Author Topic: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24  (Read 1460 times)

telly

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2024, 04:21:33 pm »
It's always puzzling to see discussions (always from adults) about how Pokémon has either noticeably dropped in quality or that the games aren't difficult anymore since it is, and always has been, a children's franchise. No one in these discussions is the target audience. While the franchise's young target audience doesn't excuse its quality, it does help explain it, as many children's games are low quality. As long as the franchise's popularity remains within that age bracket, the games won't improve, because kids often don't have standards needing to be met. Regarding the difficulty of the games, they've always been straightforward to understand, but I imagine a huge number of players being introduced to the series at a young age, whenever that may have been, faced challenges in understanding the mechanics and strategy required. Obviously, since the games have purposely stagnated to catch the attention of children every few years, veteran players won't find newer entries challenging.

The Let's Go entries are objectively remakes with new features to entice veteran players to play co-op with new, younger players as their introduction to the series. Any handicapped and removed features are intentional design choices for this audience.

It should go without saying, but anyone outside of Pokémon's target audience who's looking for a more fulfilling experience with this type of game should seek out other games with the same structure, or even Pokémon fan games.


I don't agree that because Pokémon is marketed as a "children's franchise" that it explains the poor quality.  Most, if not all, Nintendo franchises are made with the same broad design philosophy, so it doesn't check out that Pokémon gets the shaft in terms of quality with every iteration while games like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Animal Crossing, etc. have some of their best entries on the Switch. The games are rated E for everyone after all, and are enjoyed by both kids and adults. But I, along with many fans, am frustrated that given how much damn money Pokémon makes for Nintendo, their games come out in such a state.

If there's anything to blame here, it's just the time in the oven. Pokémon games take a considerably long time to develop, but they are pushed out almost yearly whereas the time between flagship Mario games or Zelda games can be sometimes 5 years or more. And in Mario's case it's a much simpler game.

Pokémon as a game is situated within a much larger franchise of merchandise, trading cards, the TV show, and other products that are on very strict schedules which push the games out to release date whether they're ready or not. The games bring about the new merchandising opportunities, which is why you will never see a Pokémon game delayed no matter how bad it is. There's too much in the pipeline at stake. While games like Animal Crossing NH and Fire Emblem Three Houses could afford that luxury.

Regarding stagnation and difficulty, I feel like Nintendo has been struggling with those things for all of their franchises since the Wii. I don't really think that's a uniquely Pokémon problem.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2024, 04:30:44 pm by telly »
Currently Playing:
Alundra (PS1), Mega Man Battle Network 5: Team Protoman (Switch)

My music collection | My Backloggery

sworddude

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2024, 04:32:05 pm »
It's always puzzling to see discussions (always from adults) about how Pokémon has either noticeably dropped in quality or that the games aren't difficult anymore since it is, and always has been, a children's franchise. No one in these discussions is the target audience. While the franchise's young target audience doesn't excuse its quality, it does help explain it, as many children's games are low quality. As long as the franchise's popularity remains within that age bracket, the games won't improve, because kids often don't have standards needing to be met. Regarding the difficulty of the games, they've always been straightforward to understand, but I imagine a huge number of players being introduced to the series at a young age, whenever that may have been, faced challenges in understanding the mechanics and strategy required. Obviously, since the games have purposely stagnated to catch the attention of children every few years, veteran players won't find newer entries challenging.

The Let's Go entries are objectively remakes with new features to entice veteran players to play co-op with new, younger players as their introduction to the series. Any handicapped and removed features are intentional design choices for this audience.

It should go without saying, but anyone outside of Pokémon's target audience who's looking for a more fulfilling experience with this type of game should seek out other games with the same structure, or even Pokémon fan games.


I don't agree that because Pokémon is marketed as a "children's franchise" that it explains the poor quality.  Most, if not all, Nintendo franchises are made with the same broad design philosophy, so for many it doesn't check out that Pokémon gets the shaft in terms of quality with every iteration while games like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Metroid, Animal Crossing, etc. have some of their best entries on the Switch. The games are rated E for everyone after all, and are enjoyed by both kids and adults. I, along with many fans, are frustrated that given how much damn money Pokémon makes for Nintendo, their games come out in such a state.






