• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Pokemon Legends: Arceus General Discussion

I'm just saying it is filling the role of a remake by being set in Sinnoh. Like it's the game they wanted to do instead of having a standard remake. Plus coupled with BDSP it's like there is 3 remakes/re-imaginings in the span of 2 months.

I wouldn't consider Legends: Arceus to be occupying the space of a remake, I think it's just a new open world, past setting, lore-based direction they want to go in, I expect to see similar games in the future too. They undoubtedly saw the success of BotW and they want in on that hype.
 
They could’ve achieved the best of both worlds by maintaining the scale but having Arceus as an entity looming in the background that is barely visible, similar to Ultra Necrozma featuring on USUM boxart.
Maybe they have and we haven't noticed it yet. Like maybe the glowing thing is not a building but a dormant Arceus statue. Besides if arceus is pokegod shouldn't he be omnipresent :confused:
 
Arceus is literally in the title. That's enough.

I fully expect Spear Pillar, Celestic Town, Solaceon Ruins, Turnback Cave and Snowpoint Temple to be the only relics from ancient times. The main hub is probably Eterna City in its infancy.

The boxart reveal just solidifies the rumor that there could be a Gold/Deluxe of sorts... a "Platinum" edition if you will, that will feature Arceus himself on the cover. Whatever the highest edition is, I'm buying it lol
If they put the Sinjoh Ruins on the cover, then we'll talk. It still wouldn't make sense to buy it if you have the base version and can just download the potential DLC (which the deluxe version would force you to do, anyway).
 
Last edited:
This game is worth no more than $30, BDSP is worth no more than $20. Anything more is a Capitalist, Corporatist Cash-Grab in a year where many people have lost jobs, and have been forcibly evicted. TPCi should have some moral standards.
 
This game is worth no more than $30, BDSP is worth no more than $20. Anything more is a Capitalist, Corporatist Cash-Grab in a year where many people have lost jobs, and have been forcibly evicted. TPCi should have some moral standards.
I think it’s far too early to make assertions about the worth of either game. Not to mention why are you buying video games if you can’t afford basic bills? I also don’t see any reason to single out Pokémon for charging $60 when it’s the standard for every Triple A Nintendo title.

Don’t get me wrong, capitalism is trash but that’s a conversation for another thread.
 
If you look closely at the boxart, it appears there's a shrine of some sort at the summit of Mt. Coronet. It doesn't much resemble the Spear Pillar - it looks like it has a slanting roof.

Edit: Maybe it is the Spear Pillar, but in its original form. The Spear Pillar that we saw in Diamond, Pearl and Platinum does seem like it could be the ruin of what was once a much larger structure.

Maybe that is the original Hall of Origin.
 
This game is worth no more than $30, BDSP is worth no more than $20. Anything more is a Capitalist, Corporatist Cash-Grab in a year where many people have lost jobs, and have been forcibly evicted. TPCi should have some moral standards.
I don't think it's that deep lol
Just don't buy the game if you don't support it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending TPC here (at least in terms of BDSP because Legends seems fine) but this just looks weird.
 
This game is worth no more than $30, BDSP is worth no more than $20. Anything more is a Capitalist, Corporatist Cash-Grab in a year where many people have lost jobs, and have been forcibly evicted. TPCi should have some moral standards.
The people who made the games need to be paid during a global pandemic as well, no?
 
This game is worth no more than $30, BDSP is worth no more than $20. Anything more is a Capitalist, Corporatist Cash-Grab in a year where many people have lost jobs, and have been forcibly evicted. TPCi should have some moral standards.
Knocking 30$ off the price isn't going to help people get their jobs back or be able to afford rent. And I really don't see how gameplay that's clearly going to be different from standard Pokemon gameplay can be called a "cash grab", or how you can assess the costs and value of a game with one trailer and some early public statements.
 
With a single trailer and some minor promotional info, I’m not seeing the “obvious” part here.
To be honest, unless it’s something absolutely groundbreaking I cannot see how it’s worth more than a 3DS game from what we’ve seen so far. We know the major gameplay styles, artstyle and the major story beats already. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out unless there’s something like open world Amity Square hidden behind it. It’s just realistic. It’s an educated guess, if not obvious.
 
To be honest, unless it’s something absolutely groundbreaking I cannot see how it’s worth more than a 3DS game from what we’ve seen so far. We know the major gameplay styles, artstyle and the major story beats already. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out unless there’s something like open world Amity Square hidden behind it. It’s just realistic. It’s an educated guess, if not obvious.
Then it isn’t obvious. But either way I’ll say what I always say: it’s a Triple A Switch title. It’s gonna be $60. This wasn’t decided by Pokémon, it was decided by Nintendo. And I maintain that it’s still too early to determine the games’ worth.
 
Last edited:
Then it isn’t obvious. But either way I’ll say what I always say: it’s a Triple A Switch title. It’s gonna be $60. This wasn’t decided by Pokémon, it was decided by Nintendo. And I maintain that it’s still too early to determine the games’ worth.
What you are saying about it being a AAA title is more of a deflection than an argument on it not being overpriced because every Nintendo switch title for major releases is $60, but the fact that it’s the standard price doesn’t mean the game cannot be overpriced. The "AAA" territory is even more dubious for this game because I don’t think that the company who’s making this game is in that category?
 
What you are saying about it being a AAA title is more of a deflection than an argument on it not being overpriced because every Nintendo switch title for major releases is $60, but the fact that it’s the standard price doesn’t mean the game cannot be overpriced. The "AAA" territory is even more dubious for this game because I don’t think that the company who’s making this game is in that category?
It isn’t a “deflection” it’s a supplementary point. Also the Triple A category can go to any game; it doesn’t matter what company produces it. Any main series Pokemon game is pretty much an automatic Triple A title at this point.
 
It isn’t a “deflection” it’s a supplementary point. Also the Triple A category can go to any game; it doesn’t matter what company produces it. Any main series Pokemon game is pretty much an automatic Triple A title at this point.
It isn’t produced by GameFreak, so I think it’s in a grey area regarding that. I still doing think the supplementary point applies because a AAA title can be overpriced as well.

I'm open to changing my opinion if they release something groundbreaking, but their marketing, by which most people go by, hasn’t so far indicated anything. The Artstyle is stagnant, the promoted gameplay is stagnant and we haven’t seen literally anything new. The promotion cycle may change that, but I won’t change my opinions before that, given the premise of this marketing.
 
It isn’t produced by GameFreak, so I think it’s in a grey area regarding that. I still doing think the supplementary point applies because a AAA title can be overpriced as well.

I'm open to changing my opinion if they release something groundbreaking, but their marketing, by which most people go by, hasn’t so far indicated anything. The Artstyle is stagnant, the promoted gameplay is stagnant and we haven’t seen literally anything new. The promotion cycle may change that, but I won’t change my opinions before that, given the premise of this marketing.
Again, it doesn’t matter if it was produced by GF or not: Triple A titles are not based on developer.

Anyway, my point was it’s nowhere near “obvious” that these games are overpriced. It’s a valid prediction, but it’s still far too early to label this assertion as such. It’s completely fair to say that we don’t know enough yet.
 
Please note: The thread is from 11 months ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom