El Shmiablo Banned last edited by
@michemagius GameFreak made Tembo the Badass Elephant.
Good developers (though to be honest I've never seen Pokemon as anything more than an incredibly middling RPG) can make bad games.
Haru17 last edited by
@Haru17 Why would you need to dig into options?
The default method works in EXACTLY the same way the Switch does.
Still waiting to hear what makes the PS4's screenshot method "clunky" compared to the Switch.
The default way is the laggy hold to take a screenshot of a random frame, at least as of when I set up my PS4 in 2014. I'm trying out the other option, not totally sure of it yet. The issue is that there's still noticeable lag between pressing the share button and the sound and tag indicating that the screen has been captured, so it's difficult to capture an fleeting image. Meanwhile on Switch you just press the button and the shutter effect happens instantly. You know, like using an actual camera.
El Shmiablo Banned last edited by
@Haru17 Thank you.
I've never had any particular problem with capturing screens in games on PS4, as most games these days come with modes specifically for taking screenshots, and screenshots can be taken of the 15 minutes of footage that is perpetually saved to the system.
The Switch's speediness does seem like it would be better for capturing those split second moments in games, particularly ones that don't let you pause the scene without a menu popping up.
TokyoSlim last edited by
@Haru17 the notification and sound lags, but the screenshot is nearly real-time. You can turn the notification off if you'd like to spam screenshot button for faux burst mode.
Haru17 last edited by
@michemagius Okay, but all of that stuff doesn't really... matter... to me... I've played through at least one of the games for all of the generations including Orre save for Johto. Before Sun and Moon, they were all so much the same, and even Sun and Moon is obsessed with maintaining the status quo like all mainline Pokemon games.
The basic mechanics of Pokemon need to change. I don't care about playing Pokemon multiplayer. Raising competitive Pokemon is such an awfully grindy, time-wasting trial-and-error process that refutes the series' ethos that every Pokemon is worthwhile. They aren't, in fact entire species of fully evolved Pokemon are literally useless. Why can't we change status distributions on Pokemon so we can actually play the Pokemon we like?
Moreover, turn-based games are too random and unskillful to be anything less than infuriating online. You can't dodge attacks. Even if you execute everything perfectly only complete random chance determines whether you get hit or not, and that's just not fun.
Look at how much depth Persona 5 added to its series' turn-based combat and reaffirm that Pokemon, with it's four move limit, is being made as good as it can be each time. You even mention double battles becoming the competitive meta — where was that in the games? Except for like 10 NPCs in the each entire game since Hoenn, you have to fight trainers one-on-one in the main series. The Gamecube RPGs just made every battle a double battle. It wasn't difficult, and now they're the most interesting Pokemon games by virtue of standing out from the sea of sameness the series has spawned.
So, no, The Pokemon Company are not good developers. I don't think you can be and make the same exact non-narrative turn-based RPG-lite for 20 years. They don't need to make new mechanics even, just models and animations that they type in number and status values for. A fighting game, an on-rails shooter, an ARPG, a TPS, an adventure game — anything! I would like TPC to make a game with the length and the ability to introduce a generation of new Pokemon that only the mainline games are permitted and have it be literally anything but the same exact turn-based formula + one new gimmick. Because the setting and the concept of Pokemon is simply so much more interesting than any of the games or media created from it will ever be.
Inflorescence last edited by
@Haru17 What makes a good developer to you? I would argue that you can be a great developer by creating fun, polished games that people want to play, and all three of those qualities are found in every mainline Pokemon game. What is the quality that TPC lacks that you think keeps them out of the Good Developer Kingdom?
Haru17 last edited by Haru17
@Inflorescence The obvious lack of anything that is particularly impressive in their games, for one. Any indie developer or one-man team can make a turn-based game, it's literally one of the most basic gameplay styles that RPG devs have used for years as a medium to tell stories. ...But Pokemon games don't tell stories, not interesting ones anyway. I might consider TPC to have any relative degree of talent if they impressed me or even just competed with the leading handheld devs, but they haven't, so I don't.
