Pokémon Thread XXIX: Sword, Shield, and Spoilers

[DaOldeWolf]

Game Freak confirms that updating pokemon graphics is not that easy.

Also leave open the possibility of adding the missing pokemon later through updates.

You can have all your pokemon in one place for extra charge and you cannot do anything with them until we decide to release a game featuring your pokemon. Yay!

This sounds like excuses. They have a hard time fitting all pokemon? Ask for more time to add them.

[cobaltstarfire]

Game Freak confirms that updating pokemon graphics is not that easy.

Also leave open the possibility of adding the missing pokemon later through updates.

Yeah, I think a lot of the conversation is getting muddied by people talking about different issues of "porting" the pokemon, half of you all are talking about the code side, while the other half is talking about the development time needed to update/add animations.

I'm pretty dismissive of the idea that this has anything to do with competitive "balance". If they wanted to give less popular/meta monsters time to shine we wouldn't be seeing certain monsters in their trailers. And it feels like a better solution to this problem would be to have seasons where different blocks of pokemon are allowed in, rather than limiting the pool of monsters in the main game.

The idea that there are too many monsters to animate with care and attention in the turn around time that Gamefreak usually has for its games is one I can buy and accept. Say they want to add better/more animations for all the pokemon to take advantage of the power of a new platform. Even if it's just 2 new animations for "personality" per pokemon that's 1618 animations before you start taking into account new monsters and all different forms/modes across the whole franchise. If they also want to try to give us battle animations that aren't weird and janky like they sometimes were in the various stadium games that's even more. They're probably using the 3D models they've already made, but they probably still need to add more bones and tweak some other things if one of their goals is better looking animations. A lot of the monsters lost something of their character when going from the sprites/original art to 3D and I hope that is what they are trying to address.

I feel the folks who are talking about how "easy" it is to just port data over haven't had to deal with data management on a changing system much if at all. It might be easy, it might be a big honking headache and time sink that requires a lot of fiddling and changing certain ways in which the data is stored. It might be easy at first, until some weird little problem rears its head and spins out of control.


Personally I have very little hope that they will patch in the rest later, though it would be nice if they could just continuously add more monsters as they make new games instead of this idea of including only the monsters with broader appeal (the broader appeal monsters is the part that bothers me, it sucks to not be able to use your favorites just cause they aren't as popular). The only patches Gamefreak has really done in the past have been to fix bugs. Not to say they can't break established habits, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

In the end though, I do agree this is largely a problem Gamefreak created for itself, they like to keep their staff small, and to turn out games on a yearly basis. It's like a miniature version of the triple A bubble. Only instead of throwing more manpower and money at the problem, they're opting to try and manage the scope of their game. It'd be really nice if game companies were willing to take longer to develop something, but most of them are allergic to that idea.

[DaOldeWolf]

Actually, just to bring up the other side of the coin, I must ask what are the benefits for the fans with this change?

Game Fraek benefits a lot since they can add as many pokemon as they decide (which means less work). They dont have to care about mechanics from games (since they can remove them). And they gain extra money from the paying services of Pokémon Home (if anything its more beneficial for them not to add many pokemon in future games just so its "service" remains a valuable asset).

Fans meanwhile lose access to pokemon from previous generations. Fans have to pay extra money for a service. Where are the advantages? Balanced meta? GameFreak has never created a balanced meta. I doubt that will chance. A bigger quality product? The game doesnt even look that good and it seems GameFreak is uncapable of creating something as strong and polished as other companies in the same system. More gimmicks? Gimmicks that will likely disappear next game. What do fans game?

I just dont see how this is the best decision for everyone. At all.

[deuterio12]

I feel the folks who are talking about how "easy" it is to just port data over haven't had to deal with data management on a changing system much if at all. It might be easy, it might be a big honking headache and time sink that requires a lot of fiddling and changing certain ways in which the data is stored. It might be easy at first, until some weird little problem rears its head and spins out of control.

Quite well put. It's funny how many computers there are in modern universities running older versions of windows and other programs because nobody dares to gamble whetever the data in them can be safely transfered to the newer versions or not.

In the end though, I do agree this is largely a problem Gamefreak created for itself, they like to keep their staff small, and to turn out games on a yearly basis. It's like a miniature version of the triple A bubble. Only instead of throwing more manpower and money at the problem, they're opting to try and manage the scope of their game. It'd be really nice if game companies were willing to take longer to develop something, but most of them are allergic to that idea.

Alas nowadays you need to be constantly outputing stuff to remain relevant.

Pokemon games coming out in a regular basis is one of the keys of the franchise's success.

Actually, just to bring up the other side of the coin, I must ask what are the benefits for the fans with this change?

Game Fraek benefits a lot since they can add as many pokemon as they decide (which means less work). They dont have to care about mechanics from games (since they can remove them). And they gain extra money from the paying services of Pokémon Home (if anything its more beneficial for them not to add many pokemon in future games just so its "service" remains a valuable asset).

Fans meanwhile lose access to pokemon from previous generations. Fans have to pay extra money for a service. Where are the advantages? Balanced meta? GameFreak has never created a balanced meta. I doubt that will chance. A bigger quality product? The game doesnt even look that good and it seems GameFreak is uncapable of creating something as strong and polished as other companies in the same system. More gimmicks? Gimmicks that will likely disappear next game. What do fans game?

I just dont see how this is the best decision for everyone. At all.

1-Balance is a relative thing. Sure not all pokemon can compete against each other directly, but at least there's no lv.1 mons pulling infinite loops like, say, D&D 3rd edition. If they just blindly throw every previous set of stats into a new system whitout a single care, then things can and do get uglier pretty fast.

2-You complain it "doesn't even look that good". Well, then it would look even worst to you if Game Freaks thinned their resources even more trying to take care of hundreds of extra models.

3-Other companies aren't outputing games as fast as Game Freaks with so little people. As pointed out by cobaltstarfire, GF aim low but output something that works in time and inside the initial budget instead of either super buggy stuff or going way out of budget or getting delayed for years or all of the previous.

[DaOldeWolf]

1-Balance is a relative thing. Sure not all pokemon can compete against each other directly, but at least there's no lv.1 mons pulling infinite loops like, say, D&D 3rd edition. If they just blindly throw every previous set of stats into a new system whitout a single care, then things can and do get uglier pretty fast.

