Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Never thought I'd see opinions that state less content is better.

Its a pretty common sentiment among gamers that are getting older. A lot of game franchises are stuffed with filler that isn't fun, just designed to waste your time. Cutting down on that is usually a positive. That you've never seen that stated before honestly baffles me, as its been a rising gripe in the industry for the last decade, and very common for the last five years.

There is a definite gap between content that's quality and content that's filler. And its often the difference between a hand-crafted story encounter and a randomly generated 'radiant quest.' The latter can be useful to get XP or gear early on in the game, but they're pure garbage fedex or murder quests.

For games, collectibles are definitely filler. See almost any Ubisoft game. Getting all the junk can take 60+ hours, but the story (the good bits) is about 10. They've drizzled crap all over the world map to make people think their games are bigger and more interesting than they actually are.

Ah that might explain it. I was never a fan of Ubisoft games so I never really went looking for those games or forums for such.. Of course those as I can tell were not mainstay things like how the Pokemon are, or how Mega evolution was one of the most positively viewed addition to the series rather then a series of random things to increase game time.

I suppose I should've worded it better.

Just to put it in perspective; Sword/Shield has as much content as Ruby/Sapphire... after Fire Red/Leaf Green added back all the missing content from those games. Since then the content of the games has more than doubled and not really in any meaningful way. It's just stuff and not much in the way of real additional game. Yeah, its disappointing if your absolute favorite isn't there, but realistically we've all got dozens of favorites at this point. I had 6 favorites back when there were only 251 to choose from. I can scrap together 6 out of 400.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Never thought I'd see opinions that state less content is better.

Its a pretty common sentiment among gamers that are getting older. A lot of game franchises are stuffed with filler that isn't fun, just designed to waste your time. Cutting down on that is usually a positive. That you've never seen that stated before honestly baffles me, as its been a rising gripe in the industry for the last decade, and very common for the last five years.

There is a definite gap between content that's quality and content that's filler. And its often the difference between a hand-crafted story encounter and a randomly generated 'radiant quest.' The latter can be useful to get XP or gear early on in the game, but they're pure garbage fedex or murder quests.

For games, collectibles are definitely filler. See almost any Ubisoft game. Getting all the junk can take 60+ hours, but the story (the good bits) is about 10. They've drizzled crap all over the world map to make people think their games are bigger and more interesting than they actually are.

Ah that might explain it. I was never a fan of Ubisoft games so I never really went looking for those games or forums for such.. Of course those as I can tell were not mainstay things like how the Pokemon are, or how Mega evolution was one of the most positively viewed addition to the series rather then a series of random things to increase game time.

I suppose I should've worded it better.

Ubisoft was just an easy example.
I can think of youtube personalities that really love Baldur's Gate style RPGs, are really excited about that kind of game, but who haven't played any of the spiritual successors because they're too long and don't have the time. So they get excited about 15 hour games more than 40-60 hour games. And seem to reflect their fan base, who often feel the same way.

In fairness; I used to feel like I was just getting too old for the time commitment of Final Fantasy games. Then I went back and played the old ones and the pacing is just.... so much better. They're definitely not as long overall, but more importantly, you get from point to point in minutes, not hours. This is true of a lot of games and a lot of genres.

My wife and I recently gave Apple Arcade a try and while I'm not sure its worth a permanent subscription, it was kind of funny to finish a game and be reminded that sometimes you've just finished the game. My wife finished a couple of them and asked what she's supposed to do next and the notion of "find a new game to play" suddenly felt bizarrely novel on a platform that so often feels like a checklist of daily chores.

With Pokemon Go doing a pretty great job of distilling the core catch and catalog aspect of the franchise down to its essential components; I think its a great time for the core games to shake off a lot of baggage and focus on their strengths. Honestly, if the next region cuts things down to 300 but really focuses on making the best competitive battle system they can in a fresh adventure.... I'm all for it.

I could've been fine with Dexit if GameFreak hadn't lied to us about it. They said it had to happen because they had to remake the Pokémon models from scratch. They didn't have to, and they didn't even do that. They future-proofed the models all the way back in 2013 to make sure what they claim happened didn't happen.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I could've been fine with Dexit if GameFreak hadn't lied to us about it. They said it had to happen because they had to remake the Pokémon models from scratch. They didn't have to, and they didn't even do that. They future-proofed the models all the way back in 2013 to make sure what they claim happened didn't happen.

The wireframe models are a pretty minor bit of the work. The renders over top and animations take up way time, particularly when they add things like having them appear on the overworld.

