Zod95 said:
My complaint is that Nintendo made Pokémon a turn-based fighting game within a primitive RPG architecture. Pokémons randomly appear after the character going around in circles in the grass? Wtf? The player cannot throw a pokeball at any time and how he/she wants? The battles are only about selecting attacks? How sad. The fans deserved more. With such a primitive architecture and gameplay, it's easy to put in there 700 characters. I have never said that only photo-realism require effort and that artistic creation is not valuable. Please post here the sentences where I said such things. |
The core Pokemon game series has remained turn-based since the beginning. If you want to complain about it remaining a turn-based RPG, that's a completely different argument to make (keep in mind that spinoff series have explored other genres and gameplay mechanics). But your argument that the core pokemon series is bad because it isn't using action-based RPG elements, when it is a turn-based RPG, is completely asinine.
You've used the example before that compiling real-life rosters for photo-realistic soccer games requires effort. Besides photographing players faces, a simple parametric change of skin colour, height and weight/width could be used. I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that an accomplishment, but modeling over 700 unique 3D models with unique attack animations to be a simple task. It just smells fishy.
Firstly I never said that you alluded to artistic creation not being valuable, but instead "not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work" especially in comparison to photo-realism. Here are some quotes copied from the UNITY thread as I am unable to quote directly - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=166018&page=1
4th NOV
"Am I? Or am I valuing more things I can only find in games made with a lot of effort, time and resources? Why do people value more diamonds than steel? Maybe because steel they can find anywhere. Do you think I'm against Nintendo? Then prove me it's not Nintendo that is against me: among the hundreds of games Nintendo has produced, please tell me 10 games that have at least 1 of these totally objective and measurable things: foto-realistic environments ; fully editable levels ; simulating gameplay ; area bigger than 300km2 ; gameplay with at least 100 variants (players/characters/cars/etc. behaving differently according to their skills/specs) ; content expandable with features created by gamers (area, levels, objects, game modes, etc.) ; online matches with more than 100 players at the same time ; massive motion capture movements of actors ; story performed with character replicated from reality (bodies, movements, faces, voices, life habits, etc.).
Any 10 Nintendo games that match at least 1 of these 9 requirements? No, how many then? 5? 2? 1? 0?...because both Sony and Microsoft have more than 10 for sure. You know why? Because there are those that are not afraid to work hard and spend whatever is needed to achieve the gamers' satisfaction, and there are those that are not willing to work hard or spend a lot and that aren't afraid of not achieving gamers' satisfaction. Some are just the opposite of others."
6th NOV
"Yes you've found more than 10 games. But there's a tiny little problem: "realistic graphics" is not 1 of the 9 specifications I had listed. Maybe you would like to refer to photo-realistic environments but that's something quite different. A photo-realistic environment is an area copied from reality, like the city of London in The Getaway or St Petersburg in Project Gotham. That's photo-realism, that demands hard work, that's not Nintendo style."
8th NOV
"First of all, artistic vision is extremely important but it has one problem: it is subjective. That means anybody in bad faith can pick a shitty producer and say it makes the best games ever, claiming that they are amazing pieces of art... And it has a 2nd problem: art costs nothing. Being artistic or very competent on making games doesn't mean the dev is working hard or investing a lot of money. That means it's possible to exist some producers in this industry that are talented enough to make low-budget games that are insteresting to play and thus extract huge amounts of money from the market that never goes back to the industry again. That's why it is so important that, at least in a first step, we focus just on what is measurable and proof of hard work / heavy investment (which show the real commitment of a dev). That is already the answer for all your questions: you can define any requirement (like I have defined 9 yet) as long as it fulfills these 2 criteria (1. it's measurable - 2. it's proof of hard work / heavy investment). Therefore, ingenious level isn't measurable. Number of levels is measurable but doesn't tell whether there was hard work, since the levels can be too simple and repetitive. The same for in-game bonus."
"But it is. Among the thousands of games ever created how many do you think that are photo-realistic? Why would that number be so small? Maybe because not everybody can do that. And, among those who can, not everyone is willing to do so. It demands a lot of equipment, time, effort and money. Also, creating fictional environments is a way of avoiding being evaluated. "If something goes wrong, change it. If there is a detail stucking the process, avoid it."...you can't do that in regards to reality. If the details are like that, you have to do them like that...otherwise your incompetence will be visible when comparing the environment with reality. Believe me, photo-realism is far more difficult and time consuming than simply creating environments at the devs will."
9th NOV
"But you know, I know and everybody knows that art costs nothing. Some artists are just more talented than others. That means, for the same work hours, they will produce better pieces of art than others. They won't make a bigger game or a more sophisticated gameplay. They may even focus on the simplicity you were talking about and thus making in some months a game that sells millions."
13th NOV
"Now you understand why Nintendo doesn't engage into realism (because it demands more and eventually costs more). Same thing for fictional environments vs real environments (I told you so, some pages back). As for the difficulty, that would be a fair complaint if we were talking about an average developer. But we are talking about the giant of the giants. So many sales are translated into what? So much revenue is spend on what? That's what we're seeing."
22nd NOV
"But one could think Nintendo profits a lot because it's very efficient. In other words, Nintendo would be able to deliver the same level of quality Sony and Microsoft do for much less money spent. That is again not true. Assessing quality through substantial requirements like those I've defined earlier proves that. Also the way Nintendo choses its niches: arcade racing, platformer, cartoonish games, fantasy RPG, fitness, party, motion mini-games, etc. And the way Nintendo closes doors such as: racing simulators, photo-realism, MMO, sandbox simulators, realistic games, massive sports games, fully editable games, etc. Even just talking about genres and niches, Nintendo avoids everything that is either massive money spending (which would dramatically lower their ROI's) or monsters of uncontrolled quality detail such as MMO and game expandable by users (which would demand much more effort in order to receive good critic scores)."
