In the most recent Game Freak data leak, it has been reveal that titles such that Pokêmon Legends Z-A and Pokémon Gen Ten (WiWa) had budgets of around $13mil and $20mil (resp.) when converted to USD. And while these figures may not appear small in a vacuum, compared to the cost of other major releases such as Call of Duty: Cold War which infamously cost around $700bil to develop, many have interpreted these relatively low budgets as Game Freak not investing sufficiently in their games despite their blockbuster success.

While I do believe Pokémon could benefit from a larger budget, I also find it oddly endearing that there exists a studio which is able to pump out a very steady stream of decent quality releases without making tremendous investment. In fact, is this… not exactly what many gamers have been calling for? With all the praise titles like Astro Bot, Expedition 33, and indie titles receive for their small budget/small studio approach, and how often people will gush over Sony’s approach duringthe PS1-through-PS3 days, during which tons of smaller budget experiences with mixed quality were being pumped out at a very steady pace, I find it very strange how people are taking issue with the recent Pokémon news… and I’m speaking as somebody who hasn’t played a Pokémon game since BDSP (and who hasn’t enjoyed playing Pokémon since Let’s Go Pikachu/Eevee).

So, I beg the question: Do gamers actually want smaller budget experiences developed in a fraction of time? With Z-A sitting at >80 on MC/OC, it’s clear that these games are by no means “bad.” In fact, one could argue that it is these small budgets and shorter dev cycles which have enabled GF to be as open-to-risk-and-change with the series as they have been, seeing how the formula has evolved across Legends Arceus, ScVi, and Legends Z-A.

It just depends on the game and its scope.

If even Falcom can make their games look so pretty now, what is GameFreak's excuse? Falcom's games were seemingly held back by super low budgets. Trails in the Sky 1st Chapter came out recently... looking and feeling amazing by the company's previous standards, likely due to a bigger budget. But compared to AAA games, the budget is relatively nonexistent.

It scored 90, making it arguably Falcom's best received game of all time despite being a remake. Not sure what's causing GameFreak to be so far behind any respectable studio in the graphics (and animations, physics, etc) department (there may be more to it than just a small budget, I don't know!!) but about time they level up their game. The fans deserve it.

Why should I care about the budget?

I want good and creative games, with gaming dynamics that make me fully immersed for a long period of time.
A fat budget maybe helps companies to achieve these kind of products, but its not a rule that can be take for granted.

Specially now, that most of AAA productions are solely focused on shining graphics, but with mediocre gameplay. Big and beautiful landscapes, but just to see, barely nothing to interact and a strict script to follow.

I swear... gamers these days dont care about playing good games, they just care about the feel of a high cinematic production

I want it all, big beautiful games, and smaller budget games in between at a consistent cadence. As long as the games are fun to play. If it's a big beautiful game, but its a chore to play, I don't want anything to do with it.

TBF TitS: 1st Chapter has less than a dozen reviews on OpenCritic. Additionally, Falcom games are heavily diluted by dialogue which explains the world for you, the visuals arguably look about as cheap as Pokémon Legends Z-A (i.e. I’m not sure Falcom would be a good example here if these games were selling on a similar level to that of Pokémon), etc.

However, point taken: Pokémon may have a small budget, but the games aren’t high enough quality… which I would still argue that, again, you are complaining about a game which has critical acclaim well beyond that of most AAA games (81MC/OC). That sounds pretty good for a game with a $13mil USD budget.

Depends on the game I guess? I dont think I care much for if its a big/small budget, as long as its reflected in the quality of the game.

Pokemon's scores are inflated by its brand power and recognition. But I'm not saying they're bad games, just that they could have been a lot better with higher production values and more competent designers.

Trails in the Sky has 62 reviews on Opencriric, and is stable at 90+. It's got gorgeous artstyle, excellent animations and camera work, good attention to detail, lively world where vegetation react nicely to your movement, and lighting that penetrate the different geometry, leaves, grass, etc to a stunning effect.

Modern Pokemon games are hideous. Tiny Falcom stepped up their game while the much bigger and richer GameFreak remains stuck in the mud. It's baffling to say the least.

If you want creative games you should care about budget. The higher a game's budget less risks a company wil be willing to take, therefore, its game more likely will play safe and be less creative.

Mario Kart World is an example. Its open-world nature have been getting some criticism among players but it least Nintendo took a risk. I am sure Mario Kart World costed a lot as Mario Kart is one of the most important Nintendo franchises nowaday, but due to it and previous Mario Kart probably not having extratospheric high budget, it made it possible for Nintendo to want to risk new things on the new instalment of the franchise

I prefer shorter, tighter, more linear games that are light on story and heavy on gameplay. I also prefer innovative games that let me do things that surprise me and catch me off guard.

Most of what I play are smaller budget games, so yes, for me.