Official Pre-Pokémon Sword & Pokémon Shield Speculation & Leaks thread

[prog rocker]

As a fan of Gen 4 more so than Johto, the region I started into this franchise, I'm okay with more love to gen 4. But this seems to be a bit...random? Granted it seems some of the card games and other mediums seem to focus on gen 4 a lot more recently so I can't say it's too unbelievable. But I like the idea of of the themes being love and hate, and the idea of the evil team being about basically animal mistreatment.

It almost seems like Team Plasma without the hypocrisy.

 

[Knightwolf09]

It almost seems like Team Plasma without the hypocrisy.

You know it's weird. We actually have had a game that actually dives into pokemon abuse. I mean the anime has on multiple occasions, but the games I only remember one instance of and that was Team Plasma with that Munna. Most people make jokes that pokemon battling is animal abuse, why not show people what true animal abuse is.

 

[prog rocker]

You know it's weird. We actually have had a game that actually dives into pokemon abuse. I mean the anime has on multiple occasions, but the games I only remember one instance of and that was Team Plasma with that Munna. Most people make jokes that pokemon battling is animal abuse, why not show people what true animal abuse is.

You know, that could actually work. It could even be the darker and edgier game that people are asking for. The problem would be how to teach the lesson without being preachy.

 

[Knightwolf09]

You know, that could actually work. It could even be the darker and edgier game that people are asking for. The problem would be how to teach the lesson without being preachy.

Certain messages can only be preachy if they go about like saying blatantly "Animal abuse it wrong, animals are our babies, go to your pet right now and give it a hug, go to you local animal shelter today". But if you're more subtle about it and let the audience figure out why it's wrong on their own without telling them, that a better way to send it. The anime does it well, while it does state what people do is just wrong, the also show it visually how the abuse effects the pokemon, dying in the rain, malnourished and starving, constantly thrown into danger just to activate an ability. You can tell for yourself that it's wrong, and it doesn't need to be spelled out for you. That's how you deliver a message.

 

[BackSet]

So...

I skimmed and I have seen much salt.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Popularity has nothing to do with quality.

While not a direct indicator, it'd be pretty silly to claim that a game's quality doesn't affect its popularity in some way.

It's not enough for me that the game is just popular, I want it to be GOOD too.

Okay. This discussion wasn't about what people are personally wanting out of Pokemon Switch. It's been about whether or not Pokemon will have to be more like other games to be successful on the Switch. Your personal standards aren't going to be the deciding factor in a game's success.

If Pokémon has to follow a model to be popular on the Switch as you suggest,

This is what I'm arguing against.

Which of course, as I said, doesn't mean that the games would not continue to sell well. The brand itself can sells anything. But again, popularity has nothing to do with quality.

And, again, this discussion was about potential success, not the subjective quality.

And what? Zelda has as much relevance as Pokémon, maybe even a little more. Popularity doesn't mean explicitly relevance.

So what is relevance? It's not financial success, it's not popularity, and it's not even critical acclaim, seeing as you say Undertale has less relevance than Pokemon or LoZ despite winning Game of the Year. What else is there that would decide relevancy? And if it's so disconnected from other measures of success, why bring it up at all in a discussion about future success?

You're right, they've been nominated for some awards. But they didn't win any.

This is goalposting. Your original statement was this:

Splatoon 2, Mario Rabbids, Mario Kart...I have not seen any of these games winning or being nominated for any award for Best Switch game/home console game. But I saw Mario Odyssey and Botw doing it. As I have always seen Pokémon games being nominated and winning prizes for being the best games from their respective platforms.

You considered being nominated for these titles an acceptable level of success, but now that you know these other games have been nominated, you've said that winning the awards was what mattered.

The victory of Mario Kart on Wii U doesn't add much to the discussion, since we are talking about the approach of the series on the Switch.

I thought the discussion was console games, not just Switch games? In your list of RPGs, only Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and Dragon Quest XI are even playable on the Switch. If just Switch games are the focus, why bring them up at all?

And since the games I mentioned earlier (Mario Odyssey and Zelda Botw) had not even been released at that time to compete with.

In that case, we should also be ignoring BotW's awards prior to the release of the games I mentioned, since they weren't around to compete, either.

But that's not the point. You are leading the discussion to another subject. Undertale and Paper Mario Sticker Star are not even home console games originally, to begin with...

Undertale started as a PC game, and a lot of home console games tend to be put on PC. The Paper Mario series started as home console games, with Thousand Year Door on Gamecube (which did win best overall RPG in 2004 DICE) and Super Paper Mario on Wii.

Pokémon has always been winning and being nominated for best handheld game awards, mostly in Japan. But yes, some of them were from Famitsu.

