Leak Repository Thread (WARNING: Huge spoilers!)

[Desdar300]

But the 700 of the 1000 monster models were made 6 years ago, i doubt botw reused or slightly updated 6 year old assets and tried to pretend its new like gamefreak did. U need to compare that too

High Fidelity is used by literally every video game company in the industry with some of the more famous examples being from Super Smash Brothers as a series and Yakuza

View: https://youtu.be/7JhgVflYjL8

 

[William-Jdubz]

High Fidelity is used by literally every video game company in the industry with some of the more famous examples being from Super Smash Brothers as a series and Yakuza

View: https://youtu.be/7JhgVflYjL8

Not to mention Pokémon has been doing this for a long time, such as Gen 5 re using Gen 4 sprites for older species. Every third version and whatnot.

 

[AzuSquish]

High Fidelity is used by literally every video game company in the industry with some of the more famous examples being from Super Smash Brothers as a series and Yakuza

View: https://youtu.be/7JhgVflYjL8

Reuseing models isnt my problem, it saves time and allows developers focus on new stuff to put in

LYING abt reusing the old models to justify cut content is my problem (obviously they had to work hard to update 500+ textures but they straight up said they had to "recreate models from scratch" which is a lie)

and the extreme lack of transperancy on what pokemon home is still supposed to be is annoying me too

 

[Desdar300]

Reuseing models isnt my problem, it saves time and allows developers focus on new stuff to put in

LYING abt reusing the old models to justify cut content is my problem (obviously they had to work hard to update 500+ textures but they straight up said they had to "recreate models from scratch" which is a lie)

and the extreme lack of transperancy on what pokemon home is still supposed to be is annoying me too

They didn't though they use High Fidelity in their statements multiple times. If one goes back and re-watch the E3 statement you'll see that time was the reason for the cut which makes sense since TPC has had the franchise on a yearly grind since arguably 2013.
I don't agree with the cut myself but let's not mince words.

 

[Myth]

BotW has like 5 different monster models that it reuses over and over and over. SwSh has hundreds of unique monster models. Anyone that wants to compare the open world areas also needs to compare that, then.

Well firstly, they're different departments. Second, Game Freak doesn't have all that work with the models, because it's Creatures, not Game Freak, who handles model creation and even most of their animations.

But in the sense of workload (people from other departments with multiple functions within the company that can be directed to that specifc task), I kind of agree with what you are saying (in the sense it can happen). In fact, again, this time is you who are practically transcribing what I said here once in another discussion (Sorry if I'm quoting myself but it's because I just don't feel like repeating it):

"...But what I meant by "Pokemon games are different from other games", was about how they actually require things that other games like Zelda or Mario don't. You don't have the same arduous process to make a monster of Mario or Zelda like you has in Pokémon. You don't need to have a department of your company just to take care of balancing the game with Mario and Zelda, as Pokémon need. And many others things. You're right, every game and company is different to some degree. Some of them are extremely different."

Still, they're both open areas. I see no problem in the comparison. One should know that it is not reasonable to expect the size of the Wild Area - a part of the game - to be the same size as an entire map of an open game. But with the image we can compare it to just one part of that map, for example (and it's small regardless).

In any case, if we go into subjects other than the map size matter, such as monsters, we will get into many other things, such as development time, etc. And in the end, the argument will be "well, anyone who wants to compare x and y also needs to compare the income these developers are getting with their games". And Pokémon is way ahead of Legend of Zelda in that sense.

If making a map as large as Zelda's was their intention, the amount of monsters should not stop them from.

What I'm trying to mean is, yes, they're different games. But the argument about the number of monsters isn't the best of the arguments, since just as it was probably not Game Freak's intention to make the Wild Area the size of Zelda's map, it probably wasn't Nintendo intention to make as many monsters as Pokémon.

The point here is: we can't play SwSh yet. But with that comparison, we can get a real idea of the size of the Wild Area regardless. And whether it's compared to the BotW map or not, even if we're to compare with similar games as was suggested, it still small. I'm sure the whole size of that area is similar to some areas of Xenoblade Chronicles 2 alone.

As for my opinion, I still think that it's a very small area for an open area, that it's still small for something that is supposed to probably cover more than half the total area of the game, and that it's small for an area we're going to pass most of the time in.