Your Stylish Sword Master!



dhaabi

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2024, 10:10:31 am »
It's always puzzling to see discussions (always from adults) about how Pokémon has either noticeably dropped in quality or that the games aren't difficult anymore since it is, and always has been, a children's franchise. No one in these discussions is the target audience. While the franchise's young target audience doesn't excuse its quality, it does help explain it, as many children's games are low quality. As long as the franchise's popularity remains within that age bracket, the games won't improve, because kids often don't have standards needing to be met. Regarding the difficulty of the games, they've always been straightforward to understand, but I imagine a huge number of players being introduced to the series at a young age, whenever that may have been, faced challenges in understanding the mechanics and strategy required. Obviously, since the games have purposely stagnated to catch the attention of children every few years, veteran players won't find newer entries challenging.

I don't agree that because Pokémon is marketed as a "children's franchise" that it explains the poor quality.  Most, if not all, Nintendo franchises are made with the same broad design philosophy, so it doesn't check out that Pokémon gets the shaft in terms of quality with every iteration while games like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Animal Crossing, etc. have some of their best entries on the Switch. The games are rated E for everyone after all, and are enjoyed by both kids and adults. But I, along with many fans, am frustrated that given how much damn money Pokémon makes for Nintendo, their games come out in such a state.

If there's anything to blame here, it's just the time in the oven. Pokémon games take a considerably long time to develop, but they are pushed out almost yearly whereas the time between flagship Mario games or Zelda games can be sometimes 5 years or more. And in Mario's case it's a much simpler game.

Pokémon as a game is situated within a much larger franchise of merchandise, trading cards, the TV show, and other products that are on very strict schedules which push the games out to release date whether they're ready or not. The games bring about the new merchandising opportunities, which is why you will never see a Pokémon game delayed no matter how bad it is. There's too much in the pipeline at stake. While games like Animal Crossing NH and Fire Emblem Three Houses could afford that luxury.

Regarding stagnation and difficulty, I feel like Nintendo has been struggling with those things for all of their franchises since the Wii. I don't really think that's a uniquely Pokémon problem.

I am amending my initial comment some, as I've thought about the conversation more in-depth on a general level and with your response in mind.

On that note, Pokémon is a family-friendly franchise (therefore meaning for all ages), but its target audience is for children. In general, games for players of all ages are easier, especially in more modern times. We have long moved past the era of intense difficulty of the '80s and '90s with little to no instruction, tasking players to figure out a game's challenging mechanics on their own to inflate playtime. It isn't specifically a Pokémon thing, or a Nintendo thing, but a trend for the majority of game genres across the industry, therefore including games targeted toward a younger demographic. Of course, that isn't the only reason for Pokémon's simple gameplay, but it's definitely a major part of it. Games being more kid-friendly (and arguably more user-friendly which respects the player's time) is something many would support. Does every game aimed at this demographic need to be so simple, though? No, but Pokémon is and has been for some time, with it becoming more so in recent years. I don't think that mainline Pokémon games will ever be designed oppositely, with higher difficulty being the default.

Be that as it may, the Pokémon games could balance its overall presenting difficulty with unlocked challenges to reward more experienced players. After all, other games like the recent Super Mario Wonder and Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze instill such design philosophies (which you seem to disagree with based on your closing statement, as they're games by Nintendo), but it's also something which Nintendo has done for decades. On that note, this video by Game Maker's Toolkit titled Super Mario's Invisible Difficulty Settings delves into some of these design choices which is worth listening to (not necessarily watched, if time to do so is limited.) On the other hand, something which can't be ignored is that Pokémon is not an IP solely owned by Nintendo, as they own only a fraction of shareholder rights. That said, the IPs you listed (The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, and so forth) are all owned and mostly developed by Nintendo. Obviously, Pokémon doesn't adopt the same philosophy that many Nintendo games do (although I could be wrong, as the most recent game I've played is Pokémon X at its time of release), meaning that The Pokémon Company probably has more of a say on the direction of Pokémon games than others have.