People have grossly simplified what it takes to port the series every generation, mostly because when it had half the critters with only a single sprite it didn't take much. Ever since taking on animation and every attempt at 3D has taken a half step to get there... or honestly we can just admit this was going to happen sooner or later and have one thing that people love and not turn it into an absolute whinefest on twitter.

 LunarSol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I could've been fine with Dexit if GameFreak hadn't lied to us about it. They said it had to happen because they had to remake the Pokémon models from scratch. They didn't have to, and they didn't even do that. They future-proofed the models all the way back in 2013 to make sure what they claim happened didn't happen.

The wireframe models are a pretty minor bit of the work. The renders over top and animations take up way time, particularly when they add things like having them appear on the overworld.

It's not the wireframes, it's the entire model. It's literally copy-paste. They overdid the models back in 2013 so they could just copy-paste them, and they had walking and sleeping animations for all Gen 1-7 Pokemon last gen that they didn't use.

I feel like the people who are bitching about the new game and the less pokemon are people who haven't bothered to play the new game.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I feel like the people who are bitching about the new game and the less pokemon are people who haven't bothered to play the new game.

I'm not really sure that's relevant.

I have Pokemon I really really like. I have little interest in playing a game that doesn't even let me play them, and when the Pokemon I like are very popular in general, I question the sense in cutting them in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I could've been fine with Dexit if GameFreak hadn't lied to us about it. They said it had to happen because they had to remake the Pokémon models from scratch. They didn't have to, and they didn't even do that. They future-proofed the models all the way back in 2013 to make sure what they claim happened didn't happen.

The wireframe models are a pretty minor bit of the work. The renders over top and animations take up way time, particularly when they add things like having them appear on the overworld.

It's not the wireframes, it's the entire model. It's literally copy-paste. They overdid the models back in 2013 so they could just copy-paste them, and they had walking and sleeping animations for all Gen 1-7 Pokemon last gen that they didn't use.

The wire frame IS the model.

What they are saying is that with a new set of hardware and better animation capabilities those models need to be re-rigged to new skeletons for animations and the animations themselves have to be redone. Building the 3d model is the easy part. Even texturing it is easy enough though time consuming. It's the rigging and animation that takes ages.

Also, it's not literally copy paste. There are many of the models they found with more Tris from the 3ds version to the switch versions with touch ups here and there to support the much higher ratios and the new animations.

You know the pokemon campsites in the new game? Every single pokemon has to have all of those animations created for it. All the many animations from eating, recognition, surprise, playing, the ball game, socializing. 435 pokemon, some with various forms, all rerigged and animated to do all these new things. The 3d model is the smallest part of the time it takes to render the pokemon into the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I feel like the people who are bitching about the new game and the less pokemon are people who haven't bothered to play the new game.

I'm not really sure that's relevant.

I have Pokemon I really really like. I have little interest in playing a game that doesn't even let me play them, and when the Pokemon I like are very popular in general, I question the sense in cutting them in the first place.

Because it's not about popularity. Or at least popularity isn't the only consideration. There is an attempt at creating a balance and a unique culture of pokemon in this set. We don't need the same list of top popularity pokemon forever. The next gen will have a new set with new omisions and and some returns. By next November we will probably see the diamond and pearl remakes and then we will get a ton of pokemon back.

We don't need the same list of top popularity pokemon forever.

Tell that to Gamefreak and their Charizard love.

 Lance845 wrote:
We don't need the same list of top popularity pokemon forever. The next gen will have a new set with new omisions and and some returns.

Probably, but that doesn't really change that my interest isn't there or that I question the viability of this model in the long run. It sounds like a recipe for "Oh, my mon aren't in this one. Maybe next year."

I am perfectly fine with them swapping what sets of pokemon are available with every new installment, much like MTG rotating out sets. It changes the competitive meta, and with some natural counters moved out, new pokemon can rise up that might have been maligned before.

We already got a taste of it in Alola when they ditched the national dex, and this is the culmination of that. I'd rather they just be upfront with it, but it is what it is.

I'm sure the blow back from this will make them try to bring it all back for the next game, but for now, I'll enjoy this game experience.

Though, I suppose I am one of those players that tries to complete the pokedex without bringing things forward all the time. Imagine just moving pokemon forward every game and starting with 80% of the game done...

They already datamined the starters being in the game, which covers the majority of peoples favourites right there.

 Crazyterran wrote:


They already datamined the starters being in the game, which covers the majority of peoples favourites right there.

