Jump to content
IGNORED

Pokemon Sword & Shield - Nintendo Switch


ThePixelbarks
 Share

Pick a team!  

143 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, ann coulter said:

 

This appears to have resulted in a gigantic shitstorm throughout non-Rllmuk gaming communities but I still haven't quite grasped what it all means. In previous Pokémon games, you were able to transfer all Pokémon in the franchise's history into each new game? That seems obviously unsustainable if that's how it's worked so far. What's even the benefit of this? Why not just use the 20 most popular Pokémon from previous games and ditch the rest? I would have thought half the fun of new Pokémon games was getting a fresh slew of monsters to catch rather than dragging along old ones.

 

Pretty much what ryodi said.

 

I have Pokemon in my Bank from the GBA era. The idea that I won't (possibly) be able to carry them forward because of dev time reasons when we've already been waiting a long time is incredibly disappointing to me. Having them sat in Bank or Home (FWIW another issue for me; when Bank was developed it was touted as the definitive one-stop-shop for cross-generational 'mon. Unfortunately this apparently meant just the generations we had there and then) is just going to split my collection in frustrating and unnecessary ways.

 

The challenge of catching them all for new players is, uh, not really something normal people do! Every game for a long time has recommended completing its local version of the Pokedex for a cool reward, but stops short of recommending people go for a full national dex (this means every Pokemon ever) as there's no reward for it but personal satisfaction. You will never come to Pokemon as a new player and then have the situation of "well, 1 down, 900 to go!" So, for those players who have done that... well, fuck you, in short, it feels like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sad about it because I liked seeing how the new balance changes and updates affect my old teams. Also myself and a friend always do co-op doubles battles in the post-game battle tower/battle subway/battle maison thingy using our all-star teams we’ve been working on since the GBA games and it’s a shame we won’t be able to bring our old teams over to do that like we’ve done with every previous game. 

 

It’s not about rejecting the new monsters to plough through the game with your old ones. It’s not having them available for post-game, for battles and for the sake of having your complete collection available in one place like you’ve been able to do previously. I still make a point of trying all the new Pokemon and it is a major draw for a new game, but with the old games you could do that *and* bring your old lads in when the campaign is over, now you can only do one of those things. I get they had development related reasons for having to remove the feature but arguing that it’s an improvement is bizarre to me. 

 

I figure once they’ve done enough Switch games they’ll all be there eventually in this new engine but it is disappointing that it doesn’t look like my squad will be together again in a new game any time soon. 

 

Heralding it as a victory for accessibility is wide of the mark as  attempting to complete the national dex was always an optional extra that very very few people bothered to do. You’ve always been able to just complete that particular game’s regional Pokédex and have that count. I totally get why people are disappointed that their old ‘mons are stuck in Gen 7 now but I can see why they’ve had to make the change as well. I’m on the disappointed side though. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue with the Pokédex is it being a case of the series beginning to collapse under its own weight.

 

For a start, 2 generations per system is beginning to look like a mistake. The list is too bloated and completely unsuited to what video games have become.

The series moves away from the easily managed limitations of 2D. The Pokemon are now more detailed and animated, more resource needs to go into every Pokemon with the list only becoming bigger all the time.

 

Gamefreak are by no means a large studio, they try not to go overboard with expansion and from what I’ve been told tend to rotate staff on the regular. It’s a studio whose running sounds best suited to the era these games were originally from, they aren’t made for Triple A which is exactly what consumers are beginning to demand of them now they are on a home console.

 

Not only do people want a higher standard but they also expect the series to continue to build upon itself. Battle Frontier, post game content and all the other stuff that has been added and retained since Gen 3 is expected to be there because they played a big part in making what many consider a “complete” modem Pokemon.

 

I can’t help but feel a little sorry for the studio, I don’t think they predicted the rapid advancements in tech and expectations would ever leave them in such a difficult spot. If nothing else I can see Game Freak going through a significant restructuring once this game hits the market and receives what will not doubt be a critical paddling session by disappointed fans and critics alike who expected the full package on day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Gamefreak are by no means a large studio, they try not to go overboard with expansion and from what I’ve been told tend to rotate staff on the regular. It’s a studio whose running sounds best suited to the era these games were originally from, they aren’t made for Triple A which is exactly what consumers are beginning to demand of them now they are on a home console.

 

Mate they’re 200 people, that’s Witcher 3 size developer!

 

Quote

Battle Frontier, post game content and all the other stuff that has been added and retained since Gen 3 is expected to be there because they played a big part in making what many consider a “complete” modem Pokemon.

 

None of this stuff has been retained since like, 2009? What are you even talking about?

 

Quote

I don’t think they predicted the rapid advancements in tech and expectations would ever leave them in such a difficult spot.

 

Yeah who could have seen they had to make a game for a 2005-spec console eventually, they only had 14 years to learn from other devs and prepare, eh?

 

None of these excuses even pass the sniff test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200 people is tiny for what they are doing, especially when other triple-A series such as Assassins Creed are over 1,000 strong in manpower. Even Breath of the Wild was done by 300 devs (key word being devs: not artists, composers or writers) over the course of 4 years with secondary studios such as Monolith Software (Xenoblade) assisting. Even then those titles didn't have the burden of eventually including 1,000 unique characters into their games (Pokemon, trainers, NPCs). Whether Witcher 3 was made by a smaller studio or not is irrelevant, it's a false equivalence. I don't think it is ridiculous to expect the studio to give these games a bigger team and budget considering the jump from 3DS to Switch, especially when Pokemon is one of the highest grossing kids brands in the world.