Your point that the Pokémon media franchise altogether is strict in adhering to its schedule as a result of the sheer number of products and mediums attached to it is definitely sound. It's an argument that I've seen made before and do agree with, but it wasn't my initial thought when first commenting, so it's a nice reminder. Limited development time is, as you suggest, perhaps the main reason as to why the quality of the franchise's games have become laughably poor, with the amount of content cut and visual hiccups being a constant reminder of that reality. Alongside that detail, it's also worth mentioning that the number of employees at developer Game Freak is relatively small, but obviously small studios have the capability to produce innovative games. Many indie team have far fewer financial opportunities and backing compared to Game Freak, yet some compete on even ground with AAA studios.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2024, 11:19:15 am by dhaabi »

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2024, 09:59:04 pm »
Or Pokemon could just have selectable difficulty like so many other franchises. Have it be easy by default for the kids and people literally looking for zero challenge, but at least allow people to select medium, hard, or even very hard. The underpinnings of Pokemon's gameplay is all numbers anyways; it wouldn't be hard to tilt that in favor of the CPU, making it more of a challenge for the player. Beyond just the difficulty, I'd like to see these games become more unique in their narrative without all the extremely tired tropes that bore many players to death these days. I'm not looking for a mature themed Pokemon game, just something with a little more personality than, "oh boy, you got a Pokemon, go have a fun, carefree adventure with your highly encouraging friends, but watch out for that bad, yet completely harmless organization that seems to be a minor annoyance to everyone!" It just gets so freakin tired. And then of course, it would be nice if Nintendo actually seemed to be trying with their Pokemon designs with each new generation. Each Pokemon gen has received worse and worse exclusive Pokemon to where I either feel like I'm catching the same Monsters from 20-years ago or they're so freakin uninspired I don't even want to catch em' all anymore.


I also reject the idea that Pokemon is a made for kids. I see just as many older Pokemon fans (20s, 30s, and 40s) as I do kids, maybe even more. I'm sure Nintendo is aware of this, yet they seem to think everyone playing Pokemon is a impaired 4 year old that can't handle even the bare minimum of what could be considered a challenge.

sworddude

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2024, 05:43:16 pm »

I also reject the idea that Pokemon is a made for kids. I see just as many older Pokemon fans (20s, 30s, and 40s) as I do kids, maybe even more. I'm sure Nintendo is aware of this, yet they seem to think everyone playing Pokemon is a impaired 4 year old that can't handle even the bare minimum of what could be considered a challenge.

It's also the consumers fault though, cause believe it or not a majority is already pleased with what we currently have and are defending it. Adult fans

I mean, if people keep buying and defending it, it is what it is.

Also let us Not Shame the Nintendo name. Pokemon is not first party it is a seperate thing from the other actual nintendo ip's, Nintendo only owns 33% of it. Blame the 67% pokemon company and gamefreak. They are the actual folks that have control. Nintendo is mainly just enjoying profits and pokemon delivers. If it was an actual Nintendo IP it would have probably been on par with the big 2

previously in the good era's of pokemon, The games received a hell lot of help From Iwata, may he rest in Piece.

He was probably the main reason why the games where really fun in the first 5 gens. Cause in his opinion the games where not good enough value for money so we got a ton of extra's and quality. A more legendary achievement by him was adding the 2nd region in gen 2 pokemon in his free time. Originally it would have just been 1 single region. It didn't fit originally, but iwata being the genius that he was made it work. The guy was always pushing for content, quality and had the technical skill to optimize stuff at the time. That expertise is gone now and so is that incentive for quality. Iwata was that quality control which is gone nowadays. and it wasn't even needed at the time cause of it not being main Nintendo but it was just something that he wanted to do.

He stopped assisting starting in gen 6 and beyond, cause of how bad it got with wii u, him having his hands full and afterwards his Health started to degrade  :-\
« Last Edit: February 23, 2024, 05:55:26 pm by sworddude »
Your Stylish Sword Master!



pzeke

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2024, 04:25:49 am »
This was a known thing to be coming up, they usually have one on "Pokemon Day", but funny enough, I'm more interested to see what comes out of this one than the Partner Showcase, out of sheer morbid curiosity.

I'm not one to bother with gossip, but the rumor mill keeps alluding that Scarlet and Violet aren't done and that there's another DLC, supposedly even a new Mythical. I'm of the opinion that none of that's going to happen, but the English dub of the new anime series was released this month, so maybe there's some truth to those rumors. I guess we'll have to wait and see tomorrow. Personally, I want to remain optimistic, but the years of mediocrity within the franchise have left me bereft of it, and, unless there's some type of miracle, I don't see the franchise making any changes that are worthwhile and aggrandizing in terms of quality.

