Forums - Nintendo Discussion - The real reason for Game Freak's choice of visuals.

Flilix said:
Shiken said:

The response from Pokemon fans on the internet have been largely negative.  However most of the Pokemon fanbase does not really participate in these forums, so there is no telling what the vast majority thinks.  Judging by sales of the game, it cannot be that bad.  And from the outside looking in, I have arguably seen just as many Pokemon fans on the net liking the game as those that hate it.

Full disclosure, I am looking at this from the outside looking in.  I am a gen 1 Pokemon player that stopped after yellow.  This is my first game to return to, and I am having a blast.  Most of the complaints regarding the national dex and the cuts mean NOTHING to me.  With that in mind, what I see is a good game that deserves the 8/10.

I am not defending the game, I almost did not buy it as I have said before (glad I did).  That is not even what this thread is about.  But what I am noticing is that fans who are upset about the success of the games for whatever reason somehow feel the need to hijack any discussion that mentions Pokemon just to complain about it.

Now Fililix, I am not refering to you when I say this as I know you to be level headed.  But when someone says that most of the Pokemon fanbase is upset about the game, they seem to using tunnel vision due to their own disappointment.  From the outside looking in, there are just as many who are fine with it as those that hate it and they are just attacking eachother.

The game has flaws, and I blame no one for not buying it for their own reasons.  But it is also a good game, and if it is still a mega hit for being a good game no one has the right to hate on those who bought it.  The vast majority obviously did not have a problem with it.  People who enjoy the game deserve no less respect than those who gave it a pass.

I don't know if this is true, and it's hard to really tell, since of course 'the Pokémon fanbase' is a very vague and hard to define group of people. It's just an observation that I made when I visited the Pokébeach forums yesterday. The discussion over there is a lot calmer over there than it is here - because no one over there seems to be desperate to defend the game against the others. Most people are critisising the game, and the few people who aren't, are just talking about the game without the phony praising and without attacking people who don't like it. Here on VGChartz on the other hand, there's an overwhelming amount of unnecessary provocative comments ("And the haters can't stand that it is a good game.").

Unless I'm at the wrong part, it seems like that's a very sparsely populated forum.  Most topics haven't been touched in weeks, and there hasn't been a post in nearly 24 hours.  Not sure how much you could say about the fanbase based on that.



Around the Network
SwitchUP said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

There you go again, calling facts opinions. You can't tell the difference between "435 is less than 800" vs. "I'm fine with 435."

I do look down on you now for going as far as to deny reality and to ignore my most relevant point to this thread yet again, and then to have the audacity to claim I'm the one not paying attention. Meh whatever, enjoy paying more for less.

Why do you care if he or anyone "pays more for less"? Your opinion is irrelevant to other peoples opinions. You dont spend their money. You dont spend their time. You dont decide their level of enjoyment. Get over it man.its just another game.

/Thread



SwitchUP said:

Why do you care if he or anyone "pays more for less"? Your opinion is irrelevant to other peoples opinions. You dont spend their money. You dont spend their time. You dont decide their level of enjoyment. Get over it man.its just another game.

You first.



JWeinCom said:
Shiken said:

The number of Pokemon 435 vs 800 is subjective to how you see value.  Time spent enjoying the game is more subjective to my value.  For example, 30 hours of Sword will equal about 2 dollars an hour.  That is better value than renting a 2 hour HD movie or going to theaters to watch it.  It is also better than the countless other games out there with about 10-15 hours of content that are often deemed worthy of 60 dollars.

So with that, I reiterate that value is subjective regardless of what your own subjective view on the matter may be.  Believe it or not, the world does not operate based on how you design it to in your head.

Eh... I agree with you mostly on that, but I'd say converting it into time is probably not the best way to do things.  I put about 30 hours into Skyrim and honestly enjoyed it just barely enough to keep going until I stopped.  I beat Mario Galaxy probably in about 10 hours or so but loved every minute of it.  So quality of the time has to factor in as well.

But the main thing I think we're agreeing on is that the value of a game is based on how much you'll enjoy it, which is not determined by the number of a particular thing in it. Didn't enjoy Mario Odyssey more than Galaxy just because it had more power moons than Galaxy had Power stars.  Didn't enjoy Shadow of the Colossus less than Punch Out!!! just because it had less boss battles.  Didn't enjoy Pokemon Sun more than I enjoyed Pokemon Pearl because it had more Pokemon.  Most people didn't enjoy Brawl more than Melee because it had more characters in it.  It's kind of weird to pick one factor and insist it's the only one related to value.

It is not the only factor, but merely an example about how subjective his views on value truely are.  Using time alone as a measure of value is no more or less viable than saying 425 vs 800 objectively determines the value of a Pokemon game.

People value different aspects of the gameplay and therefore value is subjective.  To someone who just collects 100 or so Pokemon but enjoys the gameplay and has never felt the need to "collect them all" for examplr, his entire scale is worthless.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Shiken said:
JWeinCom said:

Eh... I agree with you mostly on that, but I'd say converting it into time is probably not the best way to do things.  I put about 30 hours into Skyrim and honestly enjoyed it just barely enough to keep going until I stopped.  I beat Mario Galaxy probably in about 10 hours or so but loved every minute of it.  So quality of the time has to factor in as well.

But the main thing I think we're agreeing on is that the value of a game is based on how much you'll enjoy it, which is not determined by the number of a particular thing in it. Didn't enjoy Mario Odyssey more than Galaxy just because it had more power moons than Galaxy had Power stars.  Didn't enjoy Shadow of the Colossus less than Punch Out!!! just because it had less boss battles.  Didn't enjoy Pokemon Sun more than I enjoyed Pokemon Pearl because it had more Pokemon.  Most people didn't enjoy Brawl more than Melee because it had more characters in it.  It's kind of weird to pick one factor and insist it's the only one related to value.

It is not the only factor, but merely an example about how subjective his views on value truely are.  Using time alone as a measure of value is no more or less viable than saying 425 vs 800 objectively determines the value of a Pokemon game.

People value different aspects of the gameplay and therefore value is subjective.  To someone who just collects 100 or so Pokemon but enjoys the gameplay and has never felt the need to "collect them all" for examplr, his entire scale is worthless.

Yeah.  In playing all of the Pokemon games, I think I transferred about five over when Pokemon bank came out just to try it.  Aside from that, I never felt like going out of my way to transfer my old Pokemon.  Generally because I always lose interest in actually creating a competitive team about 5 hours of post game grinding.  The ability to transfer old Pokemon is theoretically something I could do, but practically something I'm not going to, so its absence is kind of a non-factor.