By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee reveal trailer

Green098 on 31 May 2018

Here's a complete run down of everything Nintendo/GameFreak have confirmed about the upcoming Pokemon games: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/dev2016/thread.php?id=236387



Around the Network
Alkibiádēs on 31 May 2018

I actually like the paintery art-style of this game. Sure, it's technically not impressive at all, but it doesn't look bad, especially on the small Switch screen (I won't be playing this on a TV). The chibi human models suck though.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Mystro-Sama on 31 May 2018
spemanig said:
If this had online, it'd be everything Go should've been.

It doesn't have online!?



Green098 on 31 May 2018
Mystro-Sama said:
spemanig said:
If this had online, it'd be everything Go should've been.

It doesn't have online!?

It does.



Green098 on 31 May 2018

I think I'll go for this as my main team;

           

If I also end up getting Pikachu version (or just actively swap out my team through the game) then I'll go with;

   



Around the Network
curl-6 on 31 May 2018
NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

It's not so much an issue of art style though. You can have the same "laid back" art style but with decent textures and detail. Plenty of simplistic cartoon games have graphics above the standard of the Xbox 360.

It is completely an issue of art style.  You're just pointing out a similar but distinct art style of Sonic and wondering why they don't do that instead.  I'm pointing out that they made the conscious decision to stick with the style shown.

No, it's not. It's an issue of technical quality. You can have the same core art style with better technical quality. From an objectively technological POV, completely disregarding art, this level of texturing and detail is inferior to the standards of the Xbox 360, a console from 2005.

Personally, I don't mind; it may sound like I'm being negative about this game, but that's only because people keep quoting the one negative thing I have to say about it.

On the whole I think this game is a clever move by Nintendo that will sell boatloads and move a good amount of hardware. The way it acts as a bridge between the more casual Pokemon Go and the mainline series is a particularly smart choice as it should expand the audience for both the series and for the Switch itself.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 31 May 2018

Mystro-Sama on 31 May 2018
Green098 said:
Mystro-Sama said:

It doesn't have online!?

It does.

Good, that would have been a disaster.



curl-6 on 31 May 2018
NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

No, it's not. It's an issue of technical quality. You can have the same core art style with better technical quality.

No you can't.  When you up the "technical quality" as you put it, you've changed the style.  You put arms on Miis and the art style of Wii Sports has changed.  You take away the pixels in any pixel art game and you've changed the art style.  You make the Pokemon in Pokemon Quest not big blocks then the art style has changed.  This generation is awash in games that could easily have better graphics, but have chosen not to for stylistic reasons.

As I said yesterday, if Game Freak had wanted to increase the "technical quality" of the graphics, likely all the had to do was flip a switch in the engine.  Graphical prowess at the level of the 360 is relatively easy if that's what the developers want and this is hardly an indie product.  It doesn't look like Sonic because they don't want it to.

Whether it is deliberate or not is irrelevant, fact of the matter is, the game's textures and detail are below the standards of 2005 hardware. It's pretty understandable why some people are disappointed when a 2018 game falls short of the standards of 2005 hardware.



curl-6 on 31 May 2018
NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

Whether it is deliberate or not is irrelevant

It's very relevant.  The intention and the success in evoking what the designers wish is all that is relevant.  What isn't relevant is what year these graphics could have been achieved.

What is from 2005 is this whole discussion.  Judging games on whether they meet some modern threshold of technical polish is an old argument that gamers have, thankfully, largely left in the dustbin of history.

Technology evolves, and people's standards evolve with it. If a high profile game came out today with N64 graphics, do you think it would be well received? People are well within their rights to hold games to a technological standard. If not, why aren't well all still playing games in Atari 2600 graphics?



curl-6 on 01 June 2018
NightlyPoe said:
curl-6 said:

Technology evolves, and people's standards evolve with it. If a high profile game came out today with N64 graphics, do you think it would be well received? People are well within their rights to hold games to a technological standard. If not, why aren't well all still playing games in Atari 2600 graphics?

That's because the N64 because such graphics are very unappealing.  Yet, earlier forms of graphics have returned because they have appeal.

As a general gaming community, graphical horsepower is becoming less and less important as the focus has shifted to art design.  It's even less important to the general Nintendo community as they abandoned the tech race way back with the Wii.  And the Pokemon community after having made Pokemon into a cultural phenomenon based on handheld graphics, even less than that.

To a large degree the "people" you're defending either don't exist or are fanboys just taking shots.  Either way, basing a games graphical appeal to a technological standard in today's age is a great way to miss out on a lot of great games.

You may not value graphics, but you have to understand that there are millions of gamers who don't share your opinion.