06-14-2019, 07:05 PM | #16280 |
Showa Girl
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 9,064
|
I think you're over-exaggerating the comfort zone aspect a little, and in all honesty I'm not entirely sure where it's coming from. I haven't seen a single generation go by where people did not flock to the new Pokémon to try them out; whether casual or competitive, and said new Pokémon were quite consistently the highlight of any new game. If you're going to use this argument, would it not then make sense to want a BW-style of game instead, where older generation Pokémon are not available until a later point in the game? Or perhaps even something like FRLG, where Pokémon literally do not exist in the game's coding until you beat the champion. Again I genuinely do not see any evidence for where this is coming from -- I've always seen people add the likes of Aegislash and Mudsdale to their old standbys of Arcanine and Gliscor, and it was quite an appreciated mix. One of the great things about seeing Pokémon teams is that it wasn't biased towards either or; I always saw teams with a healthy balance of new and old Pokémon alike.
I also think the aspect of competitive is being a little overstated, as well as misunderstood with little thinking outside the box. The amount of people that care about competitive is generally quite minuscule, which is part of the reason why I find the reason given of "it helps balance the game" a little bit laughable. In regards to that last bit, I actually feel this is evidence towards Game Freak not trying to balance the game -- rather than going in a sensible direction and changing aspects of Pokémon, providing balance updates, introducing new ideas; it's just taken the easy sledgehammer route and removed a lot of Pokémon. Ultimately all this will result in is new overpowered threats rising up -- just because Heatran and Landorus no longer exist doesn't mean suddenly all the problems are gone, and with a lack of care towards balancing anything out, Game Freak won't have created anything terribly good here. It'll still be as bad as it's always been, just without people blaming Ferrothorn for every loss. Regardless, the problem itself does not lie specifically in that Pokémon are being removed -- rather, just that content in general is being removed with nothing in its place; leaving the game as simply lesser than its previous. It's a downward spiral Pokémon has been on for a very long while with things like the Battle Frontier, walking Pokémon, Seasons and so many other things being constantly cut - and maybe added back in for one game, but not for long - with nothing in its place, and it's simply more noticeable now that it's effecting the one thing the majority of players truly loved. I am not opposed to the idea of getting something different -- I am disillusioned by the idea of getting something lesser, year after year. I just wish that Nintendo would give Game Freak similar breaks that they've given the teams on Metroid Prime 4 and Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Delay the game so the development team have the time to build the game as they truly want it; and to make something truly special. "A delayed game is eventually good; but a rushed game will always be bad." |
|
TokuNation News & Rumors |
SH Figuarts BoonBoomger Red |
Hasbro Licenses Power Rangers Toys to Playmates Toys |
Discotek Media Licenses Mobile Cop Jiban |
What's going on with CSM? |
Ultraman Arc Trailer |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.
|