And I don't think Pokemon games have ever felt particularly polished. First there's the whole square grid thing that kept up for way too long, but then there are archaic mechanics like changing Pokemon taking up a turn without the ability to do anything. Not having any clear indication of the range for how much damage an attack will do and fainting a wild Pokemon you wanted to capture, etc. Also, releasing a new gen without so many ugly Pokemon would go a long way toward building some sort of prestige.
More still, a game doesn't have to be well-made to be fun — certainly not for people to want to play. In fact there are whole series based around that ideal. Anyone can tell you that Pokemon's biggest draw is the IP itself. Not the games or the TCG or the show, but the nostalgia and the familiarity.
Billy last edited by
@Haru17 I would argue that Pokemon games are very meticulously and intelligently crafted. I know you have very particular tastes in games, so I'm not looking to convince you to give them a go. However, there's a level of depth and polish that keeps veterans like myself coming back time after time. Yes, nostalgia and a strong branding have bolstered sales to astronomical numbers over the years. Still, it's a pretty incredible feat to make a competetive turn-based RPG that utilizes almost a thousand unique creatures with just as many moves and abilities able to be combined into near infinite team compositions while still remaining relatively balanced. They may seem to move slowly with iterating on the established formula, but it's unfair to immediately chalk that up to a lack of ambition or talent. The games carry over features rather faithfully because it allows for veterans to carry their teams forward and continue battling with established mechanics we have grown to love. Even still, they have introduced new mechanics that have altered the competitive scene pretty drastically, and the newest title even did away with isometric movements and even the gym-structure. Am I ever frustrated with them? Yes. Do I desire more innovation at times? Absolutely. But I also don't want them turning the mainline Pokemon games into something drastically different.
Oh, and having a Pokemon not be able to move immediately after switching makes the decision to swap Pokemon a more strategic and risky option.
And sorry about the long post. I just love me some Pokemon, so I had to throw in my two cents. It's the same reaction as whenever you criticize Souls.
Inflorescence last edited by
@Haru17 I am definitely going to disagree with where you are seeing a lack of polish in Pokemon games; all of the mechanics you mentioned are either intentional (not being able to attack after switching, a balancing mechanic), painted with too broad of a stroke (attack damage, which can be estimated with move power, attack stats, and/or observation), or like....not what anyone would call polish (the ugliness of some Pokemon?).
Although I absolutely understand the frustrations with grid-based movement, especially with Pokemon's weird press-to-turn-then-press-again-to-move movement.
More still, a game doesn't have to be well-made to be fun — certainly not for people to want to play. In fact there are whole series based around that ideal.
And yeah, that was kind of why I was asking you to define what you meant by "good" developer. Your critiques of the company seem to be based on your distaste for the game, so I'm having a hard time reconciling how you can make a fun, not-well-made game and be a good developer, because it seems like your definition of "good developer" is "developer who makes games I want to play."
Which is a valid way to define "good," I guess. But it does seem a little unfair to the people who put in a ton of work to put out mainline Pokemon games.
michemagius last edited by michemagius
@Haru17 I just don't understand where you're coming from to be honest. Pokemon has changed a lot. Not on it's core principles but in how the game is actually played. To me at least and I'd argue to most hardcore Pokemon fans, each generation is very distinct from the other. Gen 1 is where we started, it's basic but fun. Gen 2 introduces Steel and Dark types that completely changed the games' balance. Gen 3 introduced abilities, natures, and double battles. Gen 4 introduced the separation of move types (special, physical, status) and multiple ability options for a single Pokemon. Gen 5 brought Triple and Rotation battles, constant sprite animations, the Global Link, the Dream World, and the Pokemon World Tournament that let players battle the teams of the winners from the real life Pokemon World Championships. Generation 6 introduced 3d graphics, Mega Evolution, Sky Battles, Horde Battles, Inverse Battles, Super Training, Character Customization, Pokemon Amie, the Fairy Type, and the Pokemon Bank. Gen 7 introduced true 360 degree movement, Battle Royale, Poke Pelago, Hyper Training, Poke Refresh, the Festival Plaza, and Z moves. All of these additions greatly affected the way not only competitive players experienced Pokemon but also how casual ones experience them. That's not to mention the new Pokemon, moves, and abilities, weather conditions, and items that all impact battles.