2-You complain it "doesn't even look that good". Well, then it would look even worst to you if Game Freaks thinned their resources even more trying to take care of hundreds of extra models.

3-Other companies aren't outputing games as fast as Game Freaks with so little people. As pointed out by cobaltstarfire, GF aim low but output something that works in time and inside the initial budget instead of either super buggy stuff or going way out of budget or getting delayed for years or all of the previous.

1. I am using on my critique GameFreak´s own balance definition (a meta were every pokemon is usable). Not even with only 150 pokemon (on two ocassions) and 250+ pokemon (on two ocassions) have they managed to create a balanced metagame. This would be their fifth time trying and they already have around 160 old pokemon confirmed+ all the new ones. I just dont see how its suppposed to work. A pokemon with bad stats and movepool will always be a pokemon with bad stats and movepool regardless of the meta. Also, there are no infinite loops in pokemon. Pokémon like Beedrill got better because they need a huge boost to be playable in the competitive meta and just removing other bug/poison pokemon wouldnt be enough to make them playable. Pokémon has never had a good balance sense. There are pokemon who have amazing stats, amazing abilities and amazing movepools and there are pokemon that dont. But that is how things just are when you have pokemon of such many variations. Want a pokemon to be better? Buff their stats. Give them better moves and abilities. In past games, that is how they managed to bring pokemon to relevance. Its way better to bring pokemon up tan to remove them in hopes they will magically get better.

2. It doesnt. Compare the game to Mario odyssey. Compare the game to Breath of the Wild. Compare the game to smash. Compare the game to Doom. Compare it to the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy past recent games. People have even compared it to Digimon Cyber Sleuth in terms of looks (a game that came on PS Vita). It doesnt look impressive. I would reccomend checking this video to show how pokemon graphics are far from impressing (from a video that came before the controversy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHI_97znTM8

3. That is a business model. A business model that they decided to take. No one is putting a gun on GameFreak to be using this model. They are responsable of the decisions they make. Are you telling me that all terrible business decisions made by any company are forgiven because they put themselves on a bad spot for taking a poor business model? I have never heard fan demands for yearly releases. I dont really get what you are trying to say here.

[Requizen]

Actually, just to bring up the other side of the coin, I must ask what are the benefits for the fans with this change?

Game Fraek benefits a lot since they can add as many pokemon as they decide (which means less work). They dont have to care about mechanics from games (since they can remove them). And they gain extra money from the paying services of Pokémon Home (if anything its more beneficial for them not to add many pokemon in future games just so its "service" remains a valuable asset).

Fans meanwhile lose access to pokemon from previous generations. Fans have to pay extra money for a service. Where are the advantages? Balanced meta? GameFreak has never created a balanced meta. I doubt that will chance. A bigger quality product? The game doesnt even look that good and it seems GameFreak is uncapable of creating something as strong and polished as other companies in the same system. More gimmicks? Gimmicks that will likely disappear next game. What do fans game?

I just dont see how this is the best decision for everyone. At all.

I think what is most likely is that it was time constraint related. Gamefreak is not Nintendo, nor are they even the Pokemon Company. It's likely they were given a timeframe to release in, or promised one themselves and did not want to push it back for one reason or another. We as fans appreciate that sometimes a game has to be pushed for quality (people are very ok with Animal Crossing pushing back for a great game), but that's always a decision and not necessarily the choice that will be made. Right or wrong choice? Well, that's completely objective.

Now yes, there's the argument that they could simply hire more people - after all, they are still associated with Nintendo/TPC and could just get more funding to bring on a handful more devs or designers and make the thing happen. And I'm firmly in the "they definitely should have" camp, but of course as a business there's costs, contracts, etc in place. Not to mention forcing a change in company culture (team sizes, hiring policies, etc) to meet a deadline has historically put real strains on companies of all sizes. They could easily have made it work, but there's plenty of reasoning not to do it.


One thing I would be quite interested in seeing is how many people actually were transferring Pokemon between generations using Pokebank. Since it's all cloud and service based now, they could easily get that information. It's very easy to jump on the outrage bandwagon, but Gamefreak could easily pull up the statistics, point at the fact that a tiny fraction of people who bought the game even have a Pokebank account and use it, and then justify not implementing all the Pokemon based on that.

How high would the usage have to be? 5%? 10%? 25%? At what point are you devoting a lot of workhours towards something that is not really being used? It's easy for people to emotionally post online about how their favorite Pokemon that has followed them since Gen 3 is now out of the game, but sometimes it's just not reasonable. If they get 100,000 stories like that, that's not even a fraction of the tens of millions of units that are shifted with each release.

Developers can and often do develop towards their "hardcore", "niche", or "top-end" fanbases, but they're under no compunction to do so and if the time and money investment is too high, it can be hard to justify doing so. Especially as the games go forward - adding 50-100+ every time, then updating those... what does it look like in 10 years? 20? Updating all of them for whatever the next system is or Matrix-like VR game that we'll be playing.


To be clear, I'm not defending the choice, and I wish they had waited until all Pokemon were in, or at least promised that all would eventually come. However, when tensions and emotions are running hot like this, it's often important to step back and look at it from all sides. No one at Gamefreak is wringing their hands and trying to make people mad. No one just arbitrarily said "eff it, let's piss off all social media". There was a clear decision making process here, and they knew the type of feedback it would garner. I doubt that was made lightly.

[DaOldeWolf]

I think what is most likely is that it was time constraint related. Gamefreak is not Nintendo, nor are they even the Pokemon Company. It's likely they were given a timeframe to release in, or promised one themselves and did not want to push it back for one reason or another. We as fans appreciate that sometimes a game has to be pushed for quality (people are very ok with Animal Crossing pushing back for a great game), but that's always a decision and not necessarily the choice that will be made. Right or wrong choice? Well, that's completely objective.

Now yes, there's the argument that they could simply hire more people - after all, they are still associated with Nintendo/TPC and could just get more funding to bring on a handful more devs or designers and make the thing happen. And I'm firmly in the "they definitely should have" camp, but of course as a business there's costs, contracts, etc in place. Not to mention forcing a change in company culture (team sizes, hiring policies, etc) to meet a deadline has historically put real strains on companies of all sizes. They could easily have made it work, but there's plenty of reasoning not to do it.


