No, realistic pokemon would actually be pretty fucking creepy. Besides it's a pretty simple game
No, realistic pokemon would actually be pretty fucking creepy. Besides it's a pretty simple game
| gatito said: We all know photorealistic graphics are everything |
No. Photorealistic graphics are boring.
| AZWification said: The casual gamers who made Pokemon Go so popular do not care about graphics. They are the type of gamers who played Flappy Bird and loved it despite not having the best graphics. |
This.
There are higher priorities for mobile games as running better on their hardware and non-complex easy-to-pick-up gameplay.
Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever
Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe
Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor
Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


With more functionality/mechanics, it would be better. Graphics/AR are the least of its issues.
BraLoD said:
That's what the discription says at Google Play (for Android then): |
That's why it's strange. I physically only have one GB of RAM, yet it still runs.
BraLoD said:
Is it running on Android? |
Yes, version 4.4.4. Maybe the lower versions use less RAM.
Edit: Pokemon Go uses about 400MB of my RAM it seems. Though at than point I cannot use any other app.
BraLoD said:
I have a 1GB 4.4.2 tablet and it doesn't run there, tho. |
Yeah it's stange. It wouldn't let me download initially until I activated location.
This is like asking would Angry Birds be more successful if it had photo-realistic graphics.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.