[...] while still releasing it in an obnoxious double format that was never actually a good idea [...]

It was a good idea back then, given the time, and because that was partly what the core of the game was; however, it stopped being a good idea ages ago, and they should really be done with it for good. But you know, it only continues to be a thing because it's still lining up their pockets.

Or do we finally get New Pokemon Snap DLC, because I had absolutely charming time with that game and I have zero complaints with that release other than I wish they would give me more content, because I will pay for it?

I'd imagine they would keep any new DLC free of charge, considering the past DLC was, in fact, free. Either way, New Snap, as well as the original, weren't made by Game Freak, which is to say that all the good Pokémon games are often spin-offs developed by an entirely different team—and when I say that, I'm of course excluding Gen. I–V of the equation, because they actually happen to be competent entries within the core series.




That has been making the rounds, and it's more or less proven to be fake; I mean, it's written all over it, plus, it came straight from 4chan. Just the first item in the list debunks the whole thing without a single joule wasted: it's universally known that there's a Pokémon-related event every year in this month, and the "leak" states that the announcement was going to be on the 24th, sidestepping Pokémon Day. That image of Ghetsis has been stated to be a modded Cyrus from BDSP, which wouldn't exactly be wrong since the remakes were made using Unity. Also, while the Gen. IV remakes are without a doubt subpar cash grabs, I think it's fair to point out that ILCA weren't necessarily the ones who proposed the 1:1 approach, as that in particular was Masuda, who simply wanted to meet their schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying I want another Pokémon game made by ILCA, and actually, I don't believe Game Freak would want them either given that, based on "insider" info, they apparently weren't particularly enthused with what ILCA did with the remakes, some hypothesizing one of the reasons being them using Unity—still, it's not like they're bad at what they do; just look at One Piece Odyssey and the upcoming Sand Land. Their concept art for the games, which is just that, is very pretty, but they simply developed the remakes exactly as they were told, and unfortunately, to a fault. At the end of the day, it's all business.

[...] I hate these pixel art games getting remade in a bland 3D style, like Link's Awakening was personally a pretty bad art choice for me, and then Pokemon was just like "We are going to do that too, but at a MUCH lower quality" [...]

I'm sorry, but in this instance, you're just comparing apples and oranges, especially considering the amount of polish Link's Awakening has over the other game, literally. Not to mention that the art style fits the former perfectly, not because it has to be a 1:1 remake, which it isn't, but more so when taking into account that the setting of the game happens to be a dream. When Eiji Aonuma was asked about it, he stated that the art style was mainly inspired by miniature dioramas, given that that style fit the concept of the original game, and it quite honestly does. The only nitpick I have about the game is the missed opportunity of naming it "Link's Re-awakening"—sure, it isn't a sequel, but it still fits.

lol lets go doesnt count its an spinoff and an bad one at that  honestly not even worth 10 bucks [...]

The entirety of your post is nothing but blowhard steam, pure jibber-jabber. The Let's Go games are remakes of Pokémon Yellow, so of course they're part of the main series.



And here's the news article where the above quote is taken for reference. A statement uttered by him countless other times during the time of the game's release.

I am amending my initial comment some [...]

Okay, I'm not going to post what flooded my mind upon reading your original post, given that you "amended" it, but I'm still going to express some of it as I believe it qualifies the discussion.

It's always puzzling to see discussions (always from adults) about how Pokémon has either noticeably dropped in quality or that the games aren't difficult anymore since it is, and always has been, a children's franchise. No one in these discussions is the target audience. While the franchise's young target audience doesn't excuse its quality, it does help explain it, as many children's games are low quality. As long as the franchise's popularity remains within that age bracket, the games won't improve, because kids often don't have standards needing to be met. Regarding the difficulty of the games, they've always been straightforward to understand, but I imagine a huge number of players being introduced to the series at a young age, whenever that may have been, faced challenges in understanding the mechanics and strategy required. Obviously, since the games have purposely stagnated to catch the attention of children every few years, veteran players won't find newer entries challenging.