I really, really hope they packed the game with many more routes, cities and dungeons than the ones we can suppose by the map. I hope they didn't expect such a small area to support the whole game, because even with the weather changes, it would be repetitive.

You aren't Myth but those guys on Reddit are trying to make that case.
it's just another attempt of them using the cut as a basis to jab at only "one" of the numerous entities that own the series.
Absolute clownery at its finest.

Thank you for understanding, Larry.

But I really don't think they did it. After reading your comment, I reread the author's post on Reddit to see if it implied something like that, and found nothing. They said nothing about it being smaller than an full open game map being bad. I could not help but think people assumed it themselves?

 

[Desdar300]

Well firstly, they're different departments. Second, Game Freak doesn't have all that work with the models, because it's Creatures, not Game Freak, who handles model creation and even most of their animations.

But in the sense of workload (people from other departments with multiple functions within the company that can be directed to that specifc task), I kind of agree with what you are saying (in the sense it can happen). In fact, again, this time is you who are practically transcribing what I said here once in another discussion (Sorry if I'm quoting myself but it's because I just don't feel like repeating it):

"...But what I meant by "Pokemon games are different from other games", was about how they actually require things that other games like Zelda or Mario don't. You don't have the same arduous process to make a monster of Mario or Zelda like you has in Pokémon. You don't need to have a department of your company just to take care of balancing the game with Mario and Zelda, as Pokémon need. And many others things. You're right, every game and company is different to some degree. Some of them are extremely different."

Still, they're both open areas. I see no problem in the comparison. One should know that it is not reasonable to expect the size of the Wild Area - a part of the game - to be the same size as an entire map of an open game. But with the image we can compare it to just one part of that map, for example (and it's small regardless).

In any case, if we go into subjects other than the map size matter, such as monsters, we will get into many other things, such as development time, etc. And in the end, the argument will be "well, anyone who wants to compare x and y also needs to compare the income these developers are getting with their games". And Pokémon is way ahead of Legend of Zelda in that sense.

If making a map as large as Zelda's was their intention, the amount of monsters should not stop them from.

What I'm trying to mean is, yes, they're different games. But the argument about the number of monsters isn't the best of the arguments, since just as it was probably not Game Freak's intention to make the Wild Area the size of Zelda's map, it probably wasn't Nintendo intention to make as many monsters as Pokémon.

The point here is: we can't play SwSh yet. But with that comparison, we can get a real idea of the size of the Wild Area regardless. And whether it's compared to the BotW map or not, even if we're to compare with similar games as was suggested, it still small. I'm sure the whole size of that area is similar to some areas of Xenoblade Chronicles 2 alone.

As for my opinion, I still think that it's a very small area for an open area, that it's still small for something that is supposed to probably cover more than half the total area of the game, and that it's small for an area we're going to pass most of the time in.

I really, really hope they packed the game with many more routes, cities and dungeons than the ones we can suppose by the map. I hope they didn't expect such a small area to support the whole game, because even with the weather changes, it would be repetitive.



Thank you for understanding, Larry.

But I really don't think they did it. After reading your comment, I reread the author's post on Reddit to see if it implied something like that, and found nothing. They said nothing about it being smaller than an full open game map being bad. I could not help but think people assumed it themselves?

yeah I guess that's how some of the comments took it but it's honestly hard to tell since Reddit has been a circle -jerk for months now.

 

[Oriden]

Someone finally made a comparison of the size of the Wild Area. As I said, I had made one myself comparing it to Poni Island, but I wasn't satisfied with the result.

But in this case, it was compared to Breath of the Wild:

Spoiler

Source: RamsaySw from Reddit.

To be fair, though... the Wild Area is the first time they've done this and it already takes up a large portion of the region. Galar's map looks awkward because of how big the Wild Area is proportionately to the towns and cities, being just this massive unpopulated half of the landmass. If it were any bigger, I think the ratio would look a whole lot worse.

In all, it's a good first step, though? I think we'll see that the open space and free camera of the Wild Area will wind up taking over the entire region by Gen 10 if not sooner. That should make it all feel quite a bit larger and less unnatural with how things are placed.

 

[blitzle stan]

But the 700 of the 1000 monster models were made 6 years ago, i doubt botw reused or slightly updated 6 year old assets and tried to pretend its new like gamefreak did. U need to compare that too

I am 1000% not engaging with this tired debate about the models. You want to say things are just ‘slightly updated’ after everything added to the camping animations, the start-of-battle animations, etc, go ahead. I’m good.