One thing I would be quite interested in seeing is how many people actually were transferring Pokemon between generations using Pokebank. Since it's all cloud and service based now, they could easily get that information. It's very easy to jump on the outrage bandwagon, but Gamefreak could easily pull up the statistics, point at the fact that a tiny fraction of people who bought the game even have a Pokebank account and use it, and then justify not implementing all the Pokemon based on that.

How high would the usage have to be? 5%? 10%? 25%? At what point are you devoting a lot of workhours towards something that is not really being used? It's easy for people to emotionally post online about how their favorite Pokemon that has followed them since Gen 3 is now out of the game, but sometimes it's just not reasonable. If they get 100,000 stories like that, that's not even a fraction of the tens of millions of units that are shifted with each release.

Developers can and often do develop towards their "hardcore", "niche", or "top-end" fanbases, but they're under no compunction to do so and if the time and money investment is too high, it can be hard to justify doing so. Especially as the games go forward - adding 50-100+ every time, then updating those... what does it look like in 10 years? 20? Updating all of them for whatever the next system is or Matrix-like VR game that we'll be playing.


To be clear, I'm not defending the choice, and I wish they had waited until all Pokemon were in, or at least promised that all would eventually come. However, when tensions and emotions are running hot like this, it's often important to step back and look at it from all sides. No one at Gamefreak is wringing their hands and trying to make people mad. No one just arbitrarily said "eff it, let's piss off all social media". There was a clear decision making process here, and they knew the type of feedback it would garner. I doubt that was made lightly.

I understand what you are getting at but I must repeat my question. What are fans gaining of all of this? The best of both worlds is to have both sides win something even if things are lost. With the current model, what do fans truly gain from this model?

People defending GameFreak speak of all the issues and hardships that GameFreak has (indirectly showing how much they gain in the process). But none of them seem to bring up anything appealing to the other side. The fans are getting a game with less content out this whole deal, empty unsustained promises about balance/beautiful graphics and a service that charges extra.

[Requizen]

I understand what you are getting at but I must repeat my question. What are fans gaining of all of this? The best of both worlds is to have both sides win something even if things are lost. With the current model, what do fans truly gain from this model?

People defending GameFreak speak of all the issues and hardships that GameFreak has (indirectly showing how much they gain in the process). But none of them seem to bring up anything appealing to the other side. The fans are getting a game with less content out this whole deal, empty unsustained promises about balance/beautiful graphics and a service that charges extra.

Eh, again I'm not defending Gamefreak (as I said, I would prefer all things in and wait til 2020), but I don't agree with what you're saying here.

It's not like the fans are losing anything. This is the same game as ever - you will be able to start a journey with a Pokemon, travel around a country, catching, battling, earning badges, probably breeding still, and eventually defeating the Elite Four and catching whatever Legendaries are out there. You can still battle each other, trade, etc.

People too quickly conflate "things" with "content". "Things" are often cut - shooters may lose and gain guns going into sequels, including your favorite (rip Halo 1 Pistol). RPGs may gain and lose spells, abilities, or characters. But the things you do are content, and none of that is being cut, other than apparently Mega Evolutions (though it's unclear if they're gone or just no new ones being added). In fact, with the open world and Dynamax, content is being added. Given the size and open-world of the Wild Zone, the inclusion of "raid Pokemon", and the new ways to interact with and stalk/catch Pokemon, one could argue that there is probably more gameplay content added in this version of the game than ever before.

As to "what do the fans get out of this", the answer is... the exact same game, but more, up until the endgame when you would unlock cross-gen transferring. If you're someone like me who gets the game, plays it through the Elite Four, then does some of the other endgame stuff like level up the team, catch Legendaries, beat up on friends, etc, and doesn't bother transferring - this is probably the biggest upgrade a Pokemon game has had in a long time. And I would wager that's a huge majority of their playerbase, at least 80%+.

Saying that the game is somehow less of a game for not including specific Pokemon is sort of reaching. It is less deep, for sure, especially from a battling/breeding perspective, but that's far from the only aspect of the game, and likely in their focus not even the main aspect of the game.

[Manticoran]

I understand what you are getting at but I must repeat my question. What are fans gaining of all of this? The best of both worlds is to have both sides win something even if things are lost. With the current model, what do fans truly gain from this model?

People defending GameFreak speak of all the issues and hardships that GameFreak has (indirectly showing how much they gain in the process). But none of them seem to bring up anything appealing to the other side. The fans are getting a game with less content out this whole deal, empty unsustained promises about balance/beautiful graphics and a service that charges extra.

Personally what I hope to get out of this:

A campaign where I care about more of the Pokemon that are in each zone, rather than usually only 1-2 Pokemon per Route.

Some degree of balance in the power level of the Pokemon I see in each route. When I see them talking about balance, I'm hoping for balance within the story mode of the game regarding where pokemon are and roughly how powerful they are... In the story mode. I couldn't care in the slightest how they function versus other humans, because I'm never going to bother playing against other humans.

That the developers are less stressed/death marched, which I like to hope also makes for better games because they're happier to work on them, but also just I think is a good thing for like, people as human beings.

We'll have to see about the promises about balance/graphics being better. You say unsustained, but we have no idea if those promises are empty until the game releases, and I'm going to choose to believe that they will put out a prettier product than otherwise if that's what they're saying they'll do. I for one welcome Machoke running at me in an open field to beat my ass down, and if they can render more of his glorious muscles as they flex me into destruction, that's a great win for me. (And y'know, other less meme reasons.)

I'm not going to pay for Pokemon Home anyway, because I don't care. I suspect a large number of players don't care, so it makes sense for them to charge for it rather than to include it as part of the base game if it's actually going to cost them resources to do. I certainly prefer that they charge the players who do care rather than charging everyone a little more.

Also as a note, from my perspective I'm getting the exact same amount of content as before. Actually, likely more content, as they'll get to focus more on the parts of the game I actually care about.

Again I'd like to emphasize that most Pokemon players, the VAST majority of Pokemon players, are incredibly casual. I agree this screws over people who are not, but even then it's only screwing over a particular portion of those who are not, since the very very competitive players will bitch about change and then adapt to whatever the new meta is, figuring out the new broken combinations/etc, because that's what pros do.

