• 4chan is an 18+ website, and as such we do not want to expose our underage users to that site.

    You may post screen shots and text from 4chan, but direct linking to the site or its archival sites is not allowed.

    Thanks.

  • To keep up with the hype driven by Sword and Shield's release, we are taking applications for new moderators in our Current Events: Sword and Shield as well as Anime and Manga sections.

    For more information, see this thread.We hope you all consider joining our team!
  • We hope you're enjoying Sword and Shield so far! So that everyone can enjoy it and not be spoiled, please keep the all story spoilers and any images from the games in the appropriate sections or in spoiler tags until January 3rd.

    Since spoiler tags are not allowed in signatures, please do not put images from the games in your signature either. You can list the names of new Pokémon if you want to list your team in your signature.

There are petitions about Gamefreak fixing the 'Galar Pokedex' thing

thinking...
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
467
Great, I told myself I wouldn't post here again, but look at me now. Anyway...

... I feel like a lot of people are misunderstanding what fans mean when they want "better animation". Nobody, except from a small fringe, is asking for super-detailed, highly customised, unique animations for each and every combination of Pokemon and move. Instead, I'm pretty sure most people would be happy with:
  • Pokemon moving up to one another for physical attacks (they all have walk/run animations already)
  • Generalised animations for each Pokemon body type - one set for humanoids, one set for four-legged, one set for birds, etc
  • Generalised animations for each type of move - punches, kicks, tail movements (such as Aqua Tail), flying, shooting things from mouth (Flamethrower)
  • Fallback/default animations for when the Pokemon has no animation suited to the move.
How feasible the latter two are depends on how the models are rigged, but it's still better than the ten-year-old animations we have now.
 
Pretense
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
18,123
Reaction score
11,516
The animations aren't 10 years old yet, but you'd be forgiven for thinking they're 20 years old.
 
Pretense
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
18,123
Reaction score
11,516
It's interesting at times but resorts to calling a lot of claims conjecture, and leaving it at that. The language is too academic for the context, as well.

Above all, when you're downplaying statements from both sides, it is not clear what your point really is.
 
Last edited:
Blast Turtle
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
2,927

I found this to be reasonable write up about many of the claims of the controversy of these games so far.
I saw that post stickied at the top of the sub today. Kinda left me with a mixed feeling because the mods didn’t sticky the past two trailers (excluding that announcement) but they’ll sticky... that. But I digress.

While I do think this post has some good talking points, overall I feel it is biased, and way too “academic” like Silktree Silktree said. It feels a little too pretentious; we’re talking about Pokémon not physics. Phrases like “substantiate the null hypothesis” or “an additional line of reasoning is that of asymmetry in stance” do not belong here. It feels like OP is trying to make themselves come off as smart and more credible by throwing around these fancy words and phrases. Honestly I found the whole post annoying and a little difficult to read because of purple prose like "if assumed correct, issues arise, e.g. the presence of Maractus, a cactus Pokémon, in a UK-based region, or Pokémon not fit for cold according to Pokédex entries." Is it too hard to say "the whole 'it's too cold' reasoning falls flat considering Pokémon like Maractus have been spotted in Galar"?

  • Conjecture
  • At this point it is unknown why Game Freak instated the policy change. Considering improvements accumulate in time with upcoming releases and ultimately spanning the entire pool of existing Pokémon, one would assume all Pokémon to be available again at some point. The policy change applying to all games forwards makes it unlikely that temporary issues of technical nature are the underlying reason. The purpose of 3D models to be future-proof lends further credibility to excluding technical reasons as cause for the removal of Pokémon. Animations and balancing have been suggested as reasons in an interview, but no details were presented to confirm the validity of these reasons, nor are they compatible with reasoning presented under other claims of this post.
  • In a Famitsu interview, Junichi Masuda vaguely referenced cold as possible factor. Variable translations yield doubt on the intent and seriousness of his answer. This is the only reference towards such reasoning, no official statements confirm or deny it as in-universe reasoning for the restriction. If assumed correct, issues arise, e.g. the presence of Maractus, a cactus Pokémon, in a UK-based region, or Pokémon not fit for cold according to Pokédex entries. This topic remains speculative until more information is published. Note that in-universe explanations have no bearing on initial reasons for the policy change.

In part 1.16, OP claims that "at this point it is unknown why Game Freak instated the policy change." This seems to directly contradict prior statements made by GameFreak about how they knew they could no longer support all Pokémon, i.e. the cost to maintain and update all 809+ 'mons is too much work, which suggest a reason for why they had Dexit. They addressed the whole "it's too cold" statement, but nothing else.

  • Variable
  • In the strict sense of the term it was never possible to catch all Pokémon in the main Pokémon games. In-game trading, between-game trading, generational transfers and other means were always necessary to obtain certain Pokémon. It stands to reason the slogan refers to acquiring rather than catching Pokémon. Otherwise, The Pokémon Company used a slogan incorrectly for decades. One may also argue that “all” refers to exactly all existing Pokémon, which would be problematic for the existence of wild Pokémon, Legendaries and other Pokémon intended not to be captured. At this point, it’s more a semantic discussion about the slogan rather than its relevance to the upcoming Pokémon games.