First of all, that initial post of yours is a terrible and overrated take, devoid of originality; I've heard and read it all before, and the narrative never changes. Sure, Pokémon has "always" been aimed at kids, so what was exactly your point? The same could be said about any other game—or anything else—that's considered "a children's franchise". I mean, Nintendo, for as long as I can remember, has had the stigma of being a kiddy haven, with Kirby usually being a prominent example given, so there's that. Would you level the same criticism at those who like SpongeBob SquarePants or Adventure Time? Were you aware that The Flintstones was meant to be for adults initially? If you look, you'll find plenty of "adult humor" and mature themes in the games—heck, look no further than the design of some of the characters, including the Pokémon themselves.

But, as per Masuda himself...



And this...

[...] I'd always made the Pokémon games with a desire to see everyone from children to adults play them, but it wasn't uncommon for players to move from junior high to high school to college and then feel as if they had graduated from Pokémon. I really found that to be regrettable.

Excerpt from an interview for the then-upcoming Pokémon Black Version and White Version games that was conducted by Satoru Iwata for his Iwata Asks series.


Still, while I have no problem conceding that the games can be childish, the appeal of Pokémon is universal and truly has no age. However, I'm honestly so damn tired of this vacuous argument, particularly the whole "children's games are low quality" and "kids often don't have standards needing to be met", that it genuinely bothers me knowing there are people out there who actually embrace that train of thought. It's because of people like you who think this way that the franchise and other aspects of gaming are in such a state of limbo; this is exactly the type of mentality Masuda had that inevitably led the franchise to where it's currently at. It's not like these games are marketed to toddlers, so your descant as a whole is a shallow way of thinking; it's an unfair and condescending outlook on kids and their intelligence—it's retrograde. And all this ignoring that we're talking about a multi-billion-dollar franchise, which so happens to be the highest-grossing one that surpasses even The Mouse, meaning they can for sure up the production values of their IP, specifically when it comes to their workforce. Quite frankly, your initial post and the overall premise behind it are jejune.

And yes, there are similar games out there, including a trove of fan-made games, which is something I've been parroting for a long time around here, but that's rather irrelevant, as they're supplemental. I'm an adult and still play and quite enjoy Pokémon, and as someone who has since the very beginning, I don't think it's wrong of me, or for any other Average Joe who also has, to voice my opinion on the monumental dip in quality the franchise has undergone, whether I'm "the target audience" or not; there's nothing wrong with me wanting the betterment of both the franchise and the company responsible for it, not only for me, but for future generations, pun intended.

In general, games for players of all ages are easier, especially in more modern times. We have long moved past the era of intense difficulty of the '80s and '90s with little to no instruction, tasking players to figure out a game's challenging mechanics on their own to inflate playtime. It isn't specifically a Pokémon thing, or a Nintendo thing, but a trend for the majority of game genres across the industry, therefore including games targeted toward a younger demographic. [...]



That's what he said during the time of Gen. VI, precisely when quality began to dip and the dynamics of what makes a good Pokémon game started to get flushed down the drain. I mean, I sort of get what he was trying to get at, more or less, but, however you look at it, it's a cop-out. All of that essentially translates to "we just want to take as little time as possible making these games so that we can churn them out one after the other for maximum profit; it's Pokémon after all, people'll buy it". In fact, if I'm being honest—and let me put on my tinfoil hat for this one—I think this has been a metaphorical middle finger by him and Game Freak given how fans initially reacted to Gen. V and, to some degree, Gen. IV., since right after that point is when things went on a downward spiral. The jump to 3D, while inevitable, was unwise.

Here's another relevant quote:



And since difficulty was brought up, here's another one in terms of it:



[...] I also reject the idea that Pokemon is a made for kids.

It really isn't, but the reality that they are and have always been childish is one that must be accepted. That said, that shouldn't be a reason to stop playing and enjoying the games, especially if you grew up with them. One aspect of the games that isn't as kid-friendly is the competitive side, which requires a good deal of skill and experience, as it can, for the most part, turn into a game of chess.

[...] The games received a hell lot of help From Iwata, may he rest in Piece.

He was probably the main reason why the games where really fun in the first 5 gens. [...]

That's true, and in fact, it's thanks to him that the West has Pokémon in the first place. Satoru Iwata was able to build a Pokémon game in a cave with a box of scraps: Gold and Silver, and by extension, Crystal, remain exemplar games within the series thanks to him. The majority of what he did was mainly during the early days of the franchise, and even though he still provided support to Game Freak after that, he was just a helping hand; however, there's a lot he did, so yes, you could say once he parted ways with them, it's partly the reason the quality of the games suffered.