EDIT: A note I'll make is that I sympathize with the fact that this sucks for you. But for most people it's just fine, and you seem to me to be making very broad statements and speaking for a large number of people who probably don't feel the same way you do.

[NatureKing]

It is the same pokemon as ever.

Because we have (as new things)
- Big Pokemon
- Rotating Camera
- low quality overworld models and textures
- bad animations
- pokemon go raids

We lose/have no
- No balance pass
- No bug fixing save those which potentially brick the console
- No Z Move
- No alolan forms
- no megastones
- potentially several hundred pokemon
- No end game
- No leagues or Tiering with respect to specifically imbalanced mons, or accounting for handicap
- double battles
- triple battles
- Sky battles
- Interesting events
- inverse battles
- follower pokemon
- Berry blendign/poffins
- the contents
- battle frontier...

I'm sure there are others I may have forgotten that pokemon has lost in my quick post while typing on my phone on the loo in work.

[Requizen]

It is the same pokemon as ever.

Because we have (as new things)
- Big Pokemon
- Rotating Camera
- low quality overworld models and textures
- bad animations
- pokemon go raids

We lose/have no
- No balance pass
- No bug fixing save those which potentially brick the console
- No Z Move
- No alolan forms
- no megastones
- potentially several hundred pokemon
- No end game
- No leagues or Tiering with respect to specifically imbalanced mons, or accounting for handicap
- double battles
- triple battles
- Sky battles
- Interesting events
- inverse battles
- follower pokemon
- Berry blendign/poffins
- the contents
- battle frontier...

I'm sure there are others I may have forgotten that pokemon has lost in my quick post while typing on my phone on the loo in work.

Apologies, but that's a lot of assumption.
-Double battles have, correct me if I'm wrong, been in every game since their debut, and there's been nothing saying they won't appear here.
-End Game could mean lots of different things. There's still going to be breeding, leveling to max, filling out Pokedex, training, battling - it just won't have every single Pokemon involved. To say it's not there is a bit incorrect.

Additionally, I don't understand some of these. What does "no bug fixing" mean? Do you think they're just porting over bugs and not addressing them? What does "No leagues or tiering" mean? That doesn't seem like anything they've done or promised in the past.

Triple Battles are a good riddance imo, it's just Double Battle but with more wonkiness in team building etc.
Inverse Battles was literally one trainer in two games. That's not really a loss.
Sky Battles was just regular battles but with a limited Pokemon set. Is this something that people were really pining over?

This sounds like you're just trying to make a long list. Most if not all these things were one-off mechanics that people either forgot existed or complained about existing.

[NatureKing]

Apologies, but that's a lot of assumption.
-Double battles have, correct me if I'm wrong, been in every game since their debut, and there's been nothing saying they won't appear here.
-End Game could mean lots of different things. There's still going to be breeding, leveling to max, filling out Pokedex, training, battling - it just won't have every single Pokemon involved. To say it's not there is a bit incorrect.

Additionally, I don't understand some of these. What does "no bug fixing" mean? Do you think they're just porting over bugs and not addressing them? What does "No leagues or tiering" mean? That doesn't seem like anything they've done or promised in the past.

Triple Battles are a good riddance imo, it's just Double Battle but with more wonkiness in team building etc.
Inverse Battles was literally one trainer in two games. That's not really a loss.
Sky Battles was just regular battles but with a limited Pokemon set. Is this something that people were really pining over?

This sounds like you're just trying to make a long list. Most if not all these things were one-off mechanics that people either forgot existed or complained about existing.

Sounds like you're finding excuses to apologise for lazy game design on a product that shifts millions of expensive units that lasts for only a year before being replaced, without needing or providing support post release.

You look at the sum of cut content and see what you're getting in Galar, and think yeah, this okay. Why do you think it's okay? What possible reason do you have to think that you'd rather features and content are cut so that you can get smoother 3d frames of creatures and lesser FPS? And 'Balance'.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'll play Gen 8 Overused Format Game once Pokemonshowdown.com add this game to their website.

[Requizen]

Sounds like you're finding excuses to apologise for lazy game design on a product that shifts millions of expensive units that lasts for only a year before being replaced, without needing or providing support post release.

You look at the sum of cut content and see what you're getting in Galar, and think yeah, this okay. Why do you think it's okay? What possible reason do you have to think that you'd rather features and content are cut so that you can get smoother 3d frames of creatures and lesser FPS? And 'Balance'.

I don't think it's lazy at all. Porting over systems that a tiny fraction of the player base even cares about or remembers isn't lazy, it's just trimming stuff that was experimental or just for fun. For example, the Inverse Combat you listed - I'm sure that was just a dev messing around and being like "hey guys, for this fight, I flipped effectivenesses, isn't that crazy?", not something they expected to be a living testament that would survive for nearly a decade.

There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see in that were in previous games - Pokemon following you, for instance, or new Mega Evolutions - but I don't think the fact that they're not added in is "lazy". Features get cut from sequels all the time, especially when switching engines/consoles, and yet Pokemon seems to be the only series in which this is considered an absolute travesty. Especially when those features were never a core mechanic of the game or really impacted it in any significant way.

We don't even know what is or isn't in Galar, but listing off one-off mechanics and wishlist items doesn't really make me think any less of the developers, it just makes the argument less credible. There are no core mechanics of the gameplay that have been lost other than ones that have been replaced (Mega Evolutions/ZMoves with Dynamax). Everything else is basically set dressing, which doesn't really make or break the game that they're trying to sell.

It's not lazy to focus on the game you're making instead of a dozen subsystems with no lasting impact on the main game itself. Now, if the core game itself is bad, then that's another issue, but we can't really tell that from a handful of clips of gameplay from E3.



This is all separate from the National Dex issue, of course, which is a content bloat issue more than a feature issue. Which bothers me, of course (I'll miss some of my favorites as everyone else will), but personally doesn't kill my hype in the game.

[Bartmanhomer]

I love Pokemon but I'm sad that Sword and Shield won't include all Pokemon unless maybe there's still hope. It might be speculation or rumour that we don't know the whole story of Generation 8.

