• 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 Stars Discussion Thread (Speculation)

Do you think that Stars is real or Fake

  • Real

    Votes: 61 59.8%
  • Fake

    Votes: 41 40.2%

  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
No. Because while it is not a solid argument by itself, it is still a very good point.

For example, Game Freak has not just suddenly completely abandoned Nintendo consoles entirely before, even when they were not fond of choices Nintendo made. I think we can all agree this is a good reason to consider GF may decide to develop for the Switch. In fact, it's pretty much half of the basis of the argument in favor of GF developing for the Switch).

GF has also not abandoned Pokemon before just because they were not necessarily fond of the console options. This is the other half of the basis for the aforementioned argument.

Choosing to say it is not a good argument negates the majority of the support for Pokemon games on the Switch as having any validity.

That's because Gamefreak can't abandon Nintendo. Don't forget that Nintendo owns just as much of Pokémon as Gamefreak does. There is going to be something in the contract that only allows Pokémon games to be created for Nintendo consoles. Also, do you even have to wonder why Gamefreak wouldn't ban Pokémon?

The argument is most certainly not a good argument to make. There is a first time for everything, and Gamefreak have already proven time and time again that they are very capable and willing to do things they have never done before.
 
That's because Gamefreak can't abandon Nintendo. Don't forget that Nintendo owns just as much of Pokémon as Gamefreak does. There is going to be something in the contract that only allows Pokémon games to be created for Nintendo consoles. Also, do you even have to wonder why Gamefreak wouldn't ban Pokémon?

The argument is most certainly not a good argument to make. There is a first time for everything, and Gamefreak have already proven time and time again that they are very capable and willing to do things they have never done before.

To refute your first paragraph, all I have to do is quote your second.

That is all I need to say to show how unreasonable this stance is.
 
To refute your first paragraph, all I have to do is quote your second.

That is all I need to say to show how unreasonable this stance is.

Did you even read the first paragraph? Sure, there is a first time for everything, but not if it goes against a likely contract. You think Nintendo went into this without ensuring that Pokémon was created only for their consoles? I really doubt Gamefreak creates Pokémon games just for Nintendo purely because they want to.

However, generally, the whole "Gamefreak has never done it before" is a terrible argument. Everything has never been done before, until it has been done. It is an argument that makes no sense. Look at what Gamefreak did with SM. People thought gamefreak would never stop using Pokémon Gyms, and look at where we are now. Sure, you can use the argument to make guesses as to where something is headed, however, that is all. There is nothing factual about the argument at all. It is useful only for guesswork.
 
Did you even read the first paragraph? Sure, there is a first time for everything, but not if it goes against a likely contract. You think Nintendo went into this without ensuring that Pokémon was created only for their consoles? I really doubt Gamefreak creates Pokémon games just for Nintendo purely because they want to.

However, generally, the whole "Gamefreak has never done it before" is a terrible argument. Everything has never been done before, until it has been done. It is an argument that makes no sense. Look at what Gamefreak did with SM. People thought gamefreak would never stop using Pokémon Gyms, and look at where we are now. Sure, you can use the argument to make guesses as to where something is headed, however, that is all. There is nothing factual about the argument at all. It is useful only for guesswork.

To counter your post: Did you even read the post I made that you first replied to?

This is how I opened it:

No. Because while it is not a solid argument by itself, it is still a very good point.

I openly admitted, at the very beginning, that such a stance is not good on its own.

I then went on to point out GF has never abandoned Nintendo or Pokemon. And you replied by talking about why they have never abandoned either (thus providing evidence for my point), and further by stating that just because they have never done something before doesn't mean that they won't do it now... basically, undermining your entire point in a vain attempt to counter my own.

And in this latest reply, your second paragraph again undermines your first. Because the entire purpose of your first paragraph is to provide support for your stance of "Game Freak has never done it before" with relation to breaking contracts as why Game Freak will continue to stay with Pokemon and Nintendo.

So, in essence, you are using an argument that you outright state makes no sense as a basis for why Game Freak will stay with Nintendo and Pokemon. An argument you go on to state has, and I quote, "nothing factual about" it and "is useful only for guesswork."