Edit
I'm going to put some of them here about Sun and Moon:

Famitsu Award (2016) - Winner of Best Game of the Year
Golden Joystick Awards (2017) - Winner of Best Handheld/Mobile Game of the Year
Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences Awards (2017) - Winner of Handheld Game of The Year
SXSW Gaming Awards (2017) - Nominated for Mobile Game of the Year
Game Developers Choice Awards (2017) - Nominated for Best Mobile/Handheld Game of the Year
BAFTA Games Awards (2017) - Nominated for Best Mobile Game of the Year

So, are nominations important or not? You just said they didn't count for the other Switch games, but now they matter again for Pokemon?

I looked through the awards you listed, and BW didn't win any of them, unless you count the review score in Famitsu that's separate from their awards. XY only won the Golden Joystick. (I did, however, find Undertale winning the 2016 Matthew Crump Cultural Innovation Award, which, again, raises the question of what relevancy is, since that award is specifically for "challenging the normal idea of video gaming", which seemed to be what you were saying caused LoZ's relevance)

 

[RileyXY1]

XY featured 108 Hoenn Pokemon if you count the Friend Safari. The problem lies in the starters and legendaries; everything else is fair game.

Not that any of this matters if the remakes are part of the Let's Go series. USUM feature most Kanto Pokemon, including the starters and legendaries.

But still, I highly doubt that the hypothetical Sinnoh remakes will have anything to do with Let's Go.

 

[prog rocker]

Hopefully, I'm not against LGPE, but I guess it was just an experiment to see what elements from Go can they implement and to see if they can bring back the old fans* of the game (AKA the ones that complain about everything post-Gen I).

*I feel this will bring a big misunderstanding...

 

[Oriden]

I have a feeling that Let's Go games will be reserved for second remakes- like Red/Blue were already remade once with FireRed and LeafGreen. It's not taking over remakes, it's just addressing the fact that FireRed and LeafGreen were released before Gen 4, so technically speaking- Kanto was next in line, and they had to do something different with it. We will probably still see a traditional Gen 4 remake in Gen 8.

 

[Myth]

While not a direct indicator, it'd be pretty silly to claim that a game's quality doesn't affect its popularity in some way.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. There are thousands of bad games and other bad things that are popular. But as you pointed out, it is never a direct influence. It is not because something is popular that it is objectively good.

Okay. This discussion wasn't about what people are personally wanting out of Pokemon Switch. It's been about whether or not Pokemon will have to be more like other games to be successful on the Switch. Your personal standards aren't going to be the deciding factor in a game's success.

I agree, only my standards does not, but we are discussing from the beginning about the industry trends for RPGs home console games now.

This is what I'm arguing against.

You implied that you thought that because something is popular it's automatically good (citing that Mario Kart had sold more than Botw), and that's why I used that quote.

And, again, this discussion was about potential success, not the subjective quality.

In that sense, the franchise will be fine, no matter what. As I said, the brand itself sells anything, even if it is bad or inappropriate. Still, it would lose much of its relevancy over time.

So what is relevance? It's not financial success, it's not popularity, and it's not even critical acclaim, seeing as you say Undertale has less relevance than Pokemon or LoZ despite winning Game of the Year. What else is there that would decide relevancy? And if it's so disconnected from other measures of success, why bring it up at all in a discussion about future success?

Relevancy has to do with popularity, financial success, influence, history in industry, critical acclaim, and above all: overall quality (which may be according to critical acclaim or not). That's relevancy.

This is goalposting. Your original statement was this:

You considered being nominated for these titles an acceptable level of success, but now that you know these other games have been nominated, you've said that winning the awards was what mattered.

You're right on that. I was wrong about that, they were nominated, and I didn't remember. Still, you're correct again, I don't consider it enough.

I said they were not nominated because I didn't remember. And I didn't remember because they simply would not have any chance of winning, anyway. Being nominated without having any real chances of winning is not worth it.

They were nominated for a few awards, still if Botw had not won them, Mario Odyssey would have done it.

Everyone knows that if Botw had not won, Mario Odyssey would won the awards. So, in the case of Mario Odyssey, I consider the nomination "an acceptable level of success", as you said, but in the case of Mario Rabbids, I really don't.

I thought the discussion was console games, not just Switch games? In your list of RPGs, only Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and Dragon Quest XI are even playable on the Switch. If just Switch games are the focus, why bring them up at all?

I brought them because you implied that purely popularity meant something. Look, I'm discussing with you with the greatest goodwill, please, don't mix up what I'm saying.

"But on popularity specifically, since we are talking about home consoles and RPG genres, here the top 7 most popular RPGs from the latest home consoles (Xbox One, PS4 and Switch):"

In that case, we should also be ignoring BotW's awards prior to the release of the games I mentioned, since they weren't around to compete, either.

