Pokémon Legends: Arceus (28th January 2022)

[Sheikah]

By that logic, the likes of Spike Chunsoft and Genius Sonority should be just as minted.
You don't actually believe Game Freak get the lion's share of the profits from their games, do you?
They already outsource the Pokémon models to Creatures. Nintendo also get a share of the profits, as well as The Pokémon Company itself. I'd be surprised if TPC didn't get the largest cut.
Yes, there are issues with Pokémon games. There's definitely room for improvement outside of the Pokémon and the battles, but it's not anything Game Freak can really do about it.
The point I'm trying to make is if blame has to go somewhere, it should go to the Pokémon Company. They set strict deadlines which never get delayed, even if the company they commission have to recreate 450 models from scratch due to unforeseen issues.
But they get off relatively scot-free while Game Freak get lumped with all the blame and labeled incompetent because necessary compromises had to be made to make release date.
As of today, Sword/Shield is not even 2 years old, and yet we're getting Pokemon's first foray into open-world in January!
That's completely insane! So forgive me, if I think people who exaggerate it's flaws by comparing it to non-HD games on a 21 year old console as a tad unfair.

Please stop excusing them left right and centre. They clearly make loads of money, doesn't matter what percentage or cut of the total profits they make - even a small cut of a ridiculously massive pie is a lot.

Game Freak have coasted for a long time now, they have had plenty of opportunity to shake up the presentation and even the gameplay of their games. How many games start more or less the same way and have you do the same roundabout goals - there's no excuse for stagnation.

Whether you see the point in graphics is besides the point, it's basic upkeep of your franchise that there is simply no reason to neglect.

[Ashley]

For what it's worth they're a publicly traded company I assume? Thus someone could go look at their financials. 

[Ronnie]

8 hours ago, Glen-i said:

I would love for the games to look as good as the best Switch has to offer, but until Game Freak are in a similar position to the likes of Nintendo and Sony Studios, that's just wishful thinking, and people will only get themselves pointlessly riled up if they keep comparing them to such.

My last post in this debate but I had to reply to the above. No one is saying Pokemon has to compare with the best Nintendo or Sony Studios have to offer, nor are we expecting new instillments to look like God of War or Red Dead 2. Just at least on par with some of the more modest big hits these days.

Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that even indie developers are making prettier 3D games, with a comparatively tiny team and shoestring budget?

Tequila Works (70 employees)

Campo Santo (12 employees)

Eastshade Studios (not sure how big but described as a micro team)

1 man and an animation studio

Giant Squid (18 employees)

And yet one of the biggest gaming franchises in the world create a world where shadows don't exist?

[Sheikah]

My last post in this debate but I had to reply to the above. No one is saying Pokemon has to compare with the best Nintendo or Sony Studios have to offer, nor are we expecting new instillments to look like God of War or Red Dead 2. Just at least on par with some of the more modest big hits these days.
Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that even indie developers are making prettier 3D games, with a comparatively tiny team and shoestring budget?

Tequila Works (70 employees)

Campo Santo (12 employees)

Eastshade Studios (not sure how big but described as a micro team)

1 man and an animation studio

Giant Squid (18 employees)
And yet one of the biggest gaming franchises in the world create a world where shadows don't exist?

Well put! Their whole argument revolves around Game Freak quite mysteriously not having that much money. Even if that was bizarrely true, your screenshots show that you don't even need massive studios and resources to make a good looking game.

The excuses end here!

[Glen-i]

No, not really embarrassed. Already mentioned that graphics don't matter much to me. Pokémon makes up for it with the massive amount of Pokémon in each game and the deep mechanics behind the gameplay.

Again, the main problem Game Freak have is time. They desperately need to be able to dictate their own release dates.

[Sheikah]

No, not really embarrassed. Already mentioned that graphics don't matter much to me. Pokémon makes up for it with the massive amount of Pokémon in each game and the deep mechanics behind the gameplay. Again, the main problem Game Freak have is time. They desperately need to be able to dictate their own release dates.

But a minute ago you were saying that money was also a problem? Which isn't really the case if you look at the screenshots above. Pretty sure many of those indie games were made quickly too. It's also something they should be able to reuse once they've done the work, the games are so similar in terms of recurring Pokémon and abilities. They need to develop smart.

There's also a difference between focusing on graphics and having bad 3D graphics. I'd say that that Pokémon screenshot veers into "bad 3D". It's the reason why N64 games don't look great today while old school SNES games still hold up. They need to achieve at least a minimum level so their games don't look ugly in 3D.