You effectively admit there is nothing factual about your own stance Game Freak will not abandon Nintendo and Pokemon and that your own argument in that direction makes no sense.

Incidentally, this is a speculation thread. Guesswork is primarily what you'll find posted here. Something useful for guesswork is pretty much most of what we have to go on.

Now, I will state this: Game Freak will not break contract with Nintendo and will not stop producing Pokemon games. Because Game Freak has never done it before. You are welcome to argue I am incorrect or that is a terrible argument, if you wish.
 
To counter your post: Did you even read the post I made that you first replied to?

This is how I opened it:



I openly admitted, at the very beginning, that such a stance is not good on its own.

I then went on to point out GF has never abandoned Nintendo or Pokemon. And you replied by talking about why they have never abandoned either (thus providing evidence for my point), and further by stating that just because they have never done something before doesn't mean that they won't do it now... basically, undermining your entire point in a vain attempt to counter my own.

And in this latest reply, your second paragraph again undermines your first. Because the entire purpose of your first paragraph is to provide support for your stance of "Game Freak has never done it before" with relation to breaking contracts as why Game Freak will continue to stay with Pokemon and Nintendo.

So, in essence, you are using an argument that you outright state makes no sense as a basis for why Game Freak will stay with Nintendo and Pokemon. An argument you go on to state has, and I quote, "nothing factual about" it and "is useful only for guesswork."

You effectively admit there is nothing factual about your own stance Game Freak will not abandon Nintendo and Pokemon and that your own argument in that direction makes no sense.

Incidentally, this is a speculation thread. Guesswork is primarily what you'll find posted here. Something useful for guesswork is pretty much most of what we have to go on.

Now, I will state this: Game Freak will not break contract with Nintendo and will not stop producing Pokemon games. Because Game Freak has never done it before. You are welcome to argue I am incorrect or that is a terrible argument, if you wish.

No, Gamefreak will never leave Pokémon because it would be a completely stupid thing for them to do. They don't create many other games. Only now are they starting to really get into doing other things. If they left the Pokémon franchise, they'll have to really jump into a lot of different projects in order to stay relevant. It has nothing to do with 'because they have never done it before.' That doesn't even make sense to say, and doesn't apply to this specific argument at all. All you are doing is finding some way to discredit me, and failing. Your argument didn't work. It has NOTHING to do with 'because they haven't done it yet.'

You may as well argue that gamefreak should have never gotten into developing Pokémon games because they have never developed Pokémon games before. See how that argument makes no sense?

Now, in regards to 'Gamefreak never doing things before', to be applied to an actual argument, and not used to explain why Gamefreak haven't stopped developing Pokémon games (which is ridiculous to even suggest), Gamefreak have proven themselves that that argument does not work. Again, I'll reuse the example of Gamefreak getting rid of Pokémon Gyms. "Gamefreak will never go to a new console mid generation, because they have never done it before." "Yes, well you also said that that they will never get rid of Pokémon Gyms, and look how that turned out." There are plenty of things that Gamefreak have done, despite the fact they have never done it before.

People only use that argument because they can't think of any other argument. Gamefreak (and any other company) would be foolish to actually decide not to do something purely because "they have never done it before." If Gamefreak chooses to do or not to do something, it is because they have logical reasons as to why.
 
Wow! We really need some news, any news, no matter the size, fast! :/

Agreed, this is getting ridiculous, and we're entering the months to where, if there will be a main series game this year, they have about 2 months at MOST to announce it. They could at least announce a side game or give us GSC VC releases to calm us for awhile, after all, RBY VC releases helped us get through the void between ORAS and SM, I really wanna play Crystal on VC damn it!
 
No, Gamefreak will never leave Pokémon because it would be a completely stupid thing for them to do. They don't create many other games. Only now are they starting to really get into doing other things. If they left the Pokémon franchise, they'll have to really jump into a lot of different projects in order to stay relevant. It has nothing to do with 'because they have never done it before.' That doesn't even make sense to say, and doesn't apply to this specific argument at all. All you are doing is finding some way to discredit me, and failing. Your argument didn't work. It has NOTHING to do with 'because they haven't done it yet.'

