BDSP Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl General Discussion

[Greninjaman]

Then why didn't they do the same for Lets Go?

There were only the Kanto Pokemon and the Meltan Line in Lets Go. Plus the models of the people are not outright chibi unlike in the Diamond and Pearl remakes.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Of course there is. To make your money seem worth it.

On the out of print game? There's little point in that. It's a game that's supposed to entertain you for a few weeks, maybe a few months. It's not some long term investment like a house or a car or something. Neither the developer nor the player particularly cares about how "worth it" the game is going to be years down the line.

Would you say the same for Pokemon cards that are no longer in print?

Okay, take the Pokemon cards for example, should they be out of value if they are no longer made? Lots of things discontinue in history before we were born.

Yes, this logic applies for anything no longer being sold. The seller only cares about how much money they can make on their product, if they've made the decision to no longer sell the product, there's no longer any value in it.

I think you meant to say those playing the original are missing part of the future remake experience?

Either way could work, it's semantics. Regardless, the future remakes experience is missing part of the original experience.

My post was not about your post, so I see you fell into a loop on argue for the sake of arguing. Emerald from R/S is not the same as OR/AS from R/S. What the hell is the monetary gain from customer's point of view of getting Emerald after R/S for example.

Most players don't care about monetary gain, they care about the entertainment value. And the entertainment value from Emerald is the updated content from RS. ORAS' entertainment value is recreating the experiences you had back in the day, and that includes the added Emerald content.

So that people who bought Emerald, don't feel it was a waste of money, with the Battle Frontier and all.

They won't care 10 years down the line because they'll have moved on to something else. Once the remake comes back around, they'll care more about recreating that experience with the updated gameplay and graphics than preserving the value of the original experience.

Tbh they are probably saving them for third version remakes. We just got a yellow remake. I bet you Johto is next with a crystal remake, spilt into two between suicune and entei.

And when will that third version release? LGPE was a full 14 years after FRLG. Will we have to wait until 2028 or later for Emerald remakes? That's a long time to wait for content that game out 2 damn years after the original.

I don't think Game Freak specifically wanted to reserve Yellow content for a game 14 years from now. That's so far down the line it's near impossible to predict what the industry will be like by then. I think they went with Yellow content specifically because they wanted to market Pikachu for these games. There's really little difference between RB and Yellow aside from the starter situation.

Really I think HGSS is the biggest piece of evidence that they don't do this. If they wanted to reserve content for a Crystal remake, they wouldn't have recreated the Suicune plotline in HGSS. That's the main story difference between GS and Crystal. And really, pretty much everything that was in Crystal ended up in HGSS (the only exception being the Odd Egg). So likewise, I don't think the Battle Frontier was cut because they wanted to save Emerald content for another remake down the line. It was most likely cut because they wanted to save time and development costs and didn't think the cuts would significantly affect sales.

 

[Fairy Type Arceus]

Would be weird to make two members of a trio the mascots and leave out the third. The Suicune plotline was already integrated into HGSS, too, so if they're saving features for a third version remake, that's a weird move on their part. (Although it'd be even weirder to cut things from remakes with the goal of adding them in third version remakes in the first place, since the gap between FRLG and LGPE is 14 years)

I'd say back then they didn't plan on having remakes long term. Frlg was for nostalgia sales and gen 2 pokemon, yellow content was left out because it was minor changes anyway. Hgss was because gen 4 needed the rest lf the pokemon and ho-oh and Lugia were really hard to get (always thought these reasons were dumb though considering they could have just put them in diamond and pearl when it was coming out)

Oras was fan demand and I assume bdsp is aswell. At this point fans expect remakes, so gamefreak is in for the long haul the second they confirmed hoenn. I suspect thats why they handed the remakes to illca, they didn't want to be stuck in remake hell forever.

 

[NealIRC]

On the out of print game? There's little point in that. It's a game that's supposed to entertain you for a few weeks, maybe a few months. It's not some long term investment like a house or a car or something. Neither the developer nor the player particularly cares about how "worth it" the game is going to be years down the line.

Weird. I feel it is both. Almost all the counter-argues I have with people here are "it's A, but also not B" when I feel it is A and B. Emerald is both a short-term and long-term investment. Which is why some things in Emerald are preserved.

Yes, this logic applies for anything no longer being sold. The seller only cares about how much money they can make on their product, if they've made the decision to no longer sell the product, there's no longer any value in it.