As for Pokemon being archaic and some of your complaints about the system. 1. If Pokemon is archaic, then so are most other JRPG's. 2. As for Pokemon not telling a good story, I can agree with that. But the reason you play Pokemon shouldn't be for the story. It should be for the bond you share with your team and with other players. And there are lots of great games with bad stories or no story at all. In fact most games who's main draw is multiplayer are lacking in the story department. Overwatch is probably the most popular team shooter, and yet there's no story mode to be found in that game. 3. Losing a turn for switching Pokemon isn't a bad mechanic, it makes players seriously consider which Pokemon to send out when. 4. You can tell the range and damage of attacks. They literally allow you to read the move summary in the middle of battles. How you do this depends on the generation but it's still possible. And If you don't want to check in the middle of battles you can read the summaries before you enter battle, it's not that much to remember. 5. Fainting Pokemon you want to catch is annoying sure, but again I wouldn't say it's a bad mechanic. It forces players to carefully consider their strategy for catching Pokemon. 6. The new gen Pokemon are not ugly. Each gen has a distinct style, and each generation players call them ugly, and yet somehow a few gens later everyone loves them. People complain about trubbish just being a garbage Pokemon, then literally what the f**k is Muk? It's just sludge. That's not even a design. That's a blob. And people have the audacity to claim that Pokemon designs have somehow gotten worse? There are designs that people don't like from every generation, but I honestly dare you to look someone in the eyes and tell them Ditto shows superior design intention to Vikavolt with a straight face. If you think Pokemon designs are ugly now, then they've always been ugly, they certainly haven't gotten worse. You might prefer one generation to another, but saying that Gen 1 is some how superior to the other generations is just nostalgia clouding your judgement.
Pokemon doesn't need to compete with other current handheld devs because nobody else is makes games like Pokemon, and devs that have attempted to make games like Pokemon certainly haven't had the staying power that Pokemon's battle system and designs have had. Even if by your standards it seems archaic Pokemon fans don't seem to mind. And judging by how Pokemon continues to sell well the Pokemon Company has no reason to believe that fans are dissatisfied by the way the games play. And Pokemon isn't the only series of games that haven't changed much over time. 2D Mario has always been the same basic game, focused on running and jumping. The only things about 2D Mario that have changed are the items and enemies.
You complain about not being interested in multiplayer and about how many Pokemon are not competitively viable, but if you don't care about competitive play, I don't see why competitive viability matters to you. Unlike in competitive play, in the main campaign you can raise your Pokemon's level all the way to 100 and no battle in the main campaign will ever require Pokemon above level 75. Castform is an incredibly unviable Pokémon and yet it was the star of the team I took to the Pokemon league and beat the game with in Black 2. Why did I train Castform so hard? Because it's one of my favorite Pokemon. My first play through of any Pokemon game is just for me and my favorite Pokemon, I don't worry about competitive viability because the game doesn't make me. The only time you should be worrying about viability is in competitive battle, which if you don't play, you don't have to care about. And if you really have such a moral opposition to variations in competitive viability then name one other competitive game that doesn't have some characters that are stronger than others. Every competitive game has characters that are viable for high level play and ones that aren't, that's just the nature of those kinds of games.
