- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 11,647
- Reaction score
- 26,882
Because graphics was one of the reasons they cited to remove Pokémon?Why is Pokemon getting called out on it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because graphics was one of the reasons they cited to remove Pokémon?Why is Pokemon getting called out on it?
I think they were also kind of reluctant to make the switch to... well, Switch. So they wound up pushing the 3DS hardware to its limits. Which probably necessitated a bit of a rush then since the 3DS was at the end of its life span. So that I can at least understand, but SwSh could have used more development time to ensure that they had more time to work on the Pokémon models, and that's where I think they should have changed their plans and opted for a gap year. Maybe it was because of the mixed reception to LGPE though? Whatever the reason, I hope they will adjust their development time for Gen 9 because they won't have a dying hardware to race or a new venture that they need to reassure part of the fan base over... just reassure people that they know how to take more time.But this is exactly what we don't want.
This has become a problem of Game Freak as of late. They keep releasing one too many new generations (and paired sequels and remakes) in a very short span of time. Maybe it is their doing, or maybe it is TPCi or Nintendo that is pressuring them to make these yearly releases. But it's something that frankly really needs to stop, as it leads to rushed products being put out to meet demand. SM really should have been developed for the Switch and not 3DS. Game Freak would have had a lot more leeway then to make the game as ambitious as they envisioned without too many technical hurdles. But instead they opted to put the game on 3DS and push it to its absolute limits, just to meet a release quota. Heck, even BW on DS was kind of too much.
The anime could do this crazy thing they did back in the 90s and bridge the gap with original content-- Orange Islands, anyone?As long as the anime and tcg insist on churning out content and merchandise 24/7, we're never gonna get high-quality 3D games. :\
as of late? there's nothing new about their dev cycles. they've always been cranking out games with periodic break years. the only big change is that it's harder to do that with 3D games (shocking!). the quality is about the same as it has ever been, with maybe some exceptions for the GSC-based games; they really did seem to put some love into GSC and HGSS. and i mean, big surprise. sales seem to be fairly inelastic (price of games doesn't seem to be a huge deterrent, content of games doesn't seem to be a huge driver). and with the bulk of the company's revenue likely coming not from the games themselves but the ancillary stuff tied to the franchise (re: merchandise, licensing, TCG, PoGo, etc), why would they make a change?This has become a problem of Game Freak as of late. They keep releasing one too many new generations (and paired sequels and remakes) in a very short span of time. Maybe it is their doing, or maybe it is TPCi or Nintendo that is pressuring them to make these yearly releases. But it's something that frankly really needs to stop, as it leads to rushed products being put out to meet demand. SM really should have been developed for the Switch and not 3DS. Game Freak would have had a lot more leeway then to make the game as ambitious as they envisioned without too many technical hurdles. But instead they opted to put the game on 3DS and push it to its absolute limits, just to meet a release quota. Heck, even BW on DS was kind of too much.
In some ways specifically ... yes. Generation 2 had to preserve the Gen 1 internal data structure, which resulted in oddities like gender and shininess being IV-based, Calcium boosting two stats (Sp.Atk and Sp.Def were split, yes, but the IVs/EVs for them were still combined), and so on. There is literally only so much data that the Gen 1 structure could contain (or otherwise encode), so while forcing a compatibility break between Johto and Hoenn was unfortunate, it enabled them to rewrite the data structure from the ground up and add new features to species that just weren't possible before.Do you honestly think the backwards connectivity in all games since was bringing the games down?
In addition to Silktree's point about data, rewriting the data structure is clearly not what is happening in SwSh. Not only do we have gameplay footage showing that nothing's been changed, we also still have Pokemon that are getting transferred.In some ways specifically ... yes. Generation 2 had to preserve the Gen 1 internal data structure, which resulted in oddities like gender and shininess being IV-based, Calcium boosting two stats (Sp.Atk and Sp.Def were split, yes, but the IVs/EVs for them were still combined), and so on. There is literally only so much data that the Gen 1 structure could contain (or otherwise encode), so while forcing a compatibility break between Johto and Hoenn was unfortunate, it enabled them to rewrite the data structure from the ground up and add new features to species that just weren't possible before.
The department for game balance was, as of SuMo, only four people, only one of whom worked on any other department for the game. (Past games didn't have any dedicated team) So even if they were getting a larger workload from updates, so what? They weren't adding anything else to the game, so lightening their load wouldn't have improved things.And in the broader sense, definitely yes. I mentioned it before: when every new generation adds new species, moves, and/or abilities, AND features returning species learning the new moves, it's somebody's job to spend time figuring out how to update whatever older species return in the new region. And as much as Game Freak is hit/miss when it comes to competitive balance, sometimes a new ability or rule change can indirectly affect old Pokemon and somebody has to find the really big ones (e.g. No Guard Fissure Machamp) before release.
As far as I am aware, the reason we couldn't transfer pokemon between Gen 2 and 3 was due to hardware, with GBC games being unable to detect GBA link cables and GBA games being unable to detect GBC cables. They probably could have programmed it to translate Gen 2 data into Gen 3 data, but there was no point because there wasn't any way to communicate between the GBC and GBA games.In some ways specifically ... yes. Generation 2 had to preserve the Gen 1 internal data structure, which resulted in oddities like gender and shininess being IV-based, Calcium boosting two stats (Sp.Atk and Sp.Def were split, yes, but the IVs/EVs for them were still combined), and so on. There is literally only so much data that the Gen 1 structure could contain (or otherwise encode), so while forcing a compatibility break between Johto and Hoenn was unfortunate, it enabled them to rewrite the data structure from the ground up and add new features to species that just weren't possible before.
And in the broader sense, definitely yes. I mentioned it before: when every new generation adds new species, moves, and/or abilities, AND features returning species learning the new moves, it's somebody's job to spend time figuring out how to update whatever older species return in the new region. And as much as Game Freak is hit/miss when it comes to competitive balance, sometimes a new ability or rule change can indirectly affect old Pokemon and somebody has to find the really big ones (e.g. No Guard Fissure Machamp) before release.
I thought that Bank revamped their data structures when transferred?The VC games prove that you can carry over Pokemon from old data structures.
That's what I meant. I guess "carry over" is a poor choice of words.I thought that Bank revamped their data structures when transferred?
No, I got what you meant there. What I thought you said was that the Pokemon from the VC games kept their data structures when transferred, which doesn't happen. The debate started because Gen 2 had to keep some of the old data structures to be compatible with Gen 1, whereas now that is no longer an issue because Bank recodes the Pokemon from scratch.That's what I meant. I guess "carry over" is a poor choice of words.
you're right it's not the quality we're used to; we're used to even worse.There's still a lot of polishing to do. A LOT. How can people defend this? Isn't quality important anymore?
This is not the quality we're used to. There's a difference between graphical style and bad graphics. The examples I posted are bad and unnecessary.
Are we... looking at the same water, by any chance?How can the graphics be "great" if shadows are low quality, surface-textures are low-res (trees, rocks... Oh and that fruit-tree anyone?), water has no rippling effects, water-splashes are up in the air instead of in the water, some attacks aren't placed correctly (Dynamaxed Charizard shoots fire from his shoulders), objects float above the ground, as well as some characters. I will not talk about the dex, as that has been done to Oblivion.
objects float above the ground, as well as some characters.
See how its head goes off the screen, Aloan Exeggcutor is 35:09 inches, and goes off screen, yet Wailord who is 47 Ft .doesn't.