No. If I sell cherry pies, and blueberry pies, then 1 day discontinue cherry pies, but add a "cherry-blueberry pies (50/50)" and the same blueberry pies (100%), that does not distinguish the value of all the cherry pies I sold.

They won't care 10 years down the line because they'll have moved on to something else. Once the remake comes back around, they'll care more about recreating that experience with the updated gameplay and graphics than preserving the value of the original experience.

Wow, what a good argument supporting the removal of the Battle Frontier. Updated gameplay and graphics for the win.

 

[Norzan]

I'd argue that even if ORAS had the Battle Frontier (and that is if the Battle Frontier is just a copy paste and not a changed version) from Emerald, Emerald would still be a different experience compared to ORAS. It doesn't have the Physical/Special split, the plot is somewhat different by involving all three of the Weather Trio, and some other things. The lack of Mega Evolution and Dexnav also makes Emerald's experience different because it doesn't have access to that.

Not to mention graphics and soundtrack. So trying to "preserve" an older game by deliberately not putting some of its main features in the remake is absolute nonsense to me.

 

[Esserise]

I obviously can't confirm this myself, but I feel like the graphics and assets needed for a Frontier wouldn't even be the really time-consuming part of the process to begin with. Surely it's programming and bugtesting all these idiosyncratic new formats that would be the more intensive part? And these various tasks likely aren't even all handled by the same team, so I'm not confident that cramming all of the gimmicks into one facility would actually solve the problem, because that might not even be the root of the issue. (To the extent that there even is a real "issue" - realistically, I think this just clearly isn't the kind of content they're interested in making anymore. The impression I get isn't actually that the workload is so utterly daunting that they couldn't possibly manage it, so much as it's just more work than they think is worth doing if most players are just going to end up ignoring the feature anyway.)

I don't think the rules of the Battle Arcade, Battle Hall and Battle Castle could fit in the Battle Tower with their gimmicks. The Battle Factory's rental Pokémon could work, but Castle Points do not make sense in a facility that doesn't have a medieval castle theme, and with the anti-gambling laws replacing the Game Corner with a fashion store in these remakes, I don't think they would bring back the Battle Roulette Game Board. And the Battle Hall stage would not match the aesthetic of the Battle Tower. Each facility has their own themes and gimmicks tied to those themes so all Battle Frontier facilities merged into the Battle Tower would not work. The only Frontier Brain we'd see is Palmer. And at least seeing the Battle Tower return is a step up from it being replaced with the Battle Maison.

Hypothetically speaking, you could just rename Castle Points to something more generic.

And I don't know that anti-gambling laws would affect the Game Board, since it's not actually simulated gambling in the same way that Game Corners are. The thing about Game Corners is that they have you literally engage in the same sorts of games you would find in a real casino, with a similar dynamic - betting cash (or a cash equivalent) to receive a potential payout. But the Game Board is just a status effect randomizer - there's not even any currency involved. And even if it were a problem, I think you could simply reskin it to make it more kid-friendly. Have the effects be determined by some quirky little robot character or something instead of a "roulette." Think of it like the Roto Loto.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Weird. I feel it is both. Almost all the counter-argues I have with people here are "it's A, but also not B" when I feel it is A and B. Emerald is both a short-term and long-term investment. Which is why some things in Emerald are preserved.

You're in the minority there, most people do not consider their video game a long term investment. They don't buy a game thinking about how much the experience is going to be preserved 10 years from now, they buy it because they want something to do for the next few weeks or months and then they'll move on to the next thing.

No. If I sell cherry pies, and blueberry pies, then 1 day discontinue cherry pies, but add a "cherry-blueberry pies (50/50)" and the same blueberry pies (100%), that does not distinguish the value of all the cherry pies I sold.

The price of the cherry pies doesn't retroactively change, no. But that works both ways, the price doesn't retroactively go up either. It only goes up for fans that want to resell them (which doesn't really work in this analogy because food is a consumable and expirable product, it's not really meant to be something that can be used and resold to someone else). So refraining from selling the cherry pies all over again down the line because it would decrease the value of the cherry pies that were originally sold doesn't make much sense, it's the original consumers trying to resell them whose value is hurt by the re-release, not the seller or the consumers of the new batch. And the seller doesn't want to help the resellers anyway because the seller can't make any money on the resell.

Wow, what a good argument supporting the removal of the Battle Frontier. Updated gameplay and graphics for the win.