For those interested, I'll leave the following articles about Iwata's involvement with the franchise: a write-up by Siliconera about the localization of Pokémon that's in turn a translated excerpt from an interview by 4Gamer, and a piece by Collider that goes over Iwata's assistance with the games, particularly Gold and Silver.

As for who owns Pokémon, percentages aside, it's a ménage à trois between Creatures, Inc., Game Freak, and Nintendo, who in turn established The Pokémon Company. As Masuda once said, Nintendo can input pressure on Game Freak depending on the project, so saying that Nintendo is partly at fault isn't necessarily the wrong assessment. Regardless, what I think should be done is a restructuring of sorts: no more remakes for a while, and since the Legends game was well received, focus on expanding that series before moving on to a new mainline game. Let's go back to the four-year model they had before, perhaps making it five since they're now knee-deep in the vast 3D ocean. These games need time to cook, and Game Freak, being small and, quite frankly, as Iwata's involvement proved, not particularly good at coding, really needs it.

Anyhow, we're just a day and a few hours away from Pokémon Day, so let's wait and see what's in store (and hopefully there's no announcement relating to Gen. X because it's way too early).
« Last Edit: February 26, 2024, 06:18:03 am by pzeke »

I know your every move behind this face; I have control over expendable slaves.
When confrontation comes down to the wire, I'll use my cyclotrode to commence the fire.
You're never gonna get me!

dhaabi

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2024, 09:59:31 am »
I am amending my initial comment some [...]

Okay, I'm not going to post what flooded my mind upon reading your original post, given that you "amended" it, but I'm still going to express some of it as I believe it qualifies the discussion.

Like I stated above, I backtracked on that shallow opinion which didn't have much thought behind it, and quickly too.

Quote
I'm an adult and still play and quite enjoy Pokémon, and as someone who has since the very beginning, I don't think it's wrong of me, or for any other Average Joe who also has, to voice my opinion on the monumental dip in quality the franchise has undergone, whether I'm "the target audience" or not; there's nothing wrong with me wanting the betterment of both the franchise and the company responsible for it, not only for me, but for future generations, pun intended.

Of course it isn't, and it should amount to something. But, based on the "[r]ather than any actual feedback from players" Masuda quote you referenced, those cries will likely be ignored, unfortunately. That people continue to support a company when said company doesn't have the interest of their consumers in mind, especially when the quality of its products has drastically and noticeably diminished, is sad.

pzeke

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2024, 01:20:03 pm »
Like I stated above, I backtracked on that shallow opinion which didn't have much thought behind it, and quickly too.

Amended or not, it was still ripe for the taking, and I don't miss opportunities.

Of course it isn't, and it should amount to something. But, based on the "[r]ather than any actual feedback from players" Masuda quote you referenced, those cries will likely be ignored, unfortunately. That people continue to support a company when said company doesn't have the interest of their consumers in mind, especially when the quality of its products has drastically and noticeably diminished, is sad.

You're trying to teach a fish how to swim; the last game in the series I bought upon release was Diamond and Pearl, getting the rest of the games way after the fact and second hand. The only reason I pre-ordered Scarlet was due to the monumental changes made to the series and because, even though I had my doubts, I was rather optimistic, which was a fair stance to have given that Legends: Arceus was the right step forward. As can be inferred from the quotes I included, Masuda basically made the games for him—"I don't feel as pressured about the existing fans—I feel as though I simply hand them what we just came up with for them to check out (laughs)"—and whether the public liked them or not didn't seem to faze him much, until Gen. V, of course. His last stint as director was the Let's Go games, but sadly, his influence is still prevalent. And for the sake of clarity, I don't have anything against the guy; on the contrary, I have respect for him. Regardless of his methods, one can't ignore his contributions, particularly in the music department for the series, but his way of thinking in regards to the franchise was and still is counterproductive.



Hopefully, that stays true and remains a constant.

As a final note, you have to take into consideration that, aside from parents who blindly buy a Pokémon game for their kids without prior knowledge of their history, there's also those who are blindly loyal to the brand, those like Joe Merrick (aka Serebii) who'll defend the company and their decisions any chance they can get*, which, coupled with the tone-deaf responses of people like Masuda, it's no wonder we're where we are. Will it get better? Your guess is as good as mine.