See, I would have thought that but they're not. Of all previous starters only Charmanders line (hence the joke a few posts up about Game Freak's Charizard love) is apparently in the game, and that's just the start of it. I mean what, is there some hidden fan base out there for Octillery and Avalugg?

If the problem in front of them was "there are too many Pokemon" I can't fathom why they didn't just go the route of cutting ones no one has ever cared about. There are non-competitive mon who are very popular, so its not all about how good they are in meta terms. It's just that no one gives a gak about Luvdisc. Seriously. Does anyone like Durant? Qwilfish? Remoraid? Musharna might not be super popular but its at least a unique mon with some character, not something that looks like it got thought up to fill a quota. These are the Pokemon who should be getting cut, not series mainstays like Bulbasaur, Scyther, and <insert literally any Pokemon that gets featured in the Anime more than once every couple years>

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

We don't need the same list of top popularity pokemon forever.

Tell that to Gamefreak and their Charizard love.

It's a fire breathing dragon in a region based on Brittan. Charizard fits the theme of that land better then any other pokemon. You can call it Charizard love if you want. I think it' thematically appropriate that they chose that pokemon along with all the others that have any semblance to knights, swords, and armor. Even giving Ponyta and Rapidash a new regional types and look to make them unicorns.

 Lance845 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

We don't need the same list of top popularity pokemon forever.

Tell that to Gamefreak and their Charizard love.

It's a fire breathing dragon in a region based on Brittan. Charizard fits the theme of that land better then any other pokemon. You can call it Charizard love if you want. I think it' thematically appropriate that they chose that pokemon along with all the others that have any semblance to knights, swords, and armor. Even giving Ponyta and Rapidash a new regional types and look to make them unicorns.

Not even my intent on both peoples accounts. It just seems like Charizard gains the most favoritism in general of any pokemon (Not counting the standard mascot pokemon with Pikachu and the like) with the most marketing, new events, the double+ mega evolution line.. It goes on and on was what I was meaning in that little joke I was making.

Touching up on older models is a lot different to recreating everything from scratch.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I feel like the people who are bitching about the new game and the less pokemon are people who haven't bothered to play the new game.

I dunno, cognitive bias? I'm playing the game and having fun, but a lot less fun than if the game wasn't an obvious rush job. It could be so much more.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:


They already datamined the starters being in the game, which covers the majority of peoples favourites right there.

See, I would have thought that but they're not. Of all previous starters only Charmanders line (hence the joke a few posts up about Game Freak's Charizard love) is apparently in the game, and that's just the start of it. I mean what, is there some hidden fan base out there for Octillery and Avalugg?

If the problem in front of them was "there are too many Pokemon" I can't fathom why they didn't just go the route of cutting ones no one has ever cared about. There are non-competitive mon who are very popular, so its not all about how good they are in meta terms. It's just that no one gives a gak about Luvdisc. Seriously. Does anyone like Durant? Qwilfish? Remoraid? Musharna might not be super popular but its at least a unique mon with some character, not something that looks like it got thought up to fill a quota. These are the Pokemon who should be getting cut, not series mainstays like Bulbasaur, Scyther, and <insert literally any Pokemon that gets featured in the Anime more than once every couple years>

The Bulbasaur and Squirtle lines are in the game with full models but are currently unavailable, as are a bunch of other 'mons. Interestingly enough every single Pokemon is in the code, they just don't have models.

Lastly, I'd like to hear the spin on why cutting over a hundred moves was needed. Pursuit? Gone. Return? Won't be returning. Hidden Power? So well hidden that it's not in the game. While we're at it, why did the GTS get scrapped for... whatever the feth this abomination is?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lastly, I'd like to hear the spin on why cutting over a hundred moves was needed. Pursuit? Gone. Return? Won't be returning. Hidden Power? So well hidden that it's not in the game. While we're at it, why did the GTS get scrapped for... whatever the feth this abomination is?

I mean honestly.... who cares? There are so many moves and so many of them are garbage. I didn't even know those 3 are gone, but given they're among the first moves I'd cut.... good for GF.

Pursuit - a heavy handed cudgel that makes things weak to dark pretty non-viable unless they're spectacularly OP. Switching in and getting a free kill with no real counterplay with T-Tar is something so meta defining the only reason its been allowed on SmogOn is SmogOn has for whatever reason been okay with T-Tar defining OU since GSC.