You may as well argue that gamefreak should have never gotten into developing Pokémon games because they have never developed Pokémon games before. See how that argument makes no sense?

Now, in regards to 'Gamefreak never doing things before', to be applied to an actual argument, and not used to explain why Gamefreak haven't stopped developing Pokémon games (which is ridiculous to even suggest), Gamefreak have proven themselves that that argument does not work. Again, I'll reuse the example of Gamefreak getting rid of Pokémon Gyms. "Gamefreak will never go to a new console mid generation, because they have never done it before." "Yes, well you also said that that they will never get rid of Pokémon Gyms, and look how that turned out." There are plenty of things that Gamefreak have done, despite the fact they have never done it before.

People only use that argument because they can't think of any other argument. Gamefreak (and any other company) would be foolish to actually decide not to do something purely because "they have never done it before." If Gamefreak chooses to do or not to do something, it is because they have logical reasons as to why.

First, to address an argument you think makes no sense:

It should be noted that Game Freak almost failed at making the first Pokemon game; they had to get another studio to finish the work because they didn't know what they were doing. That's why the Pokemon franchise has three owners instead of just two. So history itself shows that they didn't actually have the experience necessary to make Pokemon games at the time they started, and it really wouldn't be hard to argue that their lack of being prepared means they probably shouldn't have made Pokemon games at the time. But they did, and they were smart enough to reach out for help once they discovered they really were not in any shape to finish the job.

Thus, the argument that Game Freak should not have gotten into making Pokemon games makes perfect sense when you take into account all of the details and the fact that reality showed Game Freak really wasn't up to the task of developing Pokemon games at the time it started. If it wasn't for that third company getting involved, the entire franchise would have failed before the first game was even released.

So the idea that Game Freak was in no position to develop Pokemon games at the time it started isn't just a sensible argument, but historical fact.

Now, for the rest:

Basically, you're justifying why Game Freak would never move away from Nintendo. You state it was a stupid move. Well, as history shows, so was taking on the project to develop Pokemon in the first place. So was dropping all other projects to focus entirely on Pokemon. Dropping your most popular franchise and going away from a profitable gaming relationship isn't outside the realm of possibility; it wouldn't even be the first stupid decision Game Freak would have made related to the Pokemon series.

And if you want to talk about companies doing things that are dumb... There's a long list. Nintendo is on that list, and Nintendo owns one third of the Pokemon franchise. And let's not forget companies like TSR, who proved you can still have a society-shaping product as your entire focus and manage to drive yourself into bankruptcy. Or let's talk about a number of video game developers, such as Interplay, that have published multiple extremely-powerful franchises and still managed to make dumb mistakes that drove them straight into the ground. Game Freak doing something as suicidal as abandoning Pokemon and Nintendo is neither out of character for their history nor remarkable for a video game developer.

Basically, the only logical basis you have for saying they won't is the fact they've never done it before. You can't use financial suicide as a basis, as Game Freak has already proven they are willing to risk that repeatedly.

Your argument that Game Freak has proven they will do things they've never done before applies as well to any argument against them deciding to just abandon Pokemon and Nintendo to do those other games you said they would have to do. After all, they up and did two things just as dumb before in relation to Pokemon.

Your statement that companies will refuse to not do something because they've never done it before: That's the basic reason why we divide markets into industries. Not Always Right is full of stories of customers complaining about this aspect of capitalism. Companies make that decision for that exact reason all of the time. It's a side-effect of specialization and necessary skillsets for each specialization.

It's also the basis of the three major console developers. Nintendo didn't just decide to make the NES; they started out working for Atari. Sony started out working for Nintendo. Microsoft started out providing technical help with computer games. Each of those companies walked into the industry as a console developer after already having experience with the industry. Even Atari, the company that effectively created the video game console, was started based on already-existing experience within the arcade game industry.

They didn't truly be rid of gyms. Compare the Trials and many older gyms. It's still the same mechanics and still the same fight-battles-and-solve-puzzles-to-continue system many gyms had in prior games. The only difference is you're no longer allowed to leave in the middle and the enemy trainers have been removed. Just like the Ride Pager is basically a revamped HM system.