*Let's see if Mr. Merrick's vanity bots come crawling in.

I know your every move behind this face; I have control over expendable slaves.
When confrontation comes down to the wire, I'll use my cyclotrode to commence the fire.
You're never gonna get me!

dhaabi

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2024, 01:41:38 pm »
Of course it isn't, and it should amount to something. But, based on the "[r]ather than any actual feedback from players" Masuda quote you referenced, those cries will likely be ignored, unfortunately. That people continue to support a company when said company doesn't have the interest of their consumers in mind, especially when the quality of its products has drastically and noticeably diminished, is sad.

You're trying to teach a fish how to swim; the last game in the series I bought upon release was Diamond and Pearl, getting the rest of the games way after the fact and second hand.

In my above comment, I never mentioned you explicitly. Given your public opinion on the franchise, I had my doubts you were buying the games new, or buying them at all. I was referring to "those who are blindly loyal to the brand," as you worded it.

pzeke

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2024, 02:59:43 am »
In my above comment, I never mentioned you explicitly. Given your public opinion on the franchise, I had my doubts you were buying the games new, or buying them at all. I was referring to "those who are blindly loyal to the brand," as you worded it.

Dude, yes, I'm well aware of that; the "trying to teach a fish how to swim" comment was just a jovial preamble to where I wanted to get with my line of thought, like a "Ha! You don't need to tell me." I guess I could've said "you're preaching to the choir" or just "preach" instead. I know getting a message across on the Internet can often be hit or miss, but I genuinely felt that I didn't need to make it obvious since you're a smart guy and I figured you'd get it: I don't feel my post was aggressive in any way to be construed otherwise. Oh well, my apologies then if that was the case.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to today with cynical optimism.

I know your every move behind this face; I have control over expendable slaves.
When confrontation comes down to the wire, I'll use my cyclotrode to commence the fire.
You're never gonna get me!

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2024, 09:14:47 am »
Well, of all the rumors I saw for this Pokémon Z sure wasn't one of them.

sworddude

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2024, 10:59:17 am »
Zero gameplay footage though. It's for the best though who knows might be decent.

And another legends game beats anything maingame/ remake esk






I have no hate towards Matsuda, While I don't agree with some of his directions, the guy has been the face of the series. He seems like a good guy. Your rarely get see anything of the og creator satoshi tajiri (which left after gen 2 to get into a Ceo position) or the main artist ken sugimori. But Matsuda has always been there doing the dirty work. Having someone consistent is never a bad thing.

His skills in terms of Music are excellent, and gotto give him props for steering the ship, the guy made good money and could handle the tight release shedules. I won't really blame the guy for the lesser games in the current era cause in reality he worked his ass off and did what he could in the conditions that where given. So got mad respect for the guy.

Also some of the memes with him are legendary  ;D











« Last Edit: February 27, 2024, 11:25:32 am by sworddude »
Your Stylish Sword Master!



Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2024, 12:57:12 pm »
Well that was shockingly less than I was expecting to see lol A new Legends isn't bad though and that it'll be next year is good.  I feel like them having no games coming out this year is maybe giving credence to the Switch 2 March 2025 talk, because a new Pokemon game in the launch window would be notable.

Apparently the new Legends is set entirely within a city, I know very little about X and Y, but...This seems like they are maybe going to try for a smaller open world setting perhaps? I don't know, I feel like that would only work if they really densely packed in what you can do there, otherwise it'll get very samey and kinda boring.  I saw some people jokingly call it "GTA, but Pokemon", but again, I have very low expectations for this.  We'll see I guess.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2024, 01:50:57 pm by kamikazekeeg »

sworddude

Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2024, 02:31:32 pm »
I kinda doubt it's going to be set within just the city though.

The city is going to be the main focus or just the hubworld sure, but I highly doubt it's going to be just that.
Your Stylish Sword Master!



Re: Pokemon Presents 02/27/24
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2024, 02:53:33 pm »
I kinda doubt it's going to be set within just the city though.

The city is going to be the main focus or just the hubworld sure, but I highly doubt it's going to be just that.

Unless they mispoke, they very specifically said on at least twitter, "...a new adventure set entirely within Lumiose City...".  It's possible they could have some stuff just outside the city, but doing such a specific area could be very samey unless there's something to mix it up.