[NatureKing]

I don't think it's lazy at all. Porting over systems that a tiny fraction of the player base even cares about or remembers isn't lazy, it's just trimming stuff that was experimental or just for fun. For example, the Inverse Combat you listed - I'm sure that was just a dev messing around and being like "hey guys, for this fight, I flipped effectivenesses, isn't that crazy?", not something they expected to be a living testament that would survive for nearly a decade.

There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see in that were in previous games - Pokemon following you, for instance, or new Mega Evolutions - but I don't think the fact that they're not added in is "lazy". Features get cut from sequels all the time, especially when switching engines/consoles, and yet Pokemon seems to be the only series in which this is considered an absolute travesty. Especially when those features were never a core mechanic of the game or really impacted it in any significant way.

You are saying it's easy. Re inverse battles in paragraph 2. But they can't do that, because they are 'so busy' importing mon. Or adding another couple of thousand tris to a model. Or worse, adding multiple thousands of tris to one model. And creating an entirely separate model.

But here is the kicker. They are not making the models. They outsource. So all that's left is the code. Hell, you could probably scrape the wiki, spend a couple of hundred or so man hours to create some VBA macros (5 man team, 40 hour work week) which could scribe the specific info you needed into the format you needed, and import it into your game.

We don't even know what is or isn't in Galar, but listing off one-off mechanics and wishlist items doesn't really make me think any less of the developers, it just makes the argument less credible.

What argument? That game freak are price scalping by releasing games lacking content, provide bull**** reasons that don't stack up to logic, refuse to make minor cuts into profit to hire enough staff, and that apologists such as yourself can't wait to tell people how great they are because essentially we are being allowed to play a rushed game released in time for Christmas, with a unique battle mechanic of 'big'.

There are no core mechanics of the gameplay that have been lost other than ones that have been replaced (Mega Evolutions/ZMoves with Dynamax). Everything else is basically set dressing, which doesn't really make or break the game that they're trying to sell.

There have been no core mechanics lost apart from the ones that are not there. Great argument.

Also, I think it's more a case of final straw. When all the little things just add up to 'you know what, **** these guys'. But hey, you pay your £45 and sit down in the corner of you think they're okay.

But sure, my pokenav set dressing gets replaced with an obnoxious Rotomdex.

It's not lazy to focus on the game you're making instead of a dozen subsystems with no lasting impact on the main game itself. Now, if the core game itself is bad, then that's another issue, but we can't really tell that from a handful of clips of gameplay from E3.

The core gameplay has basically not changed since Gen 1. Slightly more complicated rock paper scissors. Add in a few more variables and force multipliers, but core gameplay in pokemon has no changed since Gen 1.

This actually important hits about the game, they have barely changed. Sure, there is Abilities, Phys/Spec split, new type Introductions, but honestly? The gameplay of how you play Pokémon Red through to Ultra Sun has not changed one bit.

Cool, we now have a rotating camera. We can now move with an over the shoulder cam in 3rd person rather than isometric and along X/Y axes. Set dressing, as you call it. Bumpf. Bollocks. Inconsequential. Nice to have.

This is all separate from the National Dex issue, of course, which is a content bloat issue more than a feature issue. Which bothers me, of course (I'll miss some of my favorites as everyone else will), but personally doesn't kill my hype in the game.

Lack of National Dex is the biggest issue about it.

Sure, I might never play with Maractus in game. But then that is a choice I am making. Not because game freak can't run a schedule, code properly, and finds it much more important to have multiple models of the same thing modelled.

[cobaltstarfire]

I understand what you are getting at but I must repeat my question. What are fans gaining of all of this? The best of both worlds is to have both sides win something even if things are lost. With the current model, what do fans truly gain from this model?

People defending GameFreak speak of all the issues and hardships that GameFreak has (indirectly showing how much they gain in the process). But none of them seem to bring up anything appealing to the other side. The fans are getting a game with less content out this whole deal, empty unsustained promises about balance/beautiful graphics and a service that charges extra.

I don't really see anyone "defending" Gamefreak, so much as making sense of what information Gamefreak has given us and what we do know about their corporate culture. It's simply a matter of fact that Gamefreak is basically hell bent on releasing something every year, and I said myself that this is a problem they have manufactured for themselves. It's probably not going to change unless someone steps in and makes it so, because Masuda is rather stubborn and weird about a lot of things. We're talking about a guy who doesn't want to put much work into story anymore because it'll be data mined/spoiled almost immediately!

Of the things fans are getting that we know of right now, there's the wild area, greater multiplayer connectivity than we've seen in a normal part of the game (not just raid battles, or in past games weird side areas with little to no real direct interaction), of the pokemon included more/updated animations, potentially more care and emphasis given to the new monsters this generation since they don't have to focus on all the old ones.


I am legit super excited about the wild area, and not just within this one set of games, Gamefreak are iterative developers, they learn and polish things more and more with each game on a particular system. So I see this wild area and the ability to see other trainers and friends in the wild area and I feel excited. I love exploring, and I'd love to explore with my friends on top of that! I see what they're trying now in that case, cross my fingers it won't be one of those gimmicks that they drop after one generation, and feel excited about the potentially fun things I'll see in later games when they've learned to squeeze every last drop of power out of the system to render something fun and beautiful (and hopefully jam packed with everything they are denying us for their first proper game on the switch)


I am sad about the loss of pokemon usable in the area, but there's no reason for me to work myself into a frenzy just because of one aspect of the game is a let down. I'm probably very biased here because I love most of all in new games seeing new monsters, B/W was my favorite cause it brought me back to playing Red the first time. So in new pokemon games I don't tend to start missing all my old monsters till I reach end game anyway, and as someone who rarely buys the "third" game in a generation I don't get a whole lot out of the end game anyway.

edit: Also I highly doubt they'll remove double battles, that's been their main competitive style for a very long time, and it's definitely a more interesting meta to watch than singles. Nintendo has been pushing a lot of its other games to be more interesting for onlookers. Unless it's been flat out stated officially I won't believe it till I see it.

[Bartmanhomer]

You are saying it's easy. Re inverse battles in paragraph 2. But they can't do that, because they are 'so busy' importing mon. Or adding another couple of thousand tris to a model. Or worse, adding multiple thousands of tris to one model. And creating an entirely separate model.