And, no, I wasn't trying to discredit you before. I was pointing out the fact that the only logical basis for your argument that holds up to any scrutiny is the very thing you were arguing against. I'm after your argument, not you.
 
If I may I'd like to chime in on the argument of where Pokemon games fall in terms of development. To understand how they're made you have to understand what goes into getting the games from point A to point B. The Pokemon franchise as a whole is owned by 3 major companies, Game Freak, Creatures inc., and Nintendo. On one hand GF and Creatures have control over the creative and development side of of things. The actual creation of the main series games essentially. Nintendo on the other hand has complete control over the distribution and production side of things. Nintendo alone has the licensing rights to distribute Pokemon goods and have said games be made for their systems. So when people ask "what if GF wanted to leave Nintendo?" The answer is really a :they very well could". The problem is that Pokemon wouldn't be able to go with them. GF itself is a 3rd party company. Nintendo can't tell them what to make and very rarely can tell them how to make games either. The problem is that since they have total control over the distribution of Pokemon there's very little GF can do as far as which consoles they produce the games for. People like to say that GF has control over that and due to this control they won't ever make a main series game for a home console. This idea is the very backbone for many people when it comes to the possibility of a Pokemon game on the Switch. There's a huge problem with that idea tho.....It's a false sense of security. Yes in a sense GF has control of which system they make Pokemon on, but that depends ENTIRELY on whether Nintendo gives them any options. If tomorrow Nintendo said they're discontinuing the 3DS in all forms and were going to focus completely on the Switch GF would have no other options. GF only really has the choice when Nintendo gives it to them. Even if the 3DS does stick around if Nintendo tells them they want a Pokemon game on the Switch then GF has 2 options. They either follow orders or they stop making Pokemon. The second option I don't see happening anytime soon. GF will develop Pokemon for whatever system Nintendo makes and if it ends up Nintendo goes entirely into the Switch's hybrid concept then they will either have to get with the program or get out. Of course with all that said it's not like Nintendo could make a Pokemon game without GF's ok, but the fact of the matter is that GF doesn't call ALL the shots at all times. They can make whatever game they want, but at the end of the day it's Nintendo's call as to which console they develop Pokemon for. Like @Akira Bond has been saying Nintendo and GF have a contract. One that won't be so easily broken just because one of them says they want or don't want to do something. They've made an agreement and have to abide by that. Neither can do anything without the other, but that doesn't mean they can't push each other around a bit in the middle. As for GF ending Pokemon I can't see that happening. It's too much of a gravy train for them and while they have been seen to develop other games, it's not like they can jump ship at just any point. They do have their families to think about right? lol
 
Akira and I are not arguing whether or not Pokemon will end; we've both stated it won't.

We're arguing about whether a certain piece of logic is valid. There is some definite reductio ad absurdum going on, but the entire argument is absurd anyway.

Yes, that includes my posts. Really, I should have waited longer before replying to Akira and then just clarified my position. That probably would have prevented it from starting.
 
Last edited:
First, to address an argument you think makes no sense:

It should be noted that Game Freak almost failed at making the first Pokemon game; they had to get another studio to finish the work because they didn't know what they were doing. That's why the Pokemon franchise has three owners instead of just two. So history itself shows that they didn't actually have the experience necessary to make Pokemon games at the time they started, and it really wouldn't be hard to argue that their lack of being prepared means they probably shouldn't have made Pokemon games at the time. But they did, and they were smart enough to reach out for help once they discovered they really were not in any shape to finish the job.

Thus, the argument that Game Freak should not have gotten into making Pokemon games makes perfect sense when you take into account all of the details and the fact that reality showed Game Freak really wasn't up to the task of developing Pokemon games at the time it started. If it wasn't for that third company getting involved, the entire franchise would have failed before the first game was even released.

So the idea that Game Freak was in no position to develop Pokemon games at the time it started isn't just a sensible argument, but historical fact.