And to your point about turn based battles being too random for online play, have you ever played Mario Kart? Turn based battles are hardly the most random game play system that's played online. Yes different moves have different accuracy levels, and there are moves that affect accuracy, but that's not completely random. That's a part of strategy. If every move had 100% accuracy what would the point be in using any move that had under 120 damage output. The varying levels of accuracy make less powerful moves more competitively viable, which based on your stance on the viability of Pokemon, should be a plus in your eyes. Status conditions, buffs and debuffs, abilities, accuracy and evasion alterations, all deepen the strategy of Pokemon battles, and expand the amount of strategies that are effective in competitive play.
I also don't understand your complaint about double battles not being very present in the main campaign of the Pokemon games. Double Battles are the competitive standard. They affect which Pokemon are viable and which ones aren't. There are certain Pokemon like Gastrodon that only really shine in competitive battles. But there's a reason they don't make up the majority of battles in the main campaign. Single battles are simpler. They require less strategy. You don't have to consider the reach of moves only their typing and damage output. Single battles are made for the players who only play the main campaign and nothing beyond that, casual fans. You also have to remember that a lot of casual Pokemon players are children who wouldn't understand all the intricacies of competitive play. Pokemon would probably sell much worse if they suddenly made all in game battles double battles. The people who want a greater depth of strategy and greater challenge then the main campaign provides play competitively or online. You can't both not want to bother with the time commitment necessary for higher level play and then also complain that the main campaign doesn't require it.
Furthermore, Pokemon is not "turn based RPG-lite" it's one of the most complex battle systems out there. Name another battle system that has 802 characters to choose from, each with on average 2 abilites out of a total 232 possible to chose from, using 4 moves with on average 45 out of a total 719 to choose from and 3 types, holding one item from 10 types of items that are allowed competitively and more total than I care to count for myself, Effort Values and Individual Values that affect stat distribution, Natures and Personality Values that effect the other values, sex based variations, Mega Evolutions, Z-moves, and Pokemon types of which there are 18 all with their own resistances, weakness, and immunities. The options are almost limitless. The only thing stopping people from using any Pokemon is their own creativity. If Se-jun Park could win Pokemon Worlds with a Pachirisu as the star of his team, I think anything is possible. And for Pokemon that aren't fully evolved or are just plain weak there are leagues for that. The Little Cup is one of my favorite leagues to play in. The online Pokemon community has built such a strong tier structure that allows you to play with basically any Pokemon you want regardless of perceived competitive viability. For fun most of my time is spent battling in the Never Used tier.
To your point about Pokemon making different kinds of games. They have, and they didn't sell as well as the mainline games so I wouldn't really expect them to stray to far away from the mainline games, at least with a significant budget. They have made action RPG's, they're called the Mystery Dungeon series and they're awesome. They have made an on rails shooter, it's call Pokemon Snap and it's universally beloved. Do you really want a third person shooter set in the Pokemon world? How would that even fit in with the rest of the series?
The additions to the battle formula you called "gimmicks" are actually quite meaningful and impactful to the meta, you just have to understand the meta to appreciate them. The competitive game, that the Pokemon Company and many of Pokemon's older fans clearly value has changed and grown so much since the birth of the Pokemon Championships series that it's barely recognizable.
And the new Pokemon are not just models and animations with stat values. Most Pokemon fans, including myself, have very real very strong attachments to them. My Pokemon aren't just models and stats to me. They have names, they have stories. They're how I express myself to other players and a reflection of my skill as a player. I don't still have my first starter with me in the current gen because I want to complete the Pokedex. I kept Isamu with me because he and all of my original Pokemon mean something to me.