 

[Myth]

yeah I guess that's how some of the comments took it but it's honestly hard to tell since Reddit has been a circle -jerk for months now.

I don't know, I don't post much there. But I do agree, some of the comments were non sense. But I hadn't even read them before, and I don't think we should pay attention to them. And in fact, if you look at them, there are many sensible comments as well.

To be fair, though... the Wild Area is the first time they've done this and it already takes up a large portion of the region. Galar's map looks awkward because of how big the Wild Area is proportionately to the towns and cities, being just this massive unpopulated half of the landmass. If it were any bigger, I think the ratio would look a whole lot worse.

In all, it's a good first step, though? I think we'll see that the open space and free camera of the Wild Area will wind up taking over the entire region by Gen 10 if not sooner. That should make it all feel quite a bit larger and less unnatural with how things are placed.

I just hope it's not as large a percentage of the game as it seems to be, because it would be repetitive.

I mean, as I said, in my comparison, I came to the conclusion that its size area should be 3 times that of Poni Island's explorable area. That would be great if it meant that there are many other areas in the game as well, and if they didn't expect the Wild Area alone to have as large a presence in the game as the equivalent of 3 Islands in Sun and Moon had (the islands were quite different in size, but you got the point).

Also, Sun and Moon themselves were pretty small games. Being the first traditional game on a home console, having a focus on exploration with the Wild Area, and being more expensive in price, I was expecting something bigger.

 

[Desdar300]

The wild area essentially connects all the cities to each other so we will have to go through it numerous times.
I guess those I don't can take the trains

 

[blitzle stan]

There’s multiple cities that look like they will all be bigger in scale than any of the previous ‘big cities’ they’ve been doing since BW. Those, combined with the wild area and all the routes, make me not worried about the scope of the region.

 

[FlashFire926]

Even with that map of the wild area compared to BOTW..

BOTW is absolutely HUGE. Sometimes even too big for my liking (its my #1 fav game of all time tho) Even like 1/16 of its area works for something like pokemon to start with.

 

[LuxrayOfTheWild]

There’s multiple cities that look like they will all be bigger in scale than any of the previous ‘big cities’ they’ve been doing since BW. Those, combined with the wild area and all the routes, make me not worried about the scope of the region.

There's at least 3 cities that have potential to be as big as cities like Lumiose City and Castelia City. The first industrial city, the castle city, and Pokemon London, which seems to have a larger area behind it.

 

[FlashFire926]

For me its more about the character and atmosphere of the cities, more than the size. Tho that is a pretty big factor as well.

And Galar looks to have that spades. Especially the Steampunk city.

And honestly I think the Castle City isnt even a "city", more like just a big castle.

 

[PartTimePokemonMaster]

Since I missed the conversation about models, Pokemon Masters had a whole slew of 3d models for gym leaders and elite 4 members. Any chance they show up in SwSh?

 

[William-Jdubz]

Since I missed the conversation about models, Pokemon Masters had a whole slew of 3d models for gym leaders and elite 4 members. Any chance they show up in SwSh?

Fairly sure Masters just re-use the existing 3ds models with enhanced lighting, it’s like whether or not everything will show up from LGPE which use the same 3ds models with upgraded lighting and textures, I don’t think we can really tell at this stage what SwSw will use for the dex.

 

[Cute Charm]

Since I missed the conversation about models, Pokemon Masters had a whole slew of 3d models for gym leaders and elite 4 members. Any chance they show up in SwSh?

Doubtful.

Unless Gamefreak gets the assets from DeNA and then tweaks the textures and lighting so they'd fit in with the in-house textures from SwSh. Because at least to me they look diffrent than the Let's Go models and textures.

 

[prog rocker]

Fairly sure Masters just re-use the existing 3ds models with enhanced lighting, it’s like whether or not everything will show up from LGPE which use the same 3ds models with upgraded lighting and textures, I don’t think we can really tell at this stage what SwSw will use for the dex.

Most of the Trainer 3D models are new as far as I can see.

 

[PartTimePokemonMaster]

I meant the trainer models

 

[William-Jdubz]

Most of the Trainer 3D models are new as far as I can see.

I don’t play the game but I looked at launch, they are just the same Pokémon models with enhanced renders and lighting giving the illusion of it being new. Same as what LGPE and SwSh did with their respective models.