Now, for the rest:

Basically, you're justifying why Game Freak would never move away from Nintendo. You state it was a stupid move. Well, as history shows, so was taking on the project to develop Pokemon in the first place. So was dropping all other projects to focus entirely on Pokemon. Dropping your most popular franchise and going away from a profitable gaming relationship isn't outside the realm of possibility; it wouldn't even be the first stupid decision Game Freak would have made related to the Pokemon series.

And if you want to talk about companies doing things that are dumb... There's a long list. Nintendo is on that list, and Nintendo owns one third of the Pokemon franchise. And let's not forget companies like TSR, who proved you can still have a society-shaping product as your entire focus and manage to drive yourself into bankruptcy. Or let's talk about a number of video game developers, such as Interplay, that have published multiple extremely-powerful franchises and still managed to make dumb mistakes that drove them straight into the ground. Game Freak doing something as suicidal as abandoning Pokemon and Nintendo is neither out of character for their history nor remarkable for a video game developer.

Basically, the only logical basis you have for saying they won't is the fact they've never done it before. You can't use financial suicide as a basis, as Game Freak has already proven they are willing to risk that repeatedly.

Your argument that Game Freak has proven they will do things they've never done before applies as well to any argument against them deciding to just abandon Pokemon and Nintendo to do those other games you said they would have to do. After all, they up and did two things just as dumb before in relation to Pokemon.

Your statement that companies will refuse to not do something because they've never done it before: That's the basic reason why we divide markets into industries. Not Always Right is full of stories of customers complaining about this aspect of capitalism. Companies make that decision for that exact reason all of the time. It's a side-effect of specialization and necessary skillsets for each specialization.

It's also the basis of the three major console developers. Nintendo didn't just decide to make the NES; they started out working for Atari. Sony started out working for Nintendo. Microsoft started out providing technical help with computer games. Each of those companies walked into the industry as a console developer after already having experience with the industry. Even Atari, the company that effectively created the video game console, was started based on already-existing experience within the arcade game industry.

They didn't truly be rid of gyms. Compare the Trials and many older gyms. It's still the same mechanics and still the same fight-battles-and-solve-puzzles-to-continue system many gyms had in prior games. The only difference is you're no longer allowed to leave in the middle and the enemy trainers have been removed. Just like the Ride Pager is basically a revamped HM system.

And, no, I wasn't trying to discredit you before. I was pointing out the fact that the only logical basis for your argument that holds up to any scrutiny is the very thing you were arguing against. I'm after your argument, not you.

Your argument is fine except for the fact that Pokémon has arguably become one of the biggest and most well known franchises. They may have needed help finishing the game, however, there wouldn't have been Pokémon AT ALL if it wasn't for Gamefreak. Just because they needed help, doesn't mean they should have never have done it. Could you imagine if Pokémon had never existed at all? The thought of it saddens me. Pokémon is life.

Although I understand your viewpoints, it still doesn't change the fact that 'Gamefreak won't do something because they haven't before' isn't a strong argument. Nobody knows what Gamefreak will or won't do, so saying they won't has no base to it. It is the same thing as when people say that Gamefreak WILL do something, because they have always done it before. "We'll definitely be getting a third version, Gamefreak have always done that." But there was a time we had sequels instead.

If someone wants to theorise that Gamefreak isn't going to do something, and there argument is solely 'because they have never done it before', I'm not going to stop them (although I wish I could, to be honest), however, if that is their only argument, all it shows is that they have no kind of evidence against it at all. If Pokémon Stars does get released on Nintendo Switch, it will only be further evidence that that argument should not be used.
 
Last edited:
Here's a Reddit User's comment on Pokemon for the Switch, and why he doesn't want it to happen. I agree on all of these points.

  • Gamefreak have always released on the biggest market share, BW2 came out on the DS a year and a half after the 3DS was released, I admit that may have been for generation reasons but X and Y were released when the 3DS was 2 and half years old.

  • The switch is not Nintendo's new handheld, it's their new home console, they've made the clear and expect the 3DS to continue for some time more (hence the 2014 update), I think we may soon start to see "new" 3DS exclusives.

  • Nintendo don't decide the console as far as I know, The Pokemon Company/Gamefreak do.