Return - a completely boring move that requires a bunch of needless stat tracking to be boring. It's... fine, but are people complaining about Frustration too?

Hidden Power - Oh glorious day. This is actually the move that drove the wedge between me and the rest of the early competitive community. Being able to freely set this on emulators was so bizarrely meta warping and was just a mess to take into consideration. Too complete of type coverage has long completely removed a lot of the core appeal of the type chart and this move alone pretty much assured its problem.

Man, now I'm excited to see what more got cut. These are great.

So since I am not to familiar with the romhack scene, is there any enhancement hacks of (Soul/Heart) Silver/Gold that update mechanics/typing but don't have the 700 Keychain and Icecream pokemon nonsense? That would be my ideal game.

What do you want updated? Those games were post the physical/special split and generally speaking, not horribly in need of much in the way of updates.

There's a metric tonne of Pokémon that just won't have a chance without the coverage given by HP. Have fun playing Jolteon without HP Ice for example.

Ultimately, however, this "debate" is meaningless: you just hand-wave everything away with "who cares?". Who cares about proper scaling? Who cares about stuttering in the wild area? Who cares about Pokémon popping into existence out of nowhere ten feet in front of you? Who cares that Hop (who is otherwise a genuinely interesting character) won't ever shut up? Who cares that online trading is the worst it's ever been since it was introduced in Gen 4? Who cares that GameFreak lied to us? Who cares about ExpShare? Who'd care if Masuda live-streamed eating a baby? Who cares if about the game being hand-holdy to the extreme? Who cares about the post-graduate being a worse version of the last three generations? Who cares about the last towns being glorified corridors without content? Who cares about Dexit? Who cares about the axed moves?

Who cares? I'm happy, so clearly this is all just unsubstantial whining, right?

I know this may be a bit shallow? But the main thing that draws me to Sword/Shield is the fact that I can finally play the damn thing on a full sized TV again instead of it just being on 3ds or some other tiny crap.

I'm not so attached to pokemon that the previous argument dissuades me, though I understand the frustration. I can barely stand to play a lot of the most recent pokemon games, though, because the 3ds and such are just kinda crap for when you're not playing on the go. I'd probably have liked Alpha Sapphire / Omega Ruby / Sun / Moon a lot more if I could have hooked my 3ds up to my TV somehow, but I can barely stand to play them for more than an hour at a time unless I'm going somewhere-- and these days if I'm going somewhere it's usually somewhere that prevents me from playing games.

Can hardly play a 3ds while driving, or while at work.

If you could pick your Hidden Power? Sure. As is though, the move has always been the single most egregious example of how the IV mechanics are a mess of RNG nonsense that no one should have to put up with. There's lots of half measures added over the years, but honestly having a real competitive team in game has been a stupid grind that's fundamentally at odds with everything people like about the series.

And yeah, maybe Jolteon sucks now, but that's on Gamefreak. If they want to keep including the Eeveelutions every generation, maybe its time to give them an actual movepool. Honestly, half the reason I want to see a culling is so they actually go back and pay attention to some of this stuff. Put some design work into it rather than continuing to bolt on Dream World abilities, and Hidden Power and the rest.

All the "lied" nonsense is nonsense. I assure you someone missed the birth of their child and slept under their desk over this game. The work involved in them has been so thoroughly trivialized by a fanbase that takes 800 creatures and so thoroughly houserules the game for the 50 or so Pokemon that fit their definition of how the game should be play. Some of that is on Gamefreak's nonsense balance, absolutely, but after 20 years of the community dismissing most of the dex as not worth anything, I have little issue with Gamefreak coming to the same conclusion.

I agree with the complaint about the GTS 100% - makes it much harder to find someone to trade a Haunter for a Haunter or a Machoke for a Machoke.

On the other hand, I'm fine with them pruning abilities, especially ones that were broken or too strong, as well as mediocre powers. Keeping some gimmicky powers like Stockpile seems a little weird too, but since I'm a casual PVE player maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not sure its enough, but I was really glad to see Aegislash get his base stats... well, definitely not slashed, but tempered slightly.

The original message from the director was about bringing everything down to a more reasonable list to balance if you read the actual quote. Many of the moves cut were exclusive moves to pokemon that are not in the game. And other moves were cut to build this meta.

 LunarSol wrote:
If you could pick your Hidden Power? Sure. As is though, the move has always been the single most egregious example of how the IV mechanics are a mess of RNG nonsense that no one should have to put up with. There's lots of half measures added over the years, but honestly having a real competitive team in game has been a stupid grind that's fundamentally at odds with everything people like about the series.