This is just a personal note, but Pokemon saved my life. I know I've said this before but I was in a very dark place before I started playing. Pokemon didn't just lift my spirits it changed my life. I made friends, good friends, through Pokemon. I changed career paths because Pokemon made me realize how much I love games. Training has made me a better more patient person. Playing competitively improved my confidence and made me feel like as a woman I had a place in the gaming community and that my opinions and experiences with gaming had value. Pokemon means just as much to many other people. You can't just shit on something that means so much to so many people. Based on your opinions and quite frankly seeming lack of understanding or appreciation of the intricacies of the game, what's clear to me is that you are not a part of the Pokemon Company's target audience. I don't get what the big deal about fighting games is. To me they seem to lack depth or any meaningful innovation, but I know the only reason I think that is because I haven't taken the time to really get to know them. All the same, I don't go around saying Capcom is a bad developer or that 2D fighters are archaic.
iboshow last edited by
@michemagius Pokemon is beloved, no one can dispute that, you might love Pokemon but they don't always make good Pokemon games.
Guest last edited by
@ib0show Counterpoint: Wayforward spent years making mediocre licensed games with things like the original Shantae being exceptions and not the rule. And it isn't like they're without faults to this day, just look at that Silent Hill game they did for the Vita.
michemagius last edited by
@ib0show I'm not saying that Pokémon has never made bad games. I addressed that in my earlier post. There are lots of Pokémon spinoffs that aren't very good. The PokePark games and Pokémon Rumble are both good examples of this. And every Pokémon fan has a generation they like less than the others. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, for me that's gen 7. What I take issue with is saying that The Pokémon Company is somehow a bad developer because they've made bad spinoffs or because the core battle system in Pokémon hasn't been completely overhauled. Lots of famous well regarded series have spinoff games that are absolute trash. And there are lots of famous and well regarded series that stuck to a formula. That doesn't make the developers of any of those series bad. You might not like the Pokémon games. That's fine. The battle system isn't for everyone. I don't like Final Fantasy Games because I've never enjoyed their battle systems or their stories. They've just never meshed well with my sensabilities. But just because I don't enjoy them doesn't give me the right to say that they're all bad games or that their battle system is somehow inferior to other series (and yes I realize the battle system in FF has changed a lot based on the title I just have yet to meet one I like). The other issue I have is complaining about the randomness of the battle system or Pokémon viability from someone who says they don't want to bother with competitive play because it's too grindy. You don't get to complain about the time commitment necessary and the elements of battles that affect competitive play if you don't bother with them yourself. It would be like me complaining about the time it takes to practice and learn about matchups in a game like Overwatch when I've only ever played in practice mode and the most I ever plan to do is play in private matches with my friends. Yeah playing competitive is hard . Yes it takes a lot of time. Yes you do have to consider outside factors like accuracy and evasion. But to the people who actually have the passion and commitment to play competitively, those aren't detractors. Those are just a part of building a strong team and a good strategy. People play competitively because they love Pokémon and because they want a challenge. Don't complain about the things that high level players go through to become strong when you don't care enough about Pokémon or it's competitive scene enough to try it yourself.
Mbun last edited by
Since the above posts are quite long, just wanna make sure someone has pointed out that GameFreak makes the Pokemon games, not The Pokemon Company, who oversees the franchise as a whole. GameFreak also does not make any of the spinoffs, so their quality shouldn't be factoring into this discussion whatsoever. I haven't played Tembo, but I really dig HarmoKnight and wish it would get a sequel even though it probably never will.
CGamor7 last edited by
To much Pokemon, go make a thread and talk about it. I come here for news :)
TokyoSlim last edited by TokyoSlim
I think you mean "plz send nuze"
DMCMaster last edited by
The Horizon DLC could possibly be delayed due to a mobile puzzle game.
dramaticslowmo last edited by
@DMCMaster it won't be delayed, just that they might not be able to fully own the name.
CGamor7 last edited by CGamor7
Sony publishes a game for the Nintendo Switch.
Not the most amazing news. But I thought it was interesting especially because they havmt worked together in a long time.
bard91 last edited by
I'm on mobile so I can't post a lot, but I'd likr to quickly add that I also think the Pokemon developers are easily one of the most mediocre companies in the industry