Battle Frontier isn't a thing anymore true, it was replaced by the Battle Tower which doesn't seem to be returning either. Even so, the series has continued to give players challenges and content to play with both during and after the main story has concluded. All these aspects of the Pokemon experience has been retained in some form over the different generations. Having talked about the games with people who are avid Pokemon fans they expect these features to be retained in some form in every game as they feel they would be solely missed.

As for their preparation, well the proof is in the pudding. They are planing to release what many are calling an incomplete Pokemon game. They should have planned for this in some form but instead they continued to bloat the series with two generations per DS causing the number of Pokemon to increase exponentially as the simple hardware and 2D graphics meant they didn't have to worry about detailed models or detailed animations when adding Pokemon to the games.
The numbers support the argument that technological advancements have been a big enough issue in slowing Game Freaks ability to expand their series in its main entries.
Gen 1 (1996-1999) (Game Boy, 2D Pokemon, 1 Game, 4 Versions) - 151 Pokemon
Gen 2 (1999-2001) (Game Boy, 2D, 1 Game, 3 Versions) - 251 (+100)
Gen 3 (2002-2005) (GBA, 2D, 2 Games, 5 versions) - 386 (+135)
Gen 4 (2006-2010) (DS, 2D, 2 Games, 5 Versions) - 493 (+107)
Gen 5 (2010-2012) (DS, 2D, 2 Games, 4 Versions) - 649 (+156)

Gen 6 (2013-2014) (3DS, 3D, 4 games, 4 versions) - 721 (+72)
Gen 7 (2016-2017) (3DS, 3D, 4 games, 4 Versions) - 809 (+88)


The move to 3D coupled with expansions now being over shorter time frames than in generations 3 & 4 has only worked against being able to evolve the series in a manageable capacity. The Nintendo DS alone added 263 new Pokemon thanks to Black & White going in the brave direction of forcing the players onto a clean slate of Pokemon until they had finished the game, meaning they had to design more new Pokemon than normal. The studio clearly isn't dealing well with the bloat if the E3 build of Sword & Shield along with the dev interviews are anything to go by. 

I see this opinion a lot online but the series did seem to peak at gen 5 in terms of being able to match the creators ambitions for what they wanted a Pokemon game to be. I'm not going to say it should have been on the 3DS but in terms of time frame it did cover a shockingly small number of years considering how many Pokemon it added, they really should have made it last longer if only for the sake of making things more manageable on later systems.
I don't think it would have been a bad thing had the Ruby and Sapphire remakes appeared on 3DS first as a gen 5 game, it would have allowed them to get to grips with the hardware while not being burdened with the new Pokemon, least we forget that X & Y were heavily criticised for their lack of optimisation and were unable to display the consoles 3D mode during Pokemon battles (Game Freak have always had a questionable record for programming and optimisation).

I think where the series first went wrong was deciding that all Pokemon should be available in every game. The idea of the differing Pokemon regions is that, much like real animals, there are Pokemon that can only be caught in specific parts of the world. However the Pokemon universe doesn't have any rules on which Pokemon can be taken where. It's not like Australia where they prohibit certain animals from entering the country due to the eco system.
Although it would have been bad for business this would have been the best way to manage the bloat while also making the games better balanced in competitive play due to the smaller pool of monsters. Game Freak are claiming that balancing is one of the reasons for reducing the number of Pokemon in the new entry but it is far too late for that and players simply are not buying it as a reason. The games containing every Pokemon is normalised at this point and even missing one of them could be considered a failure among the fan base.

Quite frankly it is your rebuttal that fails to pass the sniff test when the product we saw at E3 shows these are real issues affecting the game. Game Freak are not equipped for what this game is and they definitely aren't equipped for what their audience expects it to be. They wouldn't be the first studio to fall on hard times following the demands brought on by a generational jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dig Dug said:

other triple-A series such as Assassins Creed are over 1,000 strong

 

Have you never watched the Ubicredits? There are over a BILLION people working at Ubi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

bvgpi33z75531.jpg

 

Pokemon Sword & Shield vs Breath of the Wild.

 

Actually, I think that’s just zoomed in on the background. Gameplay video shows plenty of leafy grass and sharpness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it’s zoomed but take this shot I just grabbed from the treehouse video (1080p60). Obviously it’s not perfectly representative but it’s clearly got very little detail. Flat leaf texture with no real modelling too.

 

07D2B5D8-447E-456C-BC3E-261488B21D6B.thumb.jpeg.06800ec96cfc243837048cf07628e104.jpeg

 

And whilst capturing it I noticed an NPC just before it suddenly appear about 20 metres away, as if the level of detail just didn’t render them until up close.

 

I’m not expecting wonderful things graphically, it looks functional. It lacks a spark and style that I think Nintendo first party is capable of. It doesn’t necessarily need more detail... but it needs more “style” to make it look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Bacon Horsemeat said:

Has anyone tried visiting the Pokemon Center in London since its launch last week? I arrived just before 12 today (closes at 6) and already they weren't accepting anyone in (the queue spanned a couple of km at least). According to the security guard, it's been like that every day since launch :(

I'm was going to attempt it on the 4th of November... However the queues have put me off. 2 hours would be about my limit. People are queuing from 2 am!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demand wasn't unforeseen - this happened with the Paris popup last year. We have people coming all over from Europe to get in. The queueing system could have been by bookable time slots only. But no, they want the PR of having 6 hour queues.

 

I'm just hoping the worst is over because it was half term last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.