This is what the fans want, not Game Freak. What the Battle Frontier controversy boils down to is a conflict of interest between the fans and Game Freak. Fans want the game to be as full featured as possible to make it as lengthy and satisfying as possible, Game Freak wants it to be as minimalist as possible to save time and money. So since Game Freak is the one making the game, they prioritize what they want over the fans want (but they pretend they're doing what the fans want so as to limit fan backlash that would lose them money).

 

[Silktree]

I gave up on the Battle Frontier in 2014. Masuda was obnoxiously clear about the reason for its removal, and he's still the man in charge for all intents and purposes. I only care about the Battle Factory, and I am not sure why they created an inferior rental facility for USUM.

That said, I'm on the fence about whether the eventual Johto game will be a split Crystal remake-- the logic almost works, except that Crystal's gen 1 counterpart isn't really Yellow, it's Blue. Yellow has no counterpart for other regions.

I do think that Johto is next on the remake/revisit docket, and I half-suspect that it might feature the return of Kris, but whether it's a Let's Go, a Legends, or something new, and whether it could be considered a Crystal remake the way LGPE was a Yellow remake, I'm really not sure.

I think it would be pretty odd to go back to Let's Go after Legends, considering that both types of games capitalize on catching and simplified battle mechanics in favor of greater player involvement (action elements). While I enjoyed LGPE, I would have certainly preferred a sequel or a prequel with a very different Kanto. Legends Celebi could also feature Kris or a relative (I think it should be her using time travel).

Of course, this isn't necessarily a case of one or the other looking at BDSP and LA. But I personally hope that BDSP's sales are relatively lackluster, teaching Game Freak not to release games with largely identical Pokemon rosters just two months apart.

 

[Fairy Type Arceus]

I gave up on the Battle Frontier in 2014. Masda was obnoxiously clear about the reason for its removal, and he's still the man in charge for all intents and purposes. I only care about the Battle Factory, and I am not sure why they created an inferior rental facility for USUM.


I think it would be pretty odd to go back to Let's Go after Legends, considering that both types of games capitalize on catching and simplified battle mechanics in favor of greater player involvement (action elements). While I enjoyed LGPE, I would have certainly preferred a sequel or a prequel with a very different Kanto. Legends Celebi could also feature Kris or a relative (I think it should be her using time travel).

Of course, this isn't necessarily a case of one or the other looking at BDSP and LA. But I personally hope that BDSP's sales are relatively lackluster, teaching Game Freak not to release games with largely identical Pokemon rosters just two months apart.

I don't know about going back to lets go, but I don't see legends becoming the norm for the main games. I think legends will be its own subseries while we continue with the same battle styles and gym challange in the primary series.

 

[Bolt Strike]

No, I think there's still people who may get into it years later for very specific reasons. Me personally, when I phish for pokemon, I sometimes check the availability of pokemon through multiple generation games, then choose which ones to get, depending on what level and such. Same thing with items. I'm sure what you say is approaching 99% that most people play the game within a few months for the majority, after that, it's getting back for very-specific reasons.

Sometimes yes, they get the whim to replay a game. But that doesn't make it a long term investment because you're buying it based on experiencing a static amount of content.

Bah. No where did I mention any prices. I am not talking about prices when an item is discontinued or changed. The value of the item, but not the /price/ of that item.

When you're talking about investments and value, prices is a factor. By definition it's not an investment without a long term payoff down the road, and most people do not buy a video game with the intention of reselling it for a profit years down the line, they buy it generally to play it immediately and maybe get a fraction of the cost back by reselling it.

Did you actually believe I didn't? In that case, sounds like you're finally seeing the light.

I did, because you seem very confused about how the seller values the product vs. how the player values the product.

Hence why this help keeps the value of Emerald. As another example, I'm a little disappointed that triple battles did not return in Gen 7 or 8, so that helps the value of Gen 6 and 5.

No, it doesn't. Really, all that just does is hurt the value of Gen 7 and 8 because they include less features than they probably should. Gen 5 and 6 have run their course and the entertainment value of those games are the same as they always are. The resell value has increased due to the games being discontinued, but the content isn't suddenly worth more money because the games aren't sold, but the entertainment value is the same because it's the same content as it always was.

 

[Norzan]

Hence why this help keeps the value of Emerald.

It doesn't, it instead takes value out of ORAS.

As another example, I'm a little disappointed that triple battles did not return in Gen 7 or 8, so that helps the value of Gen 6 and 5.

So, basically what you are saying, you are fine with new games gutting features because it "increases" the value of older games? Basically, paying the same for less. Totally worth it.

Not to mention having to pay for multiple games to able to experience multiple features.