I agree with that. Now show me examples that fit the situation with Botw, then.

Undertale started as a PC game, and a lot of home console games tend to be put on PC. The Paper Mario series started as home console games, with Thousand Year Door on Gamecube (which did win best overall RPG in 2004 DICE) and Super Paper Mario on Wii.

I know the history of these games. So I used the term "originally," referring to the releases you mentioned previously.

So, are nominations important or not? You just said they didn't count for the other Switch games, but now they matter again for Pokemon?

That was just my reply to you, who said that Sun and Moon had not been nominated for any awards. But as I said earlier, nominations are worth it if there is any real chance of competition, which was not the case for Mario Rabbids, but it was the case of Sun and Moon in all these nominations that I quoted. Do you disagree with that?

I looked through the awards you listed, and BW didn't win any of them, unless you count the review score in Famitsu that's separate from their awards. XY only won the Golden Joystick. (I did, however, find Undertale winning the 2016 Matthew Crump Cultural Innovation Award, which, again, raises the question of what relevancy is, since that award is specifically for "challenging the normal idea of video gaming", which seemed to be what you were saying caused LoZ's relevance)

Yes, BW and XY a gained some, I would have to search. (Also, as you have pointed out, BW was the most well-regarded Pokémon game to date in Famitsu, with a 40/40 review)

On relevancy, I have already said what it means. And it's not just about "challenging the normal idea about video gaming". Again, LoZ games speak for themselves, one masterpiece after another. This is recognized by critics and the public. This, added to the rest I mentioned above, is relevancy.

I'm not understanding why the confusion, there must be some language barrier here, I'm honestly not sure now if "relevancy" has the exactly same meaning in English.

Edit
One more thing, at no time do I try to discredit the awards won by Undertale and Paper Mario. But none of these "series" has the same relevance as the Pokémon series, none of these "series" has the same profit as the Pokémon series. (Undertale is a Indie game, Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise) And Undertale won the award on PC, the Paper Mario game you quoted won the award in 3DS, we are discussing about an approach on a home console.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. There are thousands of bad games and other bad things that are popular. But as you pointed out, it is never a direct influence. It is not because something is popular that it is objectively good.

I never said that popularity meant something was good, I said that good quality often leads to popularity.

You implied that you thought that because something is popular it's automatically good (citing that Mario Kart had sold more than Botw), and that's why I used that quote.

I never said that. What I said was that popularity was an indicator of success. People were claiming that Pokemon would have to be more like BotW to be successful, and I cited Mario Kart as an example of a game that was successful despite not being like BotW. (However, even though my argument was purely about success, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people arguing that Mario Kart is a bad game)

Relevancy has to do with popularity, financial success, influence, history in industry, critical acclaim, and above all: overall quality (which may be according to critical acclaim or not). That's relevancy.

When I said that Pokemon had more sales than Legend of Zelda, you said that Legend of Zelda was still more relevant than Pokemon, because financial success and popularity don't define relevancy. When I said that Undertale and Paper Mario had received critical acclaim, you said they still didn't have the same level of relevance. You just now said that Pokemon would lose relevance despite losing no popularity or financial success. You say these things are part of what defines relevancy, but you seem to keep ignoring them.

Influence is something directly tied to popularity, as a work will only be able to influence the people who know about it. History in industry is a bit too soon to call for games that have only been out for a year or two. Overall quality is a pretty subjective thing, and one person's opinion on a game doesn't always mean it'll be affecting any of the other traits.

I'm not understanding why the confusion, there must be some language barrier here, I'm honestly not sure now if "relevancy" has exactly the same meaning in English.

It's defined as "being related to the matter at hand", and when applied to a general sense, it usually means "being related to people's lives". Something that's more relevant would be something that affects a large number of people. Which is why, again, I don't understand your argument that popularity and financial success wouldn't be the strongest indicators of relevancy. That's a solid number that shows how many people were affected by a work.

And I didn't remember because they simply would not have any chance of winning, anyway. Being nominated without having any real chances of winning is not worth it.

They were nominated for a few awards, still if Botw had not won them, Mario Odyssey would have done it.

Everyone knows that if Botw had not won, Mario Odyssey would won the awards. So, in the case of Mario Odyssey, I consider the nomination "an acceptable level of success", as you said, but in the case of Mario Rabbids, I really don't.

This is based entirely on your opinion, not the opinion of any of the judges. BotW wasn't even up for best Switch game at Gamescom-it had less of a chance of winning than Mario Rabbids. Splatoon 2 was up for Best Family Game in Game Awards 2017 against Super Mario Odyssey-can it really be said that it was obviously going to lose when the original Splatoon took Game of the Year in 2016? Both BotW and Odyssey were up for Best Game in the 14th British Academy Games Awards, and they both lost, so their presence doesn't mean an automatic win.

