Does the mainline Pokémon series need a break?

[Ashley]

Full disclosure, I've not played ScaVi (ViSca?) but seeing all the discourse it's got me wondering if the mainline series needs to take a bit more time with the next entry. 

They've become pretty much annual installments at this point and it reminded me of when Assassin's Creed admitted they needed to have a bit more of a gap and if I recall correctly set up two teams and alternated between them. 

I don't expect the games to ever look like the best games ever (I appreciate having nearly 1000 creatures to contend with will take up a lot of resource) but watching the DF video really does highlight poor textures and frame rate issues. Personally this feels more like rush than anything else. Yeah the series has never been amazing looking, but it seems more and more like they need to take a step back and try better. 

I know a common argument is "but the anime!" (Putting aside recent questions over it's future) but from what I've seen of the newest episodes they seem more like a "best of featuring Sw/Sh" rather than focusing on it so if they needed to I think a year or two of just Pokémon stories rather than retelling a game could work. 

Anyway, consider the floodgates open. What do you think?

[Hero-of-Time]

Absolutely. 

If the Pokemon Company weren't so greedy they could have gave Legends a little more polish and released it in November and then gave a lot more time to Violet/Scarlet and released that next year.

If you look at the likes of EA, Activision and Ubisoft, each of these companies massively upscaled in order to make yearly releases. They went on hiring sprees and split into different teams to give the development of the franchises some breathing room.

Violet/Scarlet are mainline games and yet they look awful and run worse than Legends. Legends arguably brought more to the table and was more experimental than the main games, not to mention that it was apparently made by the B team/younger developers.

The main games no longer need to be fit into a tight schedule. The IP is one of the most popular on the planet and can easily survive a year or two off, especially when they churn out mobile and spin off games all the time.

[Glen-i]

I think the jump to an open world format is just as much to blame for Gen 9's issues as the annual deadlines, to be honest.

I can remember quite a few locations from each region. It's no coincidence that the more structured world designs have more memorable landmarks then Arceus or Scarlet/Violet.

Meanwhile, most of Galar's towns are far and away more interesting then the threadbare towns I've seen in Hisui and Paldea so far. I'd be amazed if anything comes close to the steam powered mechanisms of Motostoke, or Ballonlea Town, which is mostly underneath massive, luminescent mushrooms.

Paldea has one big town, and a whole bunch of nothing surrounding it.

So yeah, the mainline games need more breathing space between entries, but you're deluding yourself if you think that's the only reason.

Open world games always have to compromise on something. I've not seen one game that hasn't had to do so.

EDIT: @Hero-of-Time is wrong about Arceus not being a mainline game, BTW. It definitely is. Game Freak class it as such. You can transfer Pokémon between it and other mainline games.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Glen-i

[Ashley]

14 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

but you're deluding yourself if you think that's the only reason.

Wasn't suggesting it was. 

Arceus at least managed to justify its sparsity within it's narrative. I'll give them that. 

[Hero-of-Time]

 

26 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

 

Open world games always have to compromise on something. I've not seen one game that hasn't had to do so.

Open world games are fine if they are done well. Many adore the world the Witcher 3 is set in. Same goes for most of From Software's games. The GTA series is also worth a shout out for decent open worlds. The problem is that lots of developers, Game Freak included, just think that you can create a massive world and leave it at that. GF clearly lack the time and skill to create a decent running and looking open world that is interesting to explore.

[Glen-i]

30 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Same goes for most of From Software's games.

I thought only Elden Ring is open world?

[Hero-of-Time]

13 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

I thought only Elden Ring is open world?

I suppose it depends how you define what an open world game is. I think the Dark Souls games certainly feel open world to me in that there are massive areas to explore but later ones are gated off. Saying that, if you choose the correct item at the start of the game you can go most places very early on.

Most open world games have gated areas to them. Assassins Creed stopped you progressing until you had seen certain events in the animus and the GTA games kept bridges closed so you couldn't visit the islands. 

[Ronnie]

Openworld games are popular for a reason. When they're done well they're great fun, and can exist alongside more linear games. BOTW and RDR2 both have incredible worlds to get lost in, same with many other titles. The problem is Game Freak aren't competent enough to make a modern technically proficient game, let alone a modern technically proficient openworld game.

Taking a year off would help absolutely. Of far more important though would staffing up and hiring talented devs who actually know what they're doing in 2022.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Ronnie

[Glen-i]

4 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I suppose it depends how you define what an open world game is. I think the Dark Souls games certainly feel open world to me in that there are massive areas to explore but later ones are gated off. Saying that, if you choose the correct item at the start of the game you can go most places very early on.

Whenever a game is advertised as open world, I'm under the impression that what is meant is that the vast majority of the outdoor areas are seamless. As in, no loading screens in between areas. People don't count Legends: Arceus or Xenoblade, because there are loading screens in between areas.