But here is the kicker. They are not making the models. They outsource. So all that's left is the code. Hell, you could probably scrape the wiki, spend a couple of hundred or so man hours to create some VBA macros (5 man team, 40 hour work week) which could scribe the specific info you needed into the format you needed, and import it into your game.


What argument? That game freak are price scalping by releasing games lacking content, provide bull**** reasons that don't stack up to logic, refuse to make minor cuts into profit to hire enough staff, and that apologists such as yourself can't wait to tell people how great they are because essentially we are being allowed to play a rushed game released in time for Christmas, with a unique battle mechanic of 'big'.


There have been no core mechanics lost apart from the ones that are not there. Great argument.

Also, I think it's more a case of final straw. When all the little things just add up to 'you know what, **** these guys'. But hey, you pay your £45 and sit down in the corner of you think they're okay.

But sure, my pokenav set dressing gets replaced with an obnoxious Rotomdex.


The core gameplay has basically not changed since Gen 1. Slightly more complicated rock paper scissors. Add in a few more variables and force multipliers, but core gameplay in pokemon has no changed since Gen 1.

This actually important hits about the game, they have barely changed. Sure, there is Abilities, Phys/Spec split, new type Introductions, but honestly? The gameplay of how you play Pokémon Red through to Ultra Sun has not changed one bit.

Cool, we now have a rotating camera. We can now move with an over the shoulder cam in 3rd person rather than isometric and along X/Y axes. Set dressing, as you call it. Bumpf. Bollocks. Inconsequential. Nice to have.


Lack of National Dex is the biggest issue about it.

Sure, I might never play with Maractus in game. But then that is a choice I am making. Not because game freak can't run a schedule, code properly, and finds it much more important to have multiple models of the same thing modelled.

Well Game Freak bounds to have problems fitting all Pokemon in a single game but I'm sure they can find a way to fit all Pokemon in Nintendo Switch because the capacity of the memory have more memory than a single handheld.

[Requizen]

You are saying it's easy. Re inverse battles in paragraph 2. But they can't do that, because they are 'so busy' importing mon. Or adding another couple of thousand tris to a model. Or worse, adding multiple thousands of tris to one model. And creating an entirely separate model.

Just because something is easy to implement doesn't mean it's required to implement. It's as simple as that. Especially when it's a bunch of systems that were not designed to last or be developed further. It would be easy for them to put in something that lets you change your characters height or weight, but they chose not to put it in.

The more one focuses on the things that aren't in, the more one feels negative, but nothing was "taken away", simply not added or continued.

What argument? That game freak are price scalping by releasing games lacking content, provide bull**** reasons that don't stack up to logic, refuse to make minor cuts into profit to hire enough staff, and that apologists such as yourself can't wait to tell people how great they are because essentially we are being allowed to play a rushed game released in time for Christmas, with a unique battle mechanic of 'big'.

If I'm an apologist (I don't think I am, as I've stated, I'm just able to see viewpoints other than my own), then you're entitled. Gamefreak has never stated that they were going to keep every mechanic and every Pokemon from every game into every game going forward, and they would be insane to do so. It is only the fans that freak out when they are not given what they see as "required" parts of the game.

There have been no core mechanics lost apart from the ones that are not there. Great argument.

Mega Evolution and Z Moves aren't even core mechanics.

The core mechanics are: you journey throughout a region, battle and catch wild pokemon, combat NPC trainers, gain badges/beat the Elite Four, and have the capability to battle and trade with your friends. That's what makes a Pokemon game, a Pokemon game. What has been lost? Just the regional points of interest, which have always come and gone from game to game. Being surprised over this is honestly baffling to me.

The core gameplay has basically not changed since Gen 1. Slightly more complicated rock paper scissors. Add in a few more variables and force multipliers, but core gameplay in pokemon has no changed since Gen 1.

This actually important hits about the game, they have barely changed. Sure, there is Abilities, Phys/Spec split, new type Introductions, but honestly? The gameplay of how you play Pokémon Red through to Ultra Sun has not changed one bit.

Cool, we now have a rotating camera. We can now move with an over the shoulder cam in 3rd person rather than isometric and along X/Y axes. Set dressing, as you call it. Bumpf. Bollocks. Inconsequential. Nice to have.

My point exactly.

Pokemon games haven't ever been innovative game changers. It's literally always been the same thing with "new hat". Being upset over this makes no sense, like being upset that the new Call of Duty game is a shooter with a stupid story and online multiplayer focus, or that the new Marvel movie features a Hero who fights a supervillain.

If you're done playing Pokemon games... then don't play Pokemon games. Gamefreak could very much change the experience to something new, but they're not required to, nor should they from a business perspective. The formula works, and will always work as long as pseudo-RPG fans want to play it and new kids are growing up with a Nintendo system.

I very much agree that this one seems rushed and unpolished. That's pretty crappy, though not entirely unexpected. I'd honestly prefer a November 2020 release date and a more finished game. But I'm not upset that they're trimming bloat and changing it up in exactly the same way they always do, because it's exactly what they always do.

[Lord Raziere]

My problem with this is....they are changing something core to the pokemon experience. the national dex. its about my favorite pokemon. its not about some random one pokemon I wish I could have, its about EVERY pokemon. and actually collecting all those pokemon is something thats apart of the series. thats not a side system, thats not peripheral, thats not extra, that is what Pokemon is about.

regardless of intentions of their viewpoint its setting a precedent that they can just get rid of any pokemon or add in pokemon we don't want whenever they want. they take away the seemingly marginal pokemon (WHICH IS A FRIGHTENINGLY OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTION) now, but how long will it last until they screw up and keep out a fan favorite or something. how long until they do something even more ridiculous?

the intentions don't matter, the precedent set is a dangerous one and I don't like it. and for what? nothing. all we're getting is less than what we got in 7th gen. graphics is something that was never vital to pokemon, because these days graphics in videogames are just the lazy way of marketing games to people without bothering to fix actual problems or make good substance, and this reeks of "look at shiny graphics and please don't pay attention to the parts took out underneath". its a worse car with a shinier paint job.

[NatureKing]

What viewpoints have you seen other than your own, Requizen? Wrong ones? Your posts of full of apoligism for the game looking like crap, without anything to actually mitigate.