[Glen-i]

36 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

But a minute ago you were saying that money was also a problem? Which isn't really the case if you look at the screenshots above. Pretty sure many of those indie games were made quickly too. It's also something they should be able to reuse once they've done the work, the games are so similar in terms of recurring Pokémon and abilities. They need to develop smart.

They do reuse the Pokémon models. But they still have to make sure they all work as intended. Do any of those indie games above have 450 character models that have to be quality tested to make sure they don't do things like fall through floors and such? I very much doubt it. (No offense meant to indie developers, but they can't realistically do something as packed as a Pokémon game)

The asset reuse is the only way Pokémon games come out as often as they do. But everything else still has to be developed relatively fresh, especially with an open-world format like this. Now every Pokémon that shows up in this game will have to be able to function properly in this possibly massive world.

BTW, after Sword/Shield was done, there were still around 300 Pokémon models that Creatures have to redo to make the jump from 3DS to Switch. If any of those are returning for this game, then that's more work to outsource to Creatures.

Yes, more money would help, more money helps any project, but a delay would do a lot more. But that's not gonna happen.

I wish it would though.

[Ronnie]

2 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Do any of those indie games above have 450 character models that have to be quality tested to make sure they don't do things like fall through floors and such? I very much doubt it.

Quality testing animations? Are you sure about that?

 

[MindFreak]

To be fair, most examples in that video is just programming gone wrong. The animations are fine.

[Sheikah]

They do reuse the Pokémon models. But they still have to make sure they all work as intended. Do any of those indie games above have 450 character models that have to be quality tested to make sure they don't do things like fall through floors and such? I very much doubt it. (No offense meant to indie developers, but they can't realistically do something as packed as a Pokémon game)
The asset reuse is the only way Pokémon games come out as often as they do. But everything else still has to be developed relatively fresh, especially with an open-world format like this. Now every Pokémon that shows up in this game will have to be able to function properly in this possibly massive world.
BTW, after Sword/Shield was done, there were still around 300 Pokémon models that Creatures have to redo to make the jump from 3DS to Switch. If any of those are returning for this game, then that's more work to outsource to Creatures.
Yes, more money would help, more money helps any project, but a delay would do a lot more. But that's not gonna happen.
I wish it would though.

Then outsource the animations. Loads of companies do it.

[Sheikah]

To be fair, most examples in that video is just programming gone wrong. The animations are fine.

It's not just that, the animation of Pokémon moving and doing attacks often looks basic or awkward, like not much work has actually been put into it. Pokémon turning on the spot (which happens on the field) seems to be a big issue, it doesn't look natural at all.

[MindFreak]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

It's not just that, the animation of Pokémon moving and doing attacks often looks basic or awkward, like not much work has actually been put into it. Pokémon turning on the spot (which happens on the field) seems to be a big issue, it doesn't look natural at all.

I agree. But I watched a minute or two of pop-ins before I got that far. 

[Glen-i]

12 hours ago, Sheikah said:

13 hours ago, Glen-i said:

They do reuse the Pokémon models. But they still have to make sure they all work as intended. Do any of those indie games above have 450 character models that have to be quality tested to make sure they don't do things like fall through floors and such? I very much doubt it. (No offense meant to indie developers, but they can't realistically do something as packed as a Pokémon game)
The asset reuse is the only way Pokémon games come out as often as they do. But everything else still has to be developed relatively fresh, especially with an open-world format like this. Now every Pokémon that shows up in this game will have to be able to function properly in this possibly massive world.
BTW, after Sword/Shield was done, there were still around 300 Pokémon models that Creatures have to redo to make the jump from 3DS to Switch. If any of those are returning for this game, then that's more work to outsource to Creatures.
Yes, more money would help, more money helps any project, but a delay would do a lot more. But that's not gonna happen.
I wish it would though.

Then outsource the animations. Loads of companies do it.

But they already outsource the animations.

12 hours ago, Sheikah said:

12 hours ago, MindFreak said:

To be fair, most examples in that video is just programming gone wrong. The animations are fine.

It's not just that, the animation of Pokémon moving and doing attacks often looks basic or awkward, like not much work has actually been put into it. Pokémon turning on the spot (which happens on the field) seems to be a big issue, it doesn't look natural at all.

The problem with going with more elaborate animations is that it prevents the brisk pace at which battles go at.