I brought them because you implied that purely popularity meant something. Look, I'm discussing with you with the greatest goodwill, please, don't mix up what I'm saying.

"But on popularity specifically, since we are talking about home consoles and RPG genres, here the top 7 most popular RPGs from the latest home consoles (Xbox One, PS4 and Switch):"

I understand that the comparison was based on popularity. What I don't understand is why you were fine with comparing games across consoles based on one trait (popularity), but not with another (critical acclaim-you said Mario Kart 8's victories on Wii U didn't add to the discussion)

I agree with that. Now show me examples that fit the situation with Botw, then.

All of the games I listed were released in 2017 (August for Mario Rabbids, June for Arms, July for Splatoon, April for Mario Kart). This is after after BotW's Game Awards 2016, Game Critics Awards 2016, and the Japanese Game Awards (the ceremony was after the release, but the awards were for games up to March 2017).

But as I said earlier, nominations are worth it if there is any real chance of competition, which was not the case for Mario Rabbids, but it was the case of Sun and Moon in all these nominations that I quoted. Do you disagree with that?

Very much so. The idea of "real chance of competition" is based on your own opinions of the games. But your opinion of whether they had a real chance of competition or not is irrelevant to the awards themselves, which did consider them worth nominating. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it's an undeniable fact that the critics behind the awards thought they had a chance.

On relevancy, I have already said what it means. And it's not just about "challenging the normal idea about video gaming". Again, LoZ games speak for themselves, one masterpiece after another. This is recognized by critics and the public. This, added to the rest I mentioned above, is relevancy.

Being recognized by critics and the public determines relevancy, but the awards and popularity of the other games don't count?

 

[Minya_Nouvelle]

A kind reminder to keep expectations in check since GameFreak has said that the next games will be more handheld-mode-focused than Let's Go,

In the context of the conversation, I just thought they were referring to physical play ability. For example, let's go highly encourages/markets using the the joycons/pokeball + to play the game, which is only possible while docked. The next games will not have features like this, allowing the handheld mode to be more accessible (as any Switch game should since being able to play the console out of the dock is one of the main appeals). I can't find the original interview, but I'm pretty sure this was what they were referring to. I don't think this is meant to imply that the game would be "less of a console game"? I honestly don't understand what people mean by being like a console game. The only thing I associate with a console game is better graphics and a larger scale. Better graphics was one of the vague promises they made, so we'll see.

 

[Myth]

I never said that popularity meant something was good, I said that good quality often leads to popularity.

Okay, I got it. However, I still disagree with the "often" part. I see a lot more bad~mediocre things being popular than the really good ones.

I never said that. What I said was that popularity was an indicator of success. People were claiming that Pokemon would have to be more like BotW to be successful, and I cited Mario Kart as an example of a game that was successful despite not being like BotW. (However, even though my argument was purely about success, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people arguing that Mario Kart is a bad game)

Got it. Of course, Mario Kart is a great game.

But on the discussion around this, I honestly think you're still seeing this in a wrong way. People compare Pokémon to Botw , and don't compare to Mario Kart, although both Mario Kart and Botw have been succeeds in different ways, simply because Pokémon has much more to do with Botw than with Mario Kart. That's the way I see it.

When I said that Pokemon had more sales than Legend of Zelda, you said that Legend of Zelda was still more relevant than Pokemon, because financial success and popularity don't define relevancy. When I said that Undertale and Paper Mario had received critical acclaim, you said they still didn't have the same level of relevance. You just now said that Pokemon would lose relevance despite losing no popularity or financial success. You say these things are part of what defines relevancy, but you seem to keep ignoring them.

I'm not ignoring. These aren't things that alone define relevance, but rather together. In my opinion, Legend of Zelda is still ahead of Pokémon about relevance, even though Pokémon is more popular and more financially successful. That's because you can't say that all Pokémon games are a masterpiece, but you can still say that for almost every Zelda game. The Zelda games have presented revolutionary things in many ways, but the same can not be said of Pokémon games.

As I've already said before, just to make it clear again: to me, Game Freak is, and always has been, one of the best developers, for many reasons. But that doesn't mean it has no flaws. For example, remakes and, mainly the enhanced versions, are cash grab games.

Another point where the games of Pokémon lose much is in the part of programming/in the graphical part. Among other reasons.

Anyway, both are fantastic franchises, but I still think that Zelda is a bit ahead of Pokémon in relevance.

Paper Mario and Undertale doesn't have the same relevance of Pokémon because, in addition to other factors that addresses relevance, talking about critical acclaim only: Paper Mario and Undertale didn't get as many awards as the Pokémon series throughout the history of video games.