Because if you start counting the likes of Dark Souls as open world, then any game with a map would count. Such as Metroid, or the more retro Final Fantasy games.

It's why I think that games like Pokémon really didn't need the open world push, because the  loading times in the Switch titles were already miniscule.

Anyway, you guys mention "good" open world games. But I've played stuff like GTA IV, L.A. Noire, Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, Xenoblade X. Not a single one of those has made me think, "This game benefits from a open world format".

Hell, I'd say I'm having more fun with Pokémon then all of them, because the turn based battles are way more fun then trudging around the place.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Glen-i

[Ashley]

I think it's "you're open to explore the world in the manner of your choosing" rather than "the world is completely open" if that distinction makes sense. Because that's essentially what has changed in Pokémon with this iteration; it's gone from a designated path to one you can in theory do in any order (although obviously the leveling system guides you). 

I think you can still have an open world and have areas initially gated and also have areas that are loaded when required (either on the fly or "hidden" through transitions). In fact I seem to recall some analysis suggesting that's why Pokémon is so janky; most open world games load what is required and Pokémon loads everything at once into memory. 

[bob]

5 hours ago, Glen-i said:

But I've played stuff like GTA IV, L.A. Noire, Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, Xenoblade X. Not a single one of those has made me think, "This game benefits from a open world format".

I think that's because you are using your definition for open world. Obviously there's no set definition, but yours is too narrow. 

The GTA games would be completely different games if they weren't open world. Can you imagine a GTA game that didn't have a city to explore and drive around in? If it was just a linear set of contained levels, in which you did a crime, advanced the story and then moved on? It wouldn't be the same. You might prefer those sort of games, but the open world format makes GTA what it is. Same for Skyrim.

The opposite of an open world game is a linear one, but that doesn't mean every game has to be either one or the other. There are variations between the two. OOT is an open world game in some respects, in that you can explore the map, and tackle some of the dungeons in any order. But BOTW is MORE open. There are fewer restrictions and less linearity.

Back to Pokemon, the mainline games have always been a bit open world, in that you can explore and choose to do side-quests independent to the main plot. But they used tools to keep you moving fairly linearly through it by blocking off routes until you reached certain parts of the game. The more recent games have just reduced the linearity even further, possibly to their detriment.

[Glen-i]

6 minutes ago, bob said:

The GTA games would be completely different games if they weren't open world. Can you imagine a GTA game that didn't have a city to explore and drive around in? 

It's basically how I played L.A. Noire. I was always making a beeline to the next main plot point. I had no patience for all the side guff. It's the only way I was able to reach the credits.

And I'm the kind of guy who does everything in games like Xenoblade 3. (The ones that aren't X nail the sweet spot between linearity and open-ness, in my opinion) That has a way more interesting world to explore then the games I listed above. There's something inherently boring about wandering around aimlessly, hoping to find something of interest, only to be underwhelmed 95% of the time.

Games need some kind of structure. If I want to wander around a city or a field, I can do that in real life.

[Dcubed]

Yes, absolutely.  This annual death march is utterly killing the quality of each series entry, and it’s only getting worse with each subsequent release.

I think this really has to be a tipping point for the series, Game Freak are now visibly buckling under the weight of the annual release schedule.  Merch and anime be damned, the mainline games are the core product that everything else is built around, and they simply need to give Game Freak more time inbetween releases.

The old yearly schedule that worked so well throughout the GB-DS era simply doesn’t work in the era of HD console development anymore.

[Ronnie]

And yet Violet and Scarlet are Nintendo's biggest launch ever. 10 million in 3 days. Why would they bother to change their ways?

[RedShell]

I don’t think it needs a break, I think they just need to scale things back to a point where they can at least ensure the quality remains at an acceptable level. 

So instead of pushing the open world thing (which is clearly way beyond their reach) smaller scale and simpler environments would be the way to go. Hell, I’d actually quite like it if they went 2D again!  

Imagine a modern Pokémon game on Switch but in a 16/32-bit pixel art style, or something similar to Octopath Traveler’s HD-2D visuals.  I wish Game Freak would’ve experimented with options like that before pushing 3D so much.

But yeah, it’s a real shame what has happened to the Pokémon series. I very much enjoyed Pokémon Shield (despite its now relatively minor technical issues compared to the latest games) and I was initially looking forward to Pokémon Scarlet, but I absolutely refuse to support such a shoddy product. 

Hopefully Game Freak can find a way to improve going forward, but unless they either massively increase their staff numbers, or scale back projects, then things will no doubt get even worse than they are at the moment.

 

[Hero-of-Time]

20 hours ago, RedShell said:

 

So instead of pushing the open world thing (which is clearly way beyond their reach) smaller scale and simpler environments would be the way to go. Hell, I’d actually quite like it if they went 2D again!  