  • In the past they've been fundementally against releasing main series for home consoles because of the games multiplayer trading mechanics.

  • The switch is too expensive for the younger (and significant proportion of the) Pokemon demographic, Pokemon/Nintendo want every child to have a console and for them to buy a game each. The series is set up to encourage that. Switch will be likely 1 per household.

  • Until a week or so ago the sales figures for the new 3DS and the Switch were roughly the same, the new 3DS is now over 2 years old. Switch sales have since surged but the "old" handheld is far from dead.

  • Yes, and it's fairly well known that GF and Nintendo had some serious disagreement regarding BW2 and the slow move to the 3DS. It's far more likely that they'll be an early adopter this time.
  • The Switch, at least for now, is Nintendo's new handheld, actually. They have said multiple times that it is both. A hybrid. A home console capable of going portable, and a handheld capable of being played as a TV home console. In addition, there are a few handheld-only games coming out for Switch. Conversely, there are zero docked-only games coming out. That alone proves that it is just as much a handheld as it is a console, if not more.
  • Technically Nintendo does not choose platform, no. But they do have a very close relationship within TPC (of which Gamefreak and Nintendo are co-owners, and I'm sure there are some higher-ups that have a say in the matter).
  • So? That was in the past. Not only is the Switch capable of being a handheld system just like the 3DS (hell, they advertised it in handheld mode and/or playing with friends in handheld/tabletop mode for at least a solid 3/4 of ad time), but since G4, we have seen a significant increase (obviously) in online interaction which is possible for home consoles too. This is a complete non-issue.
  • Also untrue. Have you completely forgotten about the 3DS's initial price of $250? Accounting for inflation, that would be $280 in 2017. Yes, the Switch is slightly more expensive, but that didn't stop it from selling out nationwide (and quite faster than the 3DS did, and slightly faster than the Wii). And while this is purely speculation, I strongly believe they're going to (within the next year-ish) start selling a "new" version of the Switch that comes without a dock (i.e. handheld only). Hell, maybe they'll even do it at the same time Pokemon comes out. I mean, the 2DS launched alongside XY, so a handheld only Switch could easily launch alongside Stars/etc.. And given that buying a dock separately currently costs around $70-90 (they haven't made it official I guess? I tried to find the price, and Nintendo included an AC adapter it seems), a handheld only Switch would probably cost around $230. Rewind to 3DS launch time, and that mean the handheld only Switch would cost like $210 (accounting for inflation) 2011 dollars. So it's totally reasonable, especially in my speculative case.
  • The new 3DS is basically a parallel to the DSi. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MATTERS.... The fact is that Sun and Moon maxed out the 3DS's hardware. Ignorance of the fact doesn't change it. Sun and Moon lagged, even on the new 3DS. Chugging battles, occasional graphical weaknesses regarding text bubbles, etc. There is absolutely no way that the next games could be on the new 3DS unless they decided to downgrade certain features.

Also, I just saw that several others also replied, saying some similar things lol, and some better than me. But I digress.
 
Last edited:
Could you imagine if Pokémon had never existed at all?

Yes. Another franchise would have taken its place. Pokemon is not the only franchise that was trying the multimedia range that Pokemon was, and the time was right for a phenomenon like that to succeed. Pokemon won because it is the superior franchise, but at the time it wasn't the only choice.

And part of what has helped Pokemon is the fact that Game Freak did make those mistakes and was smart enough to admit when they were in over their head and ask for help. That tied in what is now Creatures, Inc. Creatures, Inc. helped a lot not just with the main series, but with the side-games and non-video game merchandising. That, in turn, is what made Pokemon the three- or four-media phenomenon it currently is. How many other series can you name that has a successful anime, three successful video game lines, a successful movie series, a successful card game, and a mobile game on cell phones and have all having become known mainstream? DnD can't even boast that, and it's arguably got an even bigger societal impact.

Although I understand your viewpoints, it still doesn't change the fact that 'Gamefreak won't do something because they haven't before' isn't a strong argument. Nobody knows what Gamefreak will or won't do, so saying they won't has no base to it. It is the same thing as when people say that Gamefreak WILL do something, because they have always done it before. "We'll definitely be getting a third version, Gamefreak have always done that." But there was a time we had sequels instead.