About Pokémon possibly losing relevance if it makes bad games while maintaining a high popularity and financial success, is would be perfectly normal. As I said, it's not just one of these things that defines relevance, but rather the whole of them together, with the right measures (with popularity and financial success being the least important things to determine the relevance of something, after all, as I said, not everything that is popular is good. In fact, most of the things that are popular are bad.).

Influence is something directly tied to popularity, as a work will only be able to influence the people who know about it. History in industry is a bit too soon to call for games that have only been out for a year or two. Overall quality is a pretty subjective thing, and one person's opinion on a game doesn't always mean it'll be affecting any of the other traits.

Influence is not directly tied to popularity. Although it does have something to do with.
For example, an unknown, very good work, may present something interesting and new to industry, and influence various authors who have read it in their own works. Thus, the first work becomes influential, but at the same time, it didn't become popular for that.

About "history in the industry", I was specifically referring to the series, not the releases. Zelda and Pokémon already have a big and important history in the industry, Undertale can be said that hasn't yet.

Overerall quality is not necessarily subjective. There are ways to determine the quality of a game through objective aspects such as: animation, plot, level design, what the game brings from innovation to the genre, etc. Otherwise, it would not be possible to determine in fact whether a game is good or not, if we were to relativize everything and take everything to the subjective side.

You can have fun with a bad game, but objectively it is what it is, a bad game. The reverse also works.

It's defined as "being related to the matter at hand", and when applied to a general sense, it usually means "being related to people's lives". Something that's more relevant would be something that affects a large number of people. Which is why, again, I don't understand your argument that popularity and financial success wouldn't be the strongest indicators of relevancy. That's a solid number that shows how many people were affected by a work.

Right. From what I've researched, it also has to do with "importance," "significance", right? So I guess it means the same thing.

As popular and financially successful as something objectively bad may be, the significance or importance to industry will still be minimal.

This is based entirely on your opinion, not the opinion of any of the judges. BotW wasn't even up for best Switch game at Gamescom-it had less of a chance of winning than Mario Rabbids. Splatoon 2 was up for Best Family Game in Game Awards 2017 against Super Mario Odyssey-can it really be said that it was obviously going to lose when the original Splatoon took Game of the Year in 2016? Both BotW and Odyssey were up for Best Game in the 14th British Academy Games Awards, and they both lost, so their presence doesn't mean an automatic win.

Look, I really would not agree with that at all.

I don't follow the Gamescom Awards, but researching a little, Botw didn't won the award in 2016?

Which I think is tottaly wrong too, since the game wasn't even finished. But anyway, it may be one of the reasons it hasn't even been nominated for any category of 2017. I may be wrong here.

Regarding the other cases, that's right, even though most of the awards match each other, they will not all be unanimous. But I still think that Mario Odyssey deserves to won the Best Game of Switch in every awards, if it wasn't for Botw. But yes, it has to do with my judgment on that.

I understand that the comparison was based on popularity. What I don't understand is why you were fine with comparing games across consoles based on one trait (popularity), but not with another (critical acclaim-you said Mario Kart 8's victories on Wii U didn't add to the discussion)

I didn't compared based on just one trait. It was: popularity, RPG game, modern home console game. In the case of Mario Kart 8, all they would have in common would be popularity, so I said that it would not add much in the discussion.

All of the games I listed were released in 2017 (August for Mario Rabbids, June for Arms, July for Splatoon, April for Mario Kart). This is after after BotW's Game Awards 2016, Game Critics Awards 2016, and the Japanese Game Awards (the ceremony was after the release, but the awards were for games up to March 2017).

No...I were talking about examples like Paper Mario and Undertale, which have more to do with your vision of current Pokémon, and that have been released in current home consoles and compete with Botw.

Very much so. The idea of "real chance of competition" is based on your own opinions of the games. But your opinion of whether they had a real chance of competition or not is irrelevant to the awards themselves, which did consider them worth nominating. Whether or not you agree with their decision, it's an undeniable fact that the critics behind the awards thought they had a chance.

Okay, then. I'm really not going to get into this discussion.

I really think Sun and Moon had great chances and merit in all of the nominations that I have quoted, but I really don't think Mario and Rabbids deserved to win any of the awards that you have quoted.

But okay, we would stay here until the release of the 8th generation if we were to discuss this in depth. It's hard to make an objective analysis of games, it is much harder to make objective analyzes of different games. I definitely will not discuss this any more. I don't even know if I'm the best person for do something like that. I'll just friendly keep disagreeing with you on this.

Being recognized by critics and the public determines relevancy, but the awards and popularity of the other games don't count?

A person may like something and yet recognize that it's objectively bad. A person may not like something and yet recognize that it's objectively good.
Relevance is determined by a set of things, not by isolated factors.

Edit
Corrected english errors (won*...it's*...to me*...doesn't*...it hasn't*...may*...every*...researching*).

 

[prog rocker]

In the context of the conversation, I just thought they were referring to physical play ability. For example, let's go highly encourages/markets using the the joycons/pokeball + to play the game, which is only possible while docked. The next games will not have features like this, allowing the handheld mode to be more accessible (as any Switch game should since being able to play the console out of the dock is one of the main appeals). I can't find the original interview, but I'm pretty sure this was what they were referring to. I don't think this is meant to imply that the game would be "less of a console game"? I honestly don't understand what people mean by being like a console game. The only thing I associate with a console game is better graphics and a larger scale. Better graphics was one of the vague promises they made, so we'll see.

I always thought they were referring to this, specially since I have more or less the same concept that you have about console and portable games, with the addition of less content on portable games due to memory issues (well, that's the reason most of the time). Since the Switch doesn't have that limitation we shouldn't worry about that (unless they pull another X/Y, but I doubt it).

EDIT: Clarity.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Okay, I got it. However, I still disagree with the "often" part. I see a lot more bad~mediocre things being popular than the really good ones.

I think this is more likely due to you having different tastes rather than objective quality. People don't often enjoy things that don't have at least some positive aspect.

But on the discussion around this, I honestly think you're still seeing this in a wrong way. People compare Pokémon to Botw , and don't compare to Mario Kart, although both Mario Kart and Botw have been succeeds in different ways, simply because Pokémon has much more to do with Botw than with Mario Kart. That's the way I see it.

My point is that BotW is not the only way to succeed. Just because BotW has some traits people are wanting from Pokemon doesn't mean it's the only way for Pokemon to succeed. Even though Mario Kart has different gameplay from Pokemon, there are still some positives from it that Pokemon could also add, such as enhancing multiplayer or adding more methods of gameplay.

The Zelda games have presented revolutionary things in many ways, but the same can not be said of Pokémon games.

So, being revolutionary doesn't count enough for Undertale to be considered relevant, but it's more important than popularity and financial success when comparing Pokemon and LoZ?

I'm not ignoring. These aren't things that alone define relevance, but rather together.

With every other game, you say their relevance is lesser because of a trait they don't measure up in-but with LoZ, you say the difference in financial success and popularity doesn't matter.

For example, remakes and, mainly the enhanced versions, are cash grab games.

Games that introduce new gameplay and new graphics seem like cash grabs to you?

(with popularity and financial success being the least important things to determine the relevance of something, after all, as I said, not everything that is popular is good. In fact, most of the things that are popular are bad.

We're not defining things by quality, we're defining things by relevance. If something has become popular, then it has affected a large number of people and become relevant to their lives. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's good, it will still be relevant to them. The definition of relevancy doesn't have anything to do with the quality of something-that's something you added in yourself.

That's because you can't say that all Pokémon games are a masterpiece, but you can still say that for almost every Zelda game.

That's a totally subjective opinion.

Influence is not directly tied to popularity. Although it does have something to do with.
For example, an unknown, very good work, may present something interesting and new to industry, and influence various authors who have read it in their own works. Thus, the first work becomes influential, but at the same time, it didn't become popular for that.

If multiple authors have been influenced by it, then it's become popular among authors. It wouldn't be able to influence multiple people if multiple people had not heard of it.

Overerall quality is not necessarily subjective. There are ways to determine the quality of a game through objective aspects such as: animation, plot, level design, what the game brings from innovation to the genre, etc. Otherwise, it would not be possible to determine in fact whether a game is good or not, if we were to relativize everything and take everything to the subjective side.

While it's true we can look at individual aspects of a game and see how well they accomplish their intended tasks, analyzing the game as a whole is something done subjectively. BotW has nothing in the way of multiplayer gameplay, so it's objectively bad in that department, but it's still considered a good game. This is because people place different values on the various aspects of a game. Some people don't think that multiplayer is necessary for a good game, and so it doesn't affect their opinion of BotW as a good game. Similarly, people consider Mario Kart a good game despite its lack of an explorable world, and Odyssey a good game despite its small story. What people consider a good game is going to vary based on what they want, and so it will be subjective. (

Look, I really would not agree with that at all.

I don't follow the Gamescom Awards, but researching a little, Botw didn't win the award in 2016?

My mistake on not clarifying-Splatoon took Game of the Year with the Japanese Game Awards, not the Gamescom Awards.

I didn't compared based on just one trait. It was: popularity, RPG game, modern home console game. In the case of Mario Kart 8, all they would have in common would be popularity, so I said that it would not add much in the discussion.

They also have their position on a home console in common.