Imagine a modern Pokémon game on Switch but in a 16/32-bit pixel art style, or something similar to Octopath Traveler’s HD-2D visuals.  I wish Game Freak would’ve experimented with options like that before pushing 3D so much.

 

I would love to see this and think it would be a great option. I loved the chibi style that was used in the Diamond/Pearl remakes and would be happy enough for them to expand on that.

This year I played through Nexomon and I really enjoyed it. They took the Pokemon formula, kept it 2D and just tweaked and improved upon it in many ways. The game ran great and was packed with loads of personality and charm, certainly more so than Violet or Scarlet.

I think ultimately it comes down to wanting mass market appeal, with a lot of gamers simply wanting everything to go bigger. There has to be a trade off at some point.

[RedShell]

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

This year I played through Nexomon and I really enjoyed it. They took the Pokemon formula, kept it 2D and just tweaked and improved upon it in many ways. The game ran great and was packed with loads of personality and charm, certainly more so than Violet or Scarlet.

I saw that on the Steam sale and was tempted to pick it up.
Just started playing Elden Ring a couple of days ago though, so now really isn’t the time for anything else!

[Hero-of-Time]

2 minutes ago, RedShell said:

I saw that on the Steam sale and was tempted to pick it up.
Just started playing Elden Ring a couple of days ago though, so now really isn’t the time for anything else!

You chose well. Enjoy!

[Glen-i]

7 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

This year I played through Nexomon and I really enjoyed it. They took the Pokemon formula, kept it 2D and just tweaked and improved upon it in many ways. The game ran great and was packed with loads of personality and charm, certainly more so than Violet or Scarlet.

Not sure I can agree with improving in many ways. The battle system is very basic and the Nexomon don't have dual typing, so a lot of them feel very redundant in fights. You've used one water Nexomon, you've used them all.

Nexomon Extinction is still a fun game, mind.

[Hero-of-Time]

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Not sure I can agree with improving in many ways. The battle system is very basic and the Nexomon don't have dual typing, so a lot of them feel very redundant in fights. You've used one water Nexomon, you've used them all.

Nexomon Extinction is still a fun game, mind.

That's because you like strategy whereas I like to grind my way to victory. Nexomon is perfect in this sense due to the battle system being stupidly fast. Playing Pokemon after that feels VERY slow in comparison.

[Aneres11]

From the reviews I've read of S/V (which I do intend to pick up) it seems to suffer in the same way Bayonetta 3 did. So basically, the Switch is now a bit too long in the tooth to allow for fluid performance with the intensive open world or heavy action games. 

It's 6 years in March. I think a successor is needed ASAP as Gamefreak can't be happy that there are this many performance issues and I wonder whether that's down to them or the hardware. Or a bit of both. 

[Glen-i]

19 minutes ago, Aneres11 said:

From the reviews I've read of S/V (which I do intend to pick up) it seems to suffer in the same way Bayonetta 3 did. So basically, the Switch is now a bit too long in the tooth to allow for fluid performance with the intensive open world or heavy action games. 

Nah, that's not gonna fly. Switch can totally handle this game. You only have to look at Xenoblade 3, which looks great.

Bayo 3, I can understand that. But Switch can handle this game better.

[RedShell]

26 minutes ago, Aneres11 said:

From the reviews I've read of S/V (which I do intend to pick up) it seems to suffer in the same way Bayonetta 3 did. So basically, the Switch is now a bit too long in the tooth to allow for fluid performance with the intensive open world or heavy action games. 

It's 6 years in March. I think a successor is needed ASAP as Gamefreak can't be happy that there are this many performance issues and I wonder whether that's down to them or the hardware. Or a bit of both. 

 

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Nah, that's not gonna fly. Switch can totally handle this game. You only have to look at Xenoblade 3, which looks great.

Bayo 3, I can understand that. But Switch can handle this game better.

Yeah, if Game Freak were able to take the capabilities of the Switch hardware into account more (or, at all ) during planning and development then they could have certainly made an infinitely better product.

There have been numerous examples already of games which have no right even running on Switch getting pretty incredible ports, including open world titles.

With that being the case, there can be no excuse for a game that is built from the ground up/exclusive for Switch to perform so poorly.

Game Freak just seem to continually make poor decisions though. For example, I see they still insist on using those ludicrously high-polly Pokémon models.  Lowering detail there would surely be a good starting point in better optimisation. 

Of course the worst thing about the situation with Pokémon Scarlet & Violet though, is that it’s highly unlikely the games ever get improved in the future, at least not drastically, like they need to be.
With them selling so many copies regardless of all the issues, there’s literally no incentive for them to do it.  

We unfortunately won’t be seeing improvements like this:

A huge shame too, as I have no interest at all in playing Ark, but would love to play a decent version of Pokémon Scarlet.