You can see this in the Gamecube Pokémon RPG's. Battles in Pokémon Colosseum move at a snail's pace compared to the portable titles.

Turning on the field does look weird though, I give you that. Probably down to having to do yet another animation for every Pokémon if they decided to do an animation for that action.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Glen-i

[bob]

There's an easy solution to all this: just cut down on the number of Pokémon. You don't need 1300 of the things, people only care about 150, maybe 151? Just animate those, and then concentrate on adding shadows to the trees.

[LazyBoy]

The idea that the developers of a Pokemon have such limited resources - one of the greatest selling games series of all time Pokemon - to such an extent that they're putting out ugly ass shit like that, means that someone in that ownership structure (whether it be Ninty, Pokemon company or Game Freak) is either being a tight ass, or stopped giving a shit, or both. 

[MindFreak]

This got revealed at Gamescom yesterday:

It's currently not clear if this will come to Switch (probably not, though). If Legends: Arceus looked half as clean as this, noone would complain...

Edited August 26, 2021 by MindFreak

[Glen-i]

Technically speaking, it's a very good looking game. The particle effects in particular are really amazing!

That art style? Not so much. It smacks of uncanny valley. The photorealism of the area meshes badly with the plastic-y look of the characters. Also, the frame rate is all over the place. It'd never be able to run on the Switch, which is fine, because I doubt it's ever being considered for it.

Anyway, I looked into the developer, Pearl Abyss, a tad. Apparently, their projects tend to become vapourware, and their last game was really heavy on the grinding and the monetisation. Considering this is pitched as F2P, I'd expect this to be a similar deal.

I wouldn't get too hyped about this.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Glen-i

[MindFreak]

Oh, I agree. It's mainly the liveliness of the city, the environments and the effects, i.e. the visuals. I don't particularly like the art style and the game is probably not very good. But it goes to show how a monster collecting game could look like.

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, MindFreak said:

Oh, I agree. It's mainly the liveliness of the city, the environments and the effects, i.e. the visuals. I don't particularly like the art style and the game is probably not very good. But it goes to show how a monster collecting game could look like.

If only The Pokemon Company and Game Freak had the same budget as that behemoth of games development, Pearl Abyss.

[Sméagol]

Yeah, I just saw that trailer above, and was about to post about it, as an example of great graphics.

I think we'd get better games by now if they didn't have to spend time porting an insane number of Pokémon. I wouldn't mind going back to 150 or less if it meant something that looked like that trailer above.

I'm interested in Arceus, but can't say I'm hyped.

[Ronnie]

2 minutes ago, Sméagol said:

Yeah, I just saw that trailer above, and was about to post about it, as an example of great graphics.

I think we'd get better games by now if they didn't have to spend time porting an insane number of Pokémon. I wouldn't mind going back to 150 or less if it meant something that looked like that trailer above.

I'm interested in Arceus, but can't say I'm hyped.

You saw the childish outrage when they didn't port all of them to Sword and Shield, the internet would explode if they cut it down to 150. But yeah I agree, a reboot of sorts needs to happen. 

[bob]

But it's not a main line game, like Snap, so maybe it would be acceptable?

[Glen-i]

5 hours ago, Ronnie said:

But yeah I agree, a reboot of sorts needs to happen. 

This idea gets thrown around a lot. And it's always someone saying they need to go back to the original 150.

Which is a terrible idea. The original 150 are balanced horribly. No Dark Pokémon at all there, which means Psychic Pokémon go unchecked.

You want to reboot Pokémon with a small amount of Pokémon? The Gen 5 lot are the answer. Much better balance.

But Black/White sold the least of all the mainline games, partly because it was the closest to a reboot the series had.

That defo discouraged that idea in the future. It also led to the great Gen 1 pandering of the next 2 generations.

No matter how Gen 1 biased people our age are, every generation is someone's first. So no matter what Pokémon get the chop, someone's favourite is there.

I also think it'd be a bit of a shame to drop so many Pokémon when there's some really great designs throughout all of the games. It'd suck if I couldn't catch the likes of Krookodile, Scrafty or Toxtricity.

[Sméagol]

I don't think anyone here said anything about the original 150. I just think a smalller number would be better, I'll leave the selection up to the devs.

[Ashley]

29 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

It'd suck if I couldn't catch the likes of Krookodile, Scrafty or Toxtricity.

Don't use protection and you should get your wish.