No...I were talking about examples like Paper Mario and Undertale

I was pretty clearly talking about the concept of a console game, not of an RPG game. (The idea of awards before another game was around to compete first came up because you said Mario Kart's Wii U award didn't count because it was before BotW and Odyssey)

which have more to do with your vision of current Pokémon

I don't have any current vision for Pokemon. I gave these as examples of RPGs that didn't have much exploration and were still successful, not as examples of what I want Pokemon to be like.

Relevance is determined by a set of things, not by isolated factors.

And critical acclaim and popularity were in that set you listed.

 

[Fluttershy of Light]

Looking at the some of comments it looks like the conversation veered off a bit from Generation 8 leaks and speculations.

 

[Knightwolf09]

Looking at the some of comments it looks like the conversation veered off a bit from Generation 8 leaks and speculations.

Not much to talk about at the moment. But I'm sure By december things'll pick up

 

[Myth]

I think this is more likely due to you having different tastes rather than objective quality. People don't often enjoy things that don't have at least some positive aspect.

I really think it has more to do with the fact that most of the people don't have proper knowledge about things to have standards on, and so bad things becomes popular, and really good things end up being something niche. At least, in most cases.

My point is that BotW is not the only way to succeed. Just because BotW has some traits people are wanting from Pokemon doesn't mean it's the only way for Pokemon to succeed. Even though Mario Kart has different gameplay from Pokemon, there are still some positives from it that Pokemon could also add, such as enhancing multiplayer or adding more methods of gameplay.

I got it. Seeing that way, that's a good point.

So, being revolutionary doesn't count enough for Undertale to be considered relevant, but it's more important than popularity and financial success when comparing Pokemon and LoZ?

I've never said that Undertale isn't relevant. I stated something like this in the edit of my first post on this page.

All I said was that Undertale is not as relevant as Pokémon or The Legend of Zelda. And really, it wasn't supposed to pass that impression (that Undertale is not relevant at all). Because yeah, it is. Paper Mario is relevant, as well.

With every other game, you say their relevance is lesser because of a trait they don't measure up in-but with LoZ, you say the difference in financial success and popularity doesn't matter.

Popularity and financial success are what matters least, I said so.

Using a Practical Example:

A sportsman is very popular and financially valuable (for example, the value of a football player is currently measured not only by his field competence, but also by his marketing power, which sells shirts, brings members to the club, etc.) , but it's bad.

The other is not popular, but it's good.

The third is popular, financially valuable, and is good too.

We can say that the most relevant among the three for the sport is the third, without a doubt.

And that the second is the second most relevant. Because even though he isn't famous, he will be eternalized by his conquests, and will be remembered for the next generations.

As for the first sportsman, he is the least relevant. If he leaves the sport, only his fans (who do not understand about the sport and therefore think he is good), and his club (who exploited his image financially) will miss him. Assuming he has achieved nothing, he will hardly be remembered, and objectively speaking, the sport will not miss him too.

Now, going back to the discussion, The Legend of Zelda also has great popularity and great financial success, even though Pokémon has more.

I just think that by others most important aspects of defining relevancy other than popularity and financial success, The Legend of Zelda is still a bit ahead of Pokémon about relevancy.

Games that introduce new gameplay and new graphics seem like cash grabs to you?

If you are referring to the enhanced versions, I sure think they are. Most of the enhanced versions didn't have enough enhancements to be sold as a completely new game.

We're not defining things by quality, we're defining things by relevance. If something has become popular, then it has affected a large number of people and become relevant to their lives. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's good, it will still be relevant to them. The definition of relevancy doesn't have anything to do with the quality of something-that's something you added in yourself.

Oh, but I'm not questioning what's important/relevant to each of the people, that's totally subjective.

I am addressing the common sense of relevance, what is relevant in the video game industry. And in this context, as I have already explained in the case of the sportsman, quality is a much more important aspect than popularity alone.

That's a totally subjective opinion.

Except it's not. As I said, there are ways to determine the quality of a game objectively.

If multiple authors have been influenced by it, then it's become popular among authors. It wouldn't be able to influence multiple people if multiple people had not heard of it.

Yes, it can be said that it became popular among the authors. And that's why I said it does have something to do with popularity, but it's is not directly tied to it.

After all, several people can be influenced by those authors who have been influenced by the first author, and at the same time, not even know that they are being influenced by the firsts one. Or as often happens, don't even know who the first author is.

While it's true we can look at individual aspects of a game and see how well they accomplish their intended tasks, analyzing the game as a whole is something done subjectively. BotW has nothing in the way of multiplayer gameplay, so it's objectively bad in that department, but it's still considered a good game. This is because people place different values on the various aspects of a game. Some people don't think that multiplayer is necessary for a good game, and so it doesn't affect their opinion of BotW as a good game. Similarly, people consider Mario Kart a good game despite its lack of an explorable world, and Odyssey a good game despite its small story. What people consider a good game is going to vary based on what they want, and so it will be subjective. (

But in that way you are over-relativizing things, and becomes impossible to have any discussion about the quality of anything.

