Jpcc86 said:
|
| RaptorChrist said: I play most Pokemon games, and while I don't know exact numbers, it's usually the case that around 300 ~ 400 Pokemon can be obtained in a single game. The difference is that in the past there were ways to obtain them all in a single game. But has that always been the case? I remember when Ruby and Sapphire came out you could no longer trade with RBY and GSS. |
I'm thinking they will do a remake next, but I doubt they willa manother new one for Switch. I know in the past they'd have multiple new gens per device, but they clearly make these a lot slower than the non HD ones based on the fact that we are just now getting a new one almost halfway through the switches life.
Lonely_Dolphin said:
So you'd buy the game even if it had no Pokemon in it!? You're paying more for less but surely you wouldn't pay more for absolutely nothing. xD It's silly to try and downplay what a big deal this is, it's the freakin namesake. Literally every facet of the games involve Pokemon, without them there is no game. |
I meant that having all of the Pokemon is not a big deal to me.
Of course I want Pokemon in it. But I wouldn't lose sleep if I can't catch all 900 Pokemon (whatever is the actual count). As long as the game itself is good (i.e., gameplay, features, etc.) then I cannot say I would regret buying it.
I get that people want the best for Pokemon. I want to see the devs do the best they can, as well. However, I am not an insider of the offices of Game Freak so I don't know their development process. Besides having pretty nice offices to work at, I don't know anything about their development process. Apparently this has all been developed since 2016. How fast could they have adapted to the Switch hardware? How many people could they have hired in a short amount of time and integrate within their culture? How much did they have to consider the TCG, the anime, and other merchandise that need to be released alongside (or at close to the games' release date) the games?
Sakurai works his tail off, but people complain about some of features he left behind (Adventure Mode, trophies replaced by spirits, no break the targets, board the platforms, mediocre online features, etc.). So everything will not be perfect.
Last edited by Kai_Mao - on 05 November 2019
I really hope that they can show something amazing to compensate for such controversial decisions.
IDK, maybe the gym puzzles that was previously listed you can control the pkmn avatar freely in the 3D environment and use their abilities to solve them. And many legendary events with so many puzzles following the same philosophy. The possibilities could be endless.
Is there any chance that they are holding a video demonstration to show this or next week?
We reap what we sow
As I've said before, I prefer when Pokemon games have a more limited Dex, so I am completely fine with this. I wish they would make it so there are only new Pokemon but I'll take what I can get.
That sounds like alot of pokemon, but I'm just an observer. This one makes me want to check it out, as it looks, to my eyes atleast, pretty good. I dont understand the dated comments. This is leaps and bounds over the old ones, and even the one from last year. Serious question.... I know alot of you are into pokemon, so your opinions and disappointment are more valid than my opinion. So, seeing as though the long time players sound very disappointed in these games... is there a real chance they flop? I know they will sell millions anyway, but will they sell pokemon numbers?
Lonely_Dolphin said:
This wasn't the standard though, every Pokemon game prior to Let's Go had all Pokemon in the game even if they weren't all catchable in the wild.
That there's only 400 Pokemon in the game isn't an objective value? That this is less than a 13 year old Pokemon game is just a judgmental tantrum? Are you perhaps in denial? I think so! |
I would have to imagine that that 13 year old game was just a tad easier to produce than a game in 2019 in HD. I understand your frustrations, but you seem to be taking it a bit over the top, dont you think? I'm sure the game will still have a charm all it's own, and the leaks and previews cant have shown all there is in the games world. At the very least, wait for some official reviews? Anyhow, I understand where you're coming from. There were alot of lofty expectations for the game.
| JWeinCom said: It's a lot easier to balance a metagame with less Pokemon for one thing. And a lot of the Pokemon that are gone were a bit on the unbalanced side. Fewer potential strategies means less depth but more accessibility. The more potential threats that there are, the harder it is to make a team that can be adequately prepared for all of them. With a small number of Pokemon you can be reasonably prepared for whatever your opponent throws at you. The more Pokemon, the more potential strategies, and you're at a point where you just have to pick and choose which threats you're going to be ready for, and if the opponent sends something out that you didn't prepare for, no amount of smart play will help, and you just have to take the L. There's also the element that it's a more even playing field for new players since long time players already have a boatload of options to pick from. And there's the fact that legendaries had become so insane that they had to be moved to their own metagame, and maybe this time they could actually be folded back into the main meta. Of course, the same thing could also be accomplished with a national dex only battle mode. |
It's sad you're trying to spin less options as a positive by saying people are too incompetent to adapt to new strategies and that new players somehow don't have access to the same boatload of options, but I digress. This is just your made up excuse you know, Game Freak never said this was a reason for the snap, naturally as they clearly don't really care about balancing the metagame. Even if this was true, it's a terrible reason, ban list already exist to limit what Pokemon can be used without deleting them from all aspects of the game.
| padib said: I find this kind of ridiculous. What exactly do you know of Gamefreak's effort and budget for the game? It is not a 2D pokemon game, with a lot more effort required per pokemon. I don't think it's really logical for you to say that chrkeller is just paying for less, you honestly have no clue what would have costed Gamefreak more to dev. |
That you think this is a valid excuse is what's ridiculous, as if Game Freak isn't responsible for managing their time and budget.
If you don't think having less Pokemon is less then it's you who isn't logical and in denial, this is just basic math.
Lonely_Dolphin said:
It's sad you're trying to spin less options as a positive by saying people are too incompetent to adapt to new strategies and that new players somehow don't have access to the same boatload of options, but I digress. This is just your made up excuse you know, Game Freak never said this was a reason for the snap, naturally as they clearly don't really care about balancing the metagame. Even if this was true, it's a terrible reason, ban list already exist to limit what Pokemon can be used without deleting them from all aspects of the game.
That you think this is a valid excuse is what's ridiculous, as if Game Freak isn't responsible for managing their time and budget. If you don't think having less Pokemon is less then it's you who isn't logical and in denial, this is just basic math. |
First off, please show me any point where I said or implied that Game Freak said this was a rationale for reducing the number of Pokemon. It will be hard to do because I didn't. I for one don't make assumptions on the rationale of others without good reason.
Second of all, please show me where I said that anyone was incompetent.
Third, longtime players have access to a boatload of options because they have access to previous games and can transfer Pokemon. If someone already has them from previous gens, a new player will have to spend a significant deal of time to catch up. I thought that was self explanatory but if it wasn't, that's what I meant.
Fourth and most importantly, are you capable of having a respectful argument in good faith, or are you simply going to assume motivations and put up strawmen? If you can, I can clarify my points. If you expect me to defend points I never made, I'm not going to bother.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 05 November 2019
| JWeinCom said: First off, please show me any point where I said or implied that Game Freak said this was a rationale for reducing the number of Pokemon. It will be hard to do because I didn't. I for one don't make assumptions on the rationale of others without good reason. Second of all, please show me where I said that anyone was incompetent. Third, longtime players have access to a boatload of options because they have access to previous games and can transfer Pokemon. If someone already has them from previous gens, a new player will have to spend a significant deal of time to catch up. I thought that was self explanatory but if it wasn't, that's what I meant. Fourth and most importantly, are you capable of having a respectful argument in good faith, or are you simply going to assume motivations and put up strawmen? If you can, I can clarify my points. If you expect me to defend points I never made, I'm not going to bother. |
Accusing me of strawmaning when that's literally what you're doing right now. I don't think you're stupid, I think you understand what I said and are just nitpicking and reading too much into it to distract from the main point, that metagame benefits is a poor defense. If you have nothing more to say on that matter then we're done here.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