If Game freak want to continue making The Town or whatever its called, then off they should pop. They can be that little indie studio they want to be. Leave people who clearly care about pokemon care about pokemon. And not 'let's make "big'.

That you have said 'if you're over playing pokemon' sort of shows how out of touch you kinda are with the whole discussion. I actually really, really like pokemon which should be obvious enough, and play it pretty regularly with the wife. If I didn't care, I would be as apathetic towards the whole thing as you are, I guess? Although I also guess I wouldn't spend as much time trying to defend their awful business practises.

its a worse car with a shinier paint job.

It's a bit like looking forward to the 2019 Sport back
Audi's only to realise you've actually got a neutered car in comparison to the older versions.

Lots of car fans really annoyed with it. People on the fringes saying 'calm down, it's still and RS6 or whatever'. And that is down to EU regs half the time.

[Requizen]

My problem with this is....they are changing something core to the pokemon experience. the national dex. its about my favorite pokemon. its not about some random one pokemon I wish I could have, its about EVERY pokemon. and actually collecting all those pokemon is something thats apart of the series. thats not a side system, thats not peripheral, thats not extra, that is what Pokemon is about.

regardless of intentions of their viewpoint its setting a precedent that they can just get rid of any pokemon or add in pokemon we don't want whenever they want. they take away the seemingly marginal pokemon (WHICH IS A FRIGHTENINGLY OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTION) now, but how long will it last until they screw up and keep out a fan favorite or something. how long until they do something even more ridiculous?

the intentions don't matter, the precedent set is a dangerous one and I don't like it. and for what? nothing. all we're getting is less than what we got in 7th gen. graphics is something that was never vital to pokemon, because these days graphics in videogames are just the lazy way of marketing games to people without bothering to fix actual problems or make good substance, and this reeks of "look at shiny graphics and please don't pay attention to the parts took out underneath". its a worse car with a shinier paint job.

Eh...

Look, I'll miss my favorites as much as anyone. There are a bunch of pseudolegendaries that I love, such as Garchomp (MY LANDSHARK) and Metagross, that I bet dollars to donuts won't be in the game. I love Rowlett so much (though not his evolutions) and I'm betting he's gone too. And then there's no way Electrike is in when Yamper is in the game. It's really crappy.

But calling transferring Pokemon from previous games a core mechanic is sort of disingenuous. In most (all? I can't remember) games, it's not even an option until you get to the postgame. It's always been a "cool, you beat the game, now you can do whatever" type of thing.

I guess you could consider filling out a National Dex as an extension of filling out a regular Pokedex, and in that way something is being lost, fair enough. However, as I said before, I would estimate that the percentage of players who do transfer to be a tiny minority in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, this does not invalidate your concerns, but viewing it from their business perspective, that's fairly inconsequential numbers.

[Requizen]

What viewpoints have you seen other than your own, Requizen? Wrong ones? Your posts of full of apoligism for the game looking like crap, without anything to actually mitigate.

That's a bit rude. I'm just trying to tone down the vitriol and blind rage that is so prominent in our internet culture.

I've said in nearly every post I'm upset about it, that I don't agree with it, that I'll miss my favorites. But that doesn't mean that I need take that to the extreme of just flinging expletives into the void towards Gamefreak, and neither does anyone else. It doesn't create any meaningful discussion, and all it does is fester negative feelings towards people that are just doing their jobs.

Besides, it's just a game.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's a bit rude. I'm just trying to tone down the vitriol and blind rage that is so prominent in our internet culture.

I've said in nearly every post I'm upset about it, that I don't agree with it, that I'll miss my favorites. But that doesn't mean that I need take that to the extreme of just flinging expletives into the void towards Gamefreak, and neither does anyone else. It doesn't create any meaningful discussion, and all it does is fester negative feelings towards people that are just doing their jobs.

Besides, it's just a game.

I agree it just a game. It's obvious that everybody is making a huge deal about it. I'll disappointed about the rumors but we shouldn't take any rumors by heart and just to wait to hear more new details and information to come.

[Lord Raziere]

That you have said 'if you're over playing pokemon' sort of shows how out of touch you kinda are with the whole discussion. I actually really, really like pokemon which should be obvious enough, and play it pretty regularly with the wife. If I didn't care, I would be as apathetic towards the whole thing as you are, I guess? Although I also guess I wouldn't spend as much time trying to defend their awful business practises.

Agreed, you think I spent all that time catching every pokemon, looking up all their evolutionary methods, turning my handheld upside down for the squid, throwing ball after ball for legendaries, and going to a different town just to find a gamestop to get my mythic card repeatedly, so I can have every single one or close as I can to it, because don't care pokemon? No. I care a lot! and they are making that whole effort useless saying that they don't value that effort, that its all just a passing fad to them and they can take out whatever they want and put in whatever they want without caring for the quality. because screw consistent quality and delivering on a reliable product, they apparently need to make everything fashion-like and seasonal.

and if you want to keep those mons keep transferring them over, sorry your going to have to put it in our hostage box where we delete your mons if you don't pay your poketaxes for the privilege of waiting for the day they might someday be included in a game. you don't know which game, you don't even know if it will be a game you buy, or if its a game you WANT to buy, its just going "hey, remember that transfer thing you used to do easily? now you have to keep them in the box because we force you to, and force you to pay attention to what pokemon will be included in future games so your now forced to buy these games so you can play a pokemon you want to keep transferring, at all! isn't that fun? you get to keep what you already have and not use them as long as you pay us."

you think I'm buying into that kind of uncertainty? screw that. and now the surprise element of new mons is ruined, because now you HAVE to pay attention to every pokemon addition news in the hopes that its one they're bringing back. I now HAVE to care about what the full regional dex is rather than being surprised about the new mons, and I don't WANT to do, because I want to explore and find them myself. its a lot of subtle jerkery that I don't care for.

[NatureKing]

That's a bit rude. I'm just trying to tone down the vitriol and blind rage that is so prominent in our internet culture.

I've said in nearly every post I'm upset about it, that I don't agree with it, that I'll miss my favorites. But that doesn't mean that I need take that to the extreme of just flinging expletives into the void towards Gamefreak, and neither does anyone else. It doesn't create any meaningful discussion, and all it does is fester negative feelings towards people that are just doing their jobs.

Besides, it's just a game.

