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).