We both agree on this. I did state in my first post that "Game Freak has never done it before" is not a good argument on its own, but is still a good point. But, a single good point does not necessarily mean that there is a strong argument there. For example, my point about GF not being ready when they developed Pokemon being a sensible argument based on events that actually happened is a good point... but does not in any way negate the strong argument you pointed out with how things resulted from that risk.

So, I don't think we can entirely discard "Game Freak has never done it before," but we can recognize that it still has some validity as an argument. Especially since a lot of the support for Stars is based on that logic and the fact Game Freak ultimately doesn't have a choice except to develop for the Switch at some point.

If someone wants to theorise that Gamefreak isn't going to do something, and there argument is solely 'because they have never done it before', I'm not going to stop them (although I wish I could, to be honest), however, if that is their only argument, all it shows is that they have no kind of evidence against it at all. If Pokémon Stars does get released on Nintendo Switch, it will only be further evidence that that argument should not be used.

Well, here's the thing: Stars would not be the first time a single Pokemon generation has been multi-platform. Pokemon Yellow was the first one to do that. So in this case, the current Gen being multi-platform would not be something GF has never done before. Having Stars as Switch-only would be a first time GF has done something like that, but that's assuming Stars isn't actually a Switch port of Sun and Moon. Which, IMO, would make more sense; do a quick port of existing games to work out any technical issues, release the third as single-platform on the new platform and work out more bugs, then release remakes to further refine the technique. Plus, I want Sun and Moon on the Switch. I mean, seriously, can you imagine?

However, we do have a problem: Beyond those job vacancies GF is hiring for, pretty much everything we have is speculation. Gamestop's "leak" is best ignored, as even Gamestop will admit that many times those leaks are flat-out wrong. And Eurogamer is basing their stance off things GF has done before.
 
Okay... Did anyone notice something weird about Marshadow reveal?
Usually when a Sun and Moon Pokemon was revealed, we got a background like this
Redirect Notice

The background was half sun-half Moon artwork.

Fast forward to Marshadow reveal
Redirect Notice
The background is really foggy. Not at all like Sun and Moon reveal trailers. Even Cosmog had the original reveal background, then why change?
1. The most unexciting guess- It's special since it's a mythical. I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to grasp at straws and know that Marshadow will likely not be a mascot.
2. Maybe the background is for a future release? Stars comes to mind.
 
It can matter, since it will tell that Marshadow is somehow involved in the game or something. Maybe some lore references?
It's the latest mythical. It will get some lore or a new form.

Don't expect it to be involved in the game's plot or anything like that.
 
I'm gonna say its just because its a Mythical (that didn't get the Lucario treatment), and that were there any more after Marshadow they would had gotten those backgroudns as well
 
It's the latest mythical. It will get some lore or a new form.

Don't expect it to be involved in the game's plot or anything like that.

I'm expecting something bigger for Marshadow, to make it stronger, sorta like Hoopa Unbound. Hoops had a role in ORAS(?) since it was said to open up the wormholes to bring legendaries.

PS : I'm not entirely sure about the ORAS thingies since I wasn't a part of the community then (I didn't investigate deeply into the plot, either), so please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Considering how accurate EuroGamer were with their other Switch related leaks, I'd say Pokémon Stars on the Switch is near set in stone at this stage anyway. In the past few years, GameFreak have developed smaller scale non-Pokémon titles for other systems (Tembo the Badass Elephant, Giga Wrecker), but Pokémon is what keeps their lights on and thus, will be their main focus for the foreseeable future and due to Nintendo's stake in the franchise, its platform will be dictated by what systems Nintendo put out.

I can see Nintendo pressuring GameFreak for Switch exclusivity, especially given Black 2/White 2 and the 3DS' slow start (I mean, Switch units would fly off shelves at Christmas), but with Fire Emblem Warriors receiving a dual New 3DS/Switch release, perhaps something similar could also be on the cards here?
 
Back
Top Bottom