In part 2.1, the poster claims that "it stands to reason the slogan [Gotta catch 'em all] refers to acquiring rather than catching Pokémon" but there's no objective way to claim that it refers to either catching or acquiring. I personally believe the slogan refers to acquiring them, but OP presents their argument in 2.1 as though it is 100% true and objective, which is what I take issue with.

  • Incorrect
  • There is yet no evidence that models of existing Pokémon have been altered. Comparisons of outlines of various Pokémon and their 3DS counterparts substantiate the null hypothesis that models remain the same. This is in line with the future-proof aspect of said models, created in quad mode to allow for easy subdivision if at some point higher vertex counts (or higher polygon count for triangle-based derivatives used in the games) are needed.

Part 3.4 directly contradicts what was stated about the models. It claims that the models were reused, despite the fact that GameFreak claimed they had to remake all models from scratch, a statement that the poster doesn’t even address. The only evidence that they provide for the fact that the models are remade is a picture with no explanation and a link to a website in Japanese. Also, here's another instance of fancy language tossed in with no explanation for the laymen.

  • Incorrect
  • A hypothetical 1200 models have to be recreated for Pokémon Sword and Shield. Currently 1031 models exist. Creatures Inc., created 871 models for Pokémon X and Y. Development time is estimated at 2 years, accounting for delayed designing of the new Pokémon, finishing many months in advance for bugtesting, and several months of pre-release distribution. Pokémon CG Studio (Creatures Inc., 2017) has a default staff of 22 modellers, intended to double during/after the development period of Pokémon Sword and Shield. Work days are 9 hours, 5 days per week.
  • Pre-determined development time per Pokémon model: The complete modelling process for each Pokémon is assumed at a full work week of 5 days. This duration accounts for overhead due to imperfect efficiency and additional changes afterwards, and is in line with anecdotal claims of amateur developers requiring approximately 2 days per Pokémon. A development period of 80 work weeks (2 work years accounting for holidays and other unallocated periods) is assumed. 1200 models at 1 work week per model created in 80 work weeks thus requires 15 dedicated developers. Creatures Inc. has a dedicated staff of 22 modellers and at some (unknown) point utilized a total of 100 individuals, compatible with the above calculations.
  • Calculations based on dedicated staff: Given an equal period of 80 (work) weeks for the development of 871 models by 22 developers, the per-Pokémon development time is just over 2 weeks. This is an upper limit, as the calculation assumes perfect efficiency and no breaks. Assuming 2 weeks (rounded for simplicity) per model for a total of 1200 models, produced by 22 developers, a development time of ~110 work weeks (just under 3 work years) is required. Assuming a total development time of 80 work weeks, ~30 developers are required. These results are compatible with the intended doubling of workforce and proven expandability to at least 100 developers.
  • Conclusion: Given the scalable development of models, possible workforce expansions and development time, there are sufficient resources to allow modelling of 1200 models. This assumes the models are created from scratch based on existing reference sheets. It is known that 3D vectors and most animations remain unaltered. Only texture and other image maps had to be updated, significantly reducing development time. As such, it can be concluded there is sufficient time for efforts regarding all Pokémon models. Note that even if this wasn’t the case, the temporary nature ensures the completion of this process by the next installment of the series. This is in stark contrast with the official policy change, confirming that time is not causal.

I'm no expert on game and model designing, can anyone back up the claim that GameFreak does have enough time to add in all Pokémon models? OP lists some calculations proving that GameFreak can add in all the models in a timely matter, but I am skeptical of their claims.

There's probably other issues with this post but I am too lazy to look for them.
 
Last edited:
Pretense
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
18,123
Reaction score
11,516
SpinyShell SpinyShell I think that OP is right not to take everything Game Freak claim as absolute fact, especially with weird arguments like "it's too cold" floating around. More to the point, "from scratch" is not anything anyone guessed before Ohmori said that, so it's definitely a statement that warrants skepticism. Not to mention that their stance on this being a policy undermines the argument that they just didn't have enough time.

Regardless of the calculations, Creatures managed to create 800+ brand new models for XY as well as animations. It's hard to believe that their workload was greater this time around (or rather, would have been greater), and even if it was, that a reasonable expansion wasn't feasible.
 
Last edited:
Blast Turtle
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
2,927
I think that OP is right not to take everything Game Freak claim as absolute fact, especially with weird arguments like "it's too cold" floating around. More to the point, "from scratch" is not anything anyone guessed before Ohmori said that, so it's definitely a statement that warrants skepticism.
I agree, and I’ve been pretty skeptical regarding some of GameFreak’s statements as well.