Sorry.

But, genuinely though, what makes everyone upset wrong and you the one person to bring the clear cold light of day to everything?

People are upset because of the constant degradation of something they enjoy.

[Manticoran]

What viewpoints have you seen other than your own, Requizen? Wrong ones? Your posts of full of apoligism for the game looking like crap, without anything to actually mitigate.

I think we've been making fairly good points, personally. Requizen has been making points I agree with, so that's at least more than just him. I think it's unlikely we'll ever agree though, and the argument has been going in circles, so I'm going to recommend we table it for now as nothing is going anywhere.

EDIT: Re to post above this one: Yeah, people are upset. It's ok to be upset! I think we're just trying to explain why it made sense for them to do what they did, and that it's not going to do anything like the hyperbole that was being tossed around of "killing Pokemon".

[deuterio12]

Agreed, you think I spent all that time catching every pokemon, looking up all their evolutionary methods, turning my handheld upside down for the squid, throwing ball after ball for legendaries, and going to a different town just to find a gamestop to get my mythic card repeatedly, so I can have every single one or close as I can to it, because don't care pokemon? No. I care a lot! and they are making that whole effort useless saying that they don't value that effort, that its all just a passing fad to them and they can take out whatever they want and put in whatever they want without caring for the quality. because screw consistent quality and delivering on a reliable product, they apparently need to make everything fashion-like and seasonal.

Only a few hundred pokemons are being trimmed out and there's still 1000+ playable at launch between new and old, how does exactly that counts as "everything"?

Plus Ruby/Saphire already had cut out older pokemon.

And Ruby/Saphire had no hope of online updates.

and if you want to keep those mons keep transferring them over, sorry your going to have to put it in our hostage box where we delete your mons if you don't pay your poketaxes for the privilege of waiting for the day they might someday be included in a game. you don't know which game, you don't even know if it will be a game you buy, or if its a game you WANT to buy, its just going "hey, remember that transfer thing you used to do easily? now you have to keep them in the box because we force you to, and force you to pay attention to what pokemon will be included in future games so your now forced to buy these games so you can play a pokemon you want to keep transferring, at all! isn't that fun? you get to keep what you already have and not use them as long as you pay us."

No, I don't remember any easy (or even hard) transfer thing between Silver and Ruby. It's nice when we can do it, but it stopped being a given long ago.

And if you don't want to buy future pokemon games, then what exactly is the reason for investing in pokemon bank in the first place? Can't you just keep playing the old games if you prefer them over the new games?

you think I'm buying into that kind of uncertainty? screw that. and now the surprise element of new mons is ruined, because now you HAVE to pay attention to every pokemon addition news in the hopes that its one they're bringing back. I now HAVE to care about what the full regional dex is rather than being surprised about the new mons, and I don't WANT to do, because I want to explore and find them myself. its a lot of subtle jerkery that I don't care for.

Nobody is forcing you to read spoilers nor patch notes. Switch updates games automatically, all you'll see is a downloading bar and then you can just play the game and find out what was added yourself.

upset because of the constant degradation of something they enjoy.

Ok, then you can go back and play Red with only 150 pokemons and 2D black/white graphics and all the bugs and needing HM slaves and whatnot. If pokemon games have been in "constant degradation" as you claim, the only logical followup is that the original Red is the ultimate version. We meanwhile will be enjoying the new "degraded" game with 3D color graphics and 1000+ pokemon with the possibility of even more.

[Lord Raziere]

Only a few hundred pokemons are being trimmed out and there's still 1000+ playable at launch between new and old, how does exactly that counts as "everything"?

Plus Ruby/Saphire already had cut out older pokemon.

And Ruby/Saphire had no hope of online updates.


No, I don't remember any easy (or even hard) transfer thing between Silver and Ruby. It's nice when we can do it, but it stopped being a given long ago.

And if you don't want to buy future pokemon games, then what exactly is the reason for investing in pokemon bank in the first place? Can't you just keep playing the old games if you prefer them over the new games?



Nobody is forcing you to read spoilers nor patch notes. Switch updates games automatically, all you'll see is a downloading bar and then you can just play the game and find out what was added yourself.



Ok, then you can go back and play Red with only 150 pokemons and 2D black/white graphics and all the bugs and needing HM slaves and whatnot. If pokemon games have been in "constant degradation" as you claim, the only logical followup is that the original Red is the ultimate version. We meanwhile will be enjoying the new "degraded" game with 3D color graphics and 1000+ pokemon with the possibility of even more.

1. I don't think your reading that right. currently there is 809 pokemon in existence, as the eighth is not yet released. 1000+ playable at launch would mean an unprecedented amount of new pokemon, especially as some would have to replace the old ones we're not getting. I find far more likely that that there is 1000+ pokemon total but not getting near enough of that in Sword/Shield
and Ruby/Sapphire was like 2003, when I was TEN. now I'm an adult and have better sense about quality.

2. I don't invest in pokemon bank. why do you assume I invest in something bad?

3. ah then the unpleasant surprise of trying to transfer what can't be transferred to, what do you expect me to buy an argument about going into a cave with no flashlight in hopes I'll be surprised I'll find a gold nugget next when there could be holes?

4. that is a strawman of the position and you know it, cut it out.

[DaOldeWolf]

I think we've been making fairly good points, personally. Requizen has been making points I agree with, so that's at least more than just him. I think it's unlikely we'll ever agree though, and the argument has been going in circles, so I'm going to recommend we table it for now as nothing is going anywhere.

EDIT: Re to post above this one: Yeah, people are upset. It's ok to be upset! I think we're just trying to explain why it made sense for them to do what they did, and that it's not going to do anything like the hyperbole that was being tossed around of "killing Pokemon".

The reason they did what they did is greed. This new model gives them the most amount of benefits with the least amount of effort. I have already brought up my points too (which havent been proven wrong either).

I understand if people want to calm down the angry audience but its important to voice concerns when a big and unfair deal is about to be passed. You know how people in power get away with nasty stuff? When people allow them to happen. GameFreak should learn that people arent happy with this decision.

EDIT: This reminds me to the Xbox One awful business model when it was first revealed. People dont have to agree with the new ideas set by a corporation. Taking extreme measures would be wrong. But just letting things happen is as stupid if not stupider.