And yeah, maybe Jolteon sucks now, but that's on Gamefreak. If they want to keep including the Eeveelutions every generation, maybe its time to give them an actual movepool. Honestly, half the reason I want to see a culling is so they actually go back and pay attention to some of this stuff. Put some design work into it rather than continuing to bolt on Dream World abilities, and Hidden Power and the rest.

All the "lied" nonsense is nonsense. I assure you someone missed the birth of their child and slept under their desk over this game. The work involved in them has been so thoroughly trivialized by a fanbase that takes 800 creatures and so thoroughly houserules the game for the 50 or so Pokemon that fit their definition of how the game should be play. Some of that is on Gamefreak's nonsense balance, absolutely, but after 20 years of the community dismissing most of the dex as not worth anything, I have little issue with Gamefreak coming to the same conclusion.

Putting effort in doesn't make you immune from criticism. If, despite all your effort, you make a bad product (and lie about it in the meantime), expect to be raked over the coals.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Putting effort in doesn't make you immune from criticism. If, despite all your effort, you make a bad product (and lie about it in the meantime), expect to be raked over the coals.

Is it a bad game though? People actually playing it seem to like it. Most everything I hear is that there's stuff not in it, which.... the lying thing is the most irritating armchair expert silliness I've seen, but its not worth arguing at this point. Frankly I'm just tired of the internet and its nonsense.

It's a bad game and it isn't. Taken on its own merits, it's probably a slightly better than average game. Perfectly servicable, but with a bunch of glaring flaws that really should have been dealt with.

Taken in context, as the first mainline game on TV in the Pokémon franchise, the single most profitable franchise in the world, it's disappointing. If they'd given it another year it could've been so much better. There's so much nice stuff in the game. For once I really like almost every new Pokémon design (no, not you, Mr. Rime!). The character customization is amazing. The Gym battles' atmosphere is spot on. And then I get kicked out of my enjoyment climbing a ladder and watching the trainers at the bottom of it freeze with a pokéball suspended in mid-air until I've made it to the top, at which point they continue as though nothing happened. Or Leon, who is the undefeated Champion and has a Charizard, shows up because he's lost his way because while he is the undefeated Champion (who has a Charizard!), that status does not mean he doesn't get lost all the time, because it's not important to being the undefeated Champion (with a Charizard!).

Again, it's not that the games are bad, it's that they are decidedly meh entries in the series when by all rights it could've been so, so much better. We've had Breath of the Wild showing us how to do a proper open-world game. We've had Super Mario Oddyssey blowing people's minds, showing that it's still possible to use an old concept and make an amazing game. And then we have half the Pokédex minced down to chunks to make room for curry and 63 (!) different forms of Alcremie.

As a dude on reddit put it:

IanMazgelis on reddit wrote:They've been piling up since the day the game was released. Every single time there's an issue, a floating model, a clipping outfit, a snapping camera, a culled player character, continuity errors, plot holes, obvious technical mistakes, the game deleting your SD card data, I hear the same defense in the same rude, reductive, and condescending way.

So... This one little thing happens that no one even noticed until this post, and you're all ready to call this game bad now? I guess every other game is flawless?

I have a difficult time telling if these people are being purposefully obtuse or just ordinarily dense but the point should be clear. It's not just one issue. When you see a thread pointing out an obvious mistake or problem, they're not saying that problem ruins the game. They're saying it's a snowflake in the avalanche that we know as Pokemon Sword and Shield. When something comically ridiculous happens, like a character lip syncing to missing song vocals for about twenty uninterrupted seconds straight, we aren't saying that makes it a bad game. We're saying it's another example of what kind of game this is. An extremely hackneyed and unpolished project that shouldn't have been released in its current state.

While IanMazgelis is more acerbic than I would be towards the games (and that's pretty amazing, considering how acerbic I usually am!), the point is that it's the layer upon layer of petty stuff that GameFreak apparently couldn't be bothered with the drags the game down. It's not an amazing game. It's not even a great game. It's a resoundingly average game. Or, to put it in Pokémon terms, it's:

So its a Pokemon game.

Yeah. Thats part and parcel for pokemon. Even pointing out the 2 dimensional personality quirks of characters as though that wasnt always the thing and then expecting more... Why? Why would you expect the undefeated champion who gets lost all the time to NOT have a kid show like personality trait like that?

Bugs that delete your saves? Who here remembers missing no?

This is just stock standard pokemon.