 

[NealIRC]

When you're talking about investments and value, prices is a factor. By definition it's not an investment without a long term payoff down the road, and most people do not buy a video game with the intention of reselling it for a profit years down the line, they buy it generally to play it immediately and maybe get a fraction of the cost back by reselling it.

Which is why they preserve Emerald so it's a durable good. Stuff like candy is eaten once and disposed of, stuff like Emerald can be preserved.

I did, because you seem very confused about how the seller values the product vs. how the player values the product.

No, that doesn't defer my ability to believe whether fans wanted the Battle Frontier back vs. GF brining the Battle Frontier back. I for 1, did like the Battle Maison.

No, it doesn't. Really, all that just does is hurt the value of Gen 7 and 8 because they include less features than they probably should.

Right, which is what helps the value of Gen 5 and 6, which included triple battles.

Let's just repeat our convo 1 more time. I said "Triple battle increases the value of Gen 5 and 6" and you're going to counter-argue with "No, it insteads hurts the value of Gens 7 and 8?"

What does your argument have to do, to override / contradict my argument?

This is what most of my arguments on this forum have been like, lately.

Gen 5 and 6 have run their course and the entertainment value of those games are the same as they always are. The resell value has increased due to the games being discontinued, but the content isn't suddenly worth more money because the games aren't sold, but the entertainment value is the same because it's the same content as it always was.

Yea, this has nothing to do with my discussion and I don't seemingly see it's relevancy. If you meant, "people aren't going to buy Gens 5 and 6 because it included triple battles" or "they are going to buy Gens 5 and 6 because it does include triple battles" then it's just a statistic.

 

[Almonds]

If these remakes are supposedly marketed toward people who have never played DPPt before (including those who weren't born then).... would the missing Battle Frontier matter to them?

People who knew about the Battle Frontier would miss the feature. But what about people who never played DPPt before and therefore doesn't have an attachment to it to begin with? We can talk about how awesome the Battle Frontier is and everything... but in the end, its just a post game feature.

 

[Kit Chan]

Battle Frontier really boils down to different flavors of Battle Tower, so if leaving it out means they can spend more resources on making the rest of the game better, then I think the benefit outweighs the negative.
Just look at how much the graphics improved in between trailers because the graphics team was focused on polishing the game instead of meshing, sculpting, texturing, lighting and animating Frontier buildings and palm trees.

Also, the distortion world in Platinum was kinda meh, I'd rather have a distortion world biome in Giratina's room than include the whole section from Platinum, unless they can improve on what Platinum had.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Which is why they preserve Emerald so it's a durable good. Stuff like candy is eaten once and disposed of, stuff like Emerald can be preserved.

Preservability is irrelevant in the context of investment, what matter is whether or not you receive a return for your investment. Video games do not do this unless you resell them.

Right, which is what helps the value of Gen 5 and 6, which included triple battles.

Let's just repeat our convo 1 more time. I said "Triple battle increases the value of Gen 5 and 6" and you're going to counter-argue with "No, it insteads hurts the value of Gens 7 and 8?"

What does your argument have to do, to override / contradict my argument?

This is what most of my arguments on this forum have been like, lately.

It's a little more nuanced than an argument between "Yes it is"/"No it isn't". I'm trying to explain to you WHY it affects the older games and not the newer games but you don't seem to be getting it. You're putting too much stock in how people are viewing a game years down the line and I'm explaining why others typically are not viewing remakes in that light.

Yea, this has nothing to do with my discussion and I don't seemingly see it's relevancy. If you meant, "people aren't going to buy Gens 5 and 6 because it included triple battles" or "they are going to buy Gens 5 and 6 because it does include triple battles" then it's just a statistic.

It has everything to do with the discussion because resell value is the only kind of value that would give you a return on a long term investment and would be hurt by remakes including older content. If you're buying the game to get money out of them later, then the game wouldn't get you as much money if a remake comes along to replenish the supply of copies available for purchase.

If you're just buying the game to be entertained, the value is only in short term entertainment and maybe the urge to replay it on a whim down the line, but even then if a remake comes along you'd get more entertainment value out of the remake introducing new features than replaying the original. And only then, a remake would only provide more value if it can replace the original experience, if you have to have the original for some experiences and the remake for others, you're wasting money having to pay for two copies of the same game with mostly the same experience instead of the remake being one definitive experience.

 

[Puddle]

Also, the distortion world in Platinum was kinda meh, I'd rather have a distortion world biome in Giratina's room than include the whole section from Platinum, unless they can improve on what Platinum had.