Also, Botw was originally designed to have exploration aspects, and Mario Kart was originally designed to have multiplayer aspects. This will count when it comes to making an objective review.

My mistake on not clarifying-Splatoon took Game of the Year with the Japanese Game Awards, not the Gamescom Awards.

In 2017 Botw won the Grand Award at the Japan Game Awards, as well. Because of the date release, Mario Odyssey not even competed.

In the 2018 edition, Monster Hunter World won the Grand Award, while Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 2 won "awards of excellence". (USUM won it too)

In 2016, Splatoon won the Grand Award. But Mario Odyssey wasn't even competing, so I don't understand what you want to mean by that.

If you mean that Splatoon 2 would have more chances than mario Odyssey to win the 2018's Grand Award, I disagree. Splatoon 2 hasn't improved that much compared to its predecessor. But yes, it has to do with my judgment on that. May be it's just one more thing that I'll just friendly keep disagreeing with you. But I don't see much sense in trying to argue about it.

They also have their position on a home console in common.

That's right, I think. Although the Wii U is an outdated console in some ways, the Switch can also be considered this way...

I was pretty clearly talking about the concept of a console game, not of an RPG game. (The idea of awards before another game was around to compete first came up because you said Mario Kart's Wii U award didn't count because it was before BotW and Odyssey)

Okay, maybe I've mixed things up, or maybe you've done it. Recapitulating it:

In a previous answer, you mentioned "there are several successful Switch games that did not have this at all-Splatoon 2, Arms, Mario Rabbids, and Mario Kart, which outsold BotW."

And then, I got into the merits of the awards, about those Switch games that you have mentioned previously (Mario Rabbids etc.).

You answered me by saying that Mario Kart had won an Award on Wii U, and then I said that Botw and Mario Odyssey weren't there to compete with it tho.

So, you told me: "In that case, we should also be ignoring BotW's awards prior to the release of the games I mentioned, since they were not around to compete, either."

If you were not referring to the RPG games that you quoted that also have won awards (Undertale, Mario Paper), then what games were you referring to?

Because Mario Rabbids, Splatoon 2, Arms, all of these competed with Botw for "best Switch game" Awards.

I don't have any current vision for Pokemon. I gave these as examples of RPGs that didn't have much exploration and were still successful, not as examples of what I want Pokemon to be like.

I understand that these are not things you want Pokemon to be like. But because of these posts:

I can understand wanting these things, but I don't understand how they make Pokemon feel any more like a console game? (especially the end goal part-that's entirely based on story, not gameplay) Comparing it to console RPGs with similar audiences (Earthbound, Paper Mario games, Undertale), only one of those has branching endings, and none of them have particularly notable postgames.

Not what you were talking about, but they were what PurplePegasus said when prog asked what they would consider console traits.


While positive traits, these aren't requirements to make something a console game. There are several successful Switch games that didn't have this at all-Splatoon 2, Arms, Mario Rabbids, and Mario Kart, which outsold BotW. And as mentioned before, past console RPGs like Earthbound, Paper Mario, and Undertale don't have open world features and are still popular console games.


That's because it's a platformer, and there's more alternate challenges to make with one level. It'd be like Pokemon letting you battle gym leaders in different battle formats. Good gameplay for sure, but it's not a massive improvement to Pokemon in terms of world restriction.

I thought it was games that reflected your view of Pokémon games these days (in the 3DS era).

And critical acclaim and popularity were in that set you listed.

Yes, but they are part of a whole, they can't be used alone to define relevance.

 

[PurplePopplio]

Not much to talk about at the moment. But I'm sure By december things'll pick up

December is when we receive info about the next film right? If so, maybe we'll get a hint about next year's games.

 

[Myth]

Looking at the some of comments it looks like the conversation veered off a bit from Generation 8 leaks and speculations.

Uh, sorry about that.

But as was said, there isn't much to talk about now.

And although the discussion has gone a bit far, it still has to do with what kind of approach the 8th Gen Pokémon games will have on the Switch.

I really found the discussion so far very productive, after all. And I believe we are about to come to a consensus on most matters in which it is possible to reach it.

December is when we receive info about the next film right? If so, maybe we'll get a hint about next year's games.

Yeah, like I commented on a previous page, December's CoroCoro might bring something about it.

I wonder now if Meltan and his evolution will have anything to do with the movie, or whether they will appear in the anime. If it is the second option, it means that the next batch of information about the next movie may give some clue about something from the 8th generation. Otherwise, it would focus on revealing Meltan's involvement on the movie.