But GameFreak did provide reasons for Dexit, a bit flimsy ones, while the poster claims that “at this point it is unknown why Game Freak instated the policy change.” Per Masuda “there are a couple of different parts to the thinking behind it, but really the biggest reason for it is just the sheer number of Pokemon [...] but even more than that, it's coming down to the battle system.” These are pretty flimsy reasons, but they’re still reasons nonetheless.

For the part about remaking the models, I wouldn’t have had an issue if the poster didn’t say GameFreak’s comment was false but then barely provided evidence outside of some unexplained jargon to justify that. I mean, GameFreak probably reused the models, but I don’t think we can know for sure at this point.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,234
their post is garbage. not only does it rely on using intentionally obtuse language, but there no real analysis; the bulk of it is claims that there's no point in analysing simply because there is no way to reach truth. you can maybe assess the plausibility of an argument, but since we don't have access to the actual facts surrounding Game Freak's decision, one's assessment is pretty much as good as any's (that is, bunk).

there also doesn't seem to be any real rhyme or reason as to how they selected their claims. i don't know why they would bother evaluating the notion that "Game Freak couldn't afford to"; no one is saying that. which begs how OP even got to there in the first place, which would make me question the analysis as a whole even further.
 
I'm a funny bug.
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
941
their post is garbage. not only does it rely on using intentionally obtuse language, but there no real analysis; the bulk of it is claims that there's no point in analysing simply because there is no way to reach truth. you can maybe assess the plausibility of an argument, but since we don't have access to the actual facts surrounding Game Freak's decision, one's assessment is pretty much as good as any's (that is, bunk).

there also doesn't seem to be any real rhyme or reason as to how they selected their claims. i don't know why they would bother evaluating the notion that "Game Freak couldn't afford to"; no one is saying that. which begs how OP even got to there in the first place, which would make me question the analysis as a whole even further.
This post sites sources, and gets updated by user feedback - I bet of which were the primary reasons why it got pinned to the site. It tries to analyze in a way that, with the 'facts' we have, what would be the most objective way to analyze all the most popular claims people have on the controversy? I admit the language was a bit obtuse, but also nothing crazy extreme.

When being subjective, you can't ever find pure truth. Proof: Make your own ultra, "this is the truth" analysis, and post it on the subreddit.

Watch everyone nitpick everything you say, and call you biased. Because from the posts on this forum, I know you obviously will be.
 
Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
737
Reaction score
728
Is it a matter of money? Time? Technical infeasibility?

If the answer is no to all three, then Gamefreak didn't remove Pokemon because they had to.
 
thinking...
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
467
The claims they picked seem like an accurate representation of the controversy so far. My main issue with it, though, is that many of the claims are deemed "inapplicable" when they are valid complaints about the game. Like others have said, the language is also unnecessarily academic.
 
Ugh, always have to do the dirty work....
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
1,532
Its not like any of these people will USE half of the pokemon they advocate for.
 
Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
737
Reaction score
728
Its not like any of these people will USE half of the pokemon they advocate for.
If you're fine with all the missing Pokemon, are you then required to judge people who miss specific Pokemon or who don't like there being missing Pokemon in general?

The obvious answer is no. The motivation someone would have to do so eludes me. The funny thing is the people who do this kind of thing often think of themselves as "being positive".
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
4,051
Reaction score
6,832
Its not like any of these people will USE half of the pokemon they advocate for.
Even if people don't use certain pokemon, but are still valuable and special to them, they don't need to be in a new game for you cherish them
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,234
This post sites sources, and gets updated by user feedback - I bet of which were the primary reasons why it got pinned to the site.
it got pinned because it was a popular post that at least had some effort in it. that's just how reddit works. there's nothing to read into it there lol.

it also barely gets updated by feedback. the user will interact with commenters and criticism that he knows he can win or point out information that supports his overall agenda. you can peep this in any instance where someone who can actually make arguments and cases, the person immediately taps out or goes immediately defensive.
It tries to analyze in a way that, with the 'facts' we have, what would be the most objective way to analyze all the most popular claims people have on the controversy? I admit the language was a bit obtuse, but also nothing crazy extreme.
good use of the word tries. shame that it rarely succeeds. the bulk of its analysis is superficial or facile and the person barely engages any of their critical thinking abilities. the slogan section for instance would look significantly different if OP had used their brain (or at least wasn't so biased).

the language is pointlessly clinical and academic. people would've thought substantially less of it and would be more critical of it on the whole if it were written in more plain language. they could've still used some good thesaurus words in there and some basic upper-level writing, but the only purpose of their obtuse language was to obfuscate.
When being subjective, you can't ever find pure truth. Proof: Make your own ultra, "this is the truth" analysis, and post it on the subreddit.
which is the fundamental problem here. you can't claim that your analyses represent facts and realities while simultaneously claiming that you are not biased.
Watch everyone nitpick everything you say, and call you biased. Because from the posts on this forum, I know you obviously will be.
lol.
 
Top