I really like the Distortion World but I'd be fine with it being reduced to a glorified corridor, à la the Ultra Beast worlds in Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. They could make it similar to the small area you revisit in Platinum's postgame to get the Griseous Orb. Or Giratina could teleport you there just for the duration of its battle! I like your idea of a biome, as well - Giratina's room could be like a hole in the fabric of space-time where the Distortion World is bleeding through into our reality.

I just really hope the Distortion World appears in some capacity - it's too significant a part of Giratina's lore to leave out completely.

Serebii.net has updated its pre-release screenshot gallery with some more images from the official Japanese site. Floaroma Town is looking a lot prettier than it did in February, although this probably won't come as a surprise to anyone who saw that gorgeous shot of Floaroma Meadow last week.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

If these remakes are supposedly marketed toward people who have never played DPPt before (including those who weren't born then).... would the missing Battle Frontier matter to them?

People who knew about the Battle Frontier would miss the feature. But what about people who never played DPPt before and therefore doesn't have an attachment to it to begin with? We can talk about how awesome the Battle Frontier is and everything... but in the end, its just a post game feature.

By that logic, though, couldn't you cut out anything from a remake?

 

[Almonds]

By that logic, though, couldn't you cut out anything from a remake?

There would be content that must remain, though. Anything from the main campaign should not be cut because they are what the games are and what the player pays for. Post game stuff are extra bonus content in addition to the main campaign. The main campaign should definitely be the part where the bulk of the work should be dedicated to. If they start running out of time and resources (in worst case scenario), I'd rather they give up on post game content than sacrifice, for example, any of the Team Galactic relevant plot points/battles.

 

[NealIRC]

Preservability is irrelevant in the context of investment, what matter is whether or not you receive a return for your investment. Video games do not do this unless you resell them.

I really don't know why you bring investment as a variable here. I never was 1 to buy a video game in the hopes of selling it 1 day.

It's a little more nuanced than an argument between "Yes it is"/"No it isn't". I'm trying to explain to you WHY it affects the older games and not the newer games but you don't seem to be getting it.

That's because it does both. It's to increase the value of old games while bringing down the value of remakes.

Europe laws make video games have to choose a rating which put GF as getting rid of gambling in the games. The last such games that had gambling was D/P/P. This puts another value into the earlier games, say, before something was made illegal. (Again, this is just an example, not looking for examples to prove or disprove something.).

You're putting too much stock in how people are viewing a game years down the line and I'm explaining why others typically are not viewing remakes in that light.

If you mean that prevents people from buying a remake, because it didn't include something (like the Battle Frontier) this furthers my cause on value to old/original games.

It has everything to do with the discussion because resell value is the only kind of value that would give you a return on a long term investment and would be hurt by remakes including older content. If you're buying the game to get money out of them later, then the game wouldn't get you as much money if a remake comes along to replenish the supply of copies available for purchase.

If you're just buying the game to be entertained, the value is only in short term entertainment and maybe the urge to replay it on a whim down the line, but even then if a remake comes along you'd get more entertainment value out of the remake introducing new features than replaying the original. And only then, a remake would only provide more value if it can replace the original experience, if you have to have the original for some experiences and the remake for others, you're wasting money having to pay for two copies of the same game with mostly the same experience instead of the remake being one definitive experience.

Evidently none of this applies to me. I don't buy games in the hopes of reselling it. At least, not Pokemon games.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

There would be content that must remain, though. Anything from the main campaign should not be cut because they are what the games are and what the player pays for. Post game stuff are extra bonus content in addition to the main campaign. The main campaign should definitely be the part where the bulk of the work should be dedicated to. If they start running out of time and resources (in worst case scenario), I'd rather they give up on post game content than sacrifice, for example, any of the Team Galactic relevant plot points/battles.

I don't really see how this distinction between paid for and bonus can really be argued. If it's included with the base game, and developing it was part of the initial production, and there's no way to get the game without this content, how can it be considered separate from "what the player pays for"? (Especially now that we have post-credits events like the AZ fight, the Tapu Koko fight, and obtaining the Z Wolves- surely the cover legends of SwSh are part of what's being paid for, not bonus content?)

And I also don't see how this is a rebuttal to my point- it's not like there's an assigned price to each element in the original DP that BDSP needs to match to justify its price. If they cut out one of the Galactic Admins, for example, could you really point to a tangible amount of money that they would need to knock off the price tag?