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

Incremental or not, still doesn't make an opinion a fact.  Value is absolutely an opinion.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 November 2019

Around the Network

It's a sound theory that makes sense on the surface, but when you dig a bit deeper and analyze the developers' history, then it becomes apparent that good battery life is merely a beneficial side effect rather than the actual reason.

GameFreak's Pokémon games haven't been among the visual cream of the crop on any console they were made for. They've never come close to maxing out a console's capabilities. Actually, they've never been above average. But for some reason the internet community at large always had it in their heads that the first mainline Pokémon on a home console will look impressive. Completely unrealistic expectations after so many meh looking games on handheld consoles.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Shiken said:

The objective value is whatever consumers are willing to spend on a product.  If a dev prices it at 20 bucks because they feel it will not sell for more, that is what they feel it is worth.  If they feel it will sell for 60...AND DOES...why are you even still debating this?

Also the games you listed are FAR smaller in scale that Sw/Sh.  A bit of a hyperbole, but I see the point you were trying to make.  Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you feel objective value is in you our opinion, which in of itself is subjective.

No it isn't, objective value is based on facts and evidence, not feelings. 435 < 800, fact. If you still don't understand this then we'll just have to leave it there.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
Shiken said:

The objective value is whatever consumers are willing to spend on a product.  If a dev prices it at 20 bucks because they feel it will not sell for more, that is what they feel it is worth.  If they feel it will sell for 60...AND DOES...why are you even still debating this?

Also the games you listed are FAR smaller in scale that Sw/Sh.  A bit of a hyperbole, but I see the point you were trying to make.  Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you feel objective value is in you our opinion, which in of itself is subjective.

No it isn't, objective value is based on facts and evidence, not feelings. 435 < 800, fact. If you still don't understand this then we'll just have to leave it there.

435 is worth 60 bucks to a hell of a lot of people...if your opinion is higher than theirs in your mind, there is not much else to be said on the matter.

You do you, and I will keep enjoying my 435 that was 60 bucks well spent.



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

Skyrim is 200 hours. Any game that isn't 200 hours is overpriced at $60, fact.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

Incremental or not, still doesn't make an opinion a fact.  Value is absolutely an opinion.

I mean that would still be a fact if the next 3D Mario went back to 64/Sunshine/Galaxy style Stars. They would have less than Odyssey. However, context and nuance. This wouldn't be comparable to Sw/Sh which does nothing to make up for the loss content, whereas in Mario the lesser Stars would mean each one is a unique trial to obtain.



Shiken said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

Your "real reason" is not only just your made up idea and nothing officially said from Game Freak, it's also contradictory to reasoning Game Freak gave which acknowledged the Switch's superior hardware and that they need to increase quality. "could this have been a massive oversight on console gamer's part?" Perhaps I misunderstood but this sounds like it's our fault for expecting a $60 Switch game to look like a $60 Switch game.

There is such a thing as objective value and standards, consumers can of course choose to buy products regardless of such in favor of personal preference, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. That Pokemon Sw/Sh has 435 Pokemon at $60 while Pokemon Su/Mo has 800 for $40 is real. That the game has textures and animations you'd commonly find on the N64 is truth. That the developers lied about their reasons behind cutting content is proven. You can buy the game despite it's issues and that's fine, I only look down on those who defend the game by denying such facts about it while insulting people.

Never said issues do not exist, I was talking about the graphical aspects alone and how battery life seems to be much higher because of it.  You have a right to be upset about something and not buy it for whatever reason, but despite your claims you seem to look down on anyone who buys the game and enjoys it TBH.  I have never insulted anyone here, so try reading it again.  Hell I even said this thread had nothing to do with other flaws, but you insist on trying to insert them in every discussion you can.

The point I am making is that maybe developers who have always made handheld titles will bring the SAME SCALE products over to the Switch because the Switch is both a Handheld and a console.  Just because it is on Switch does not mean that they will all of a sudden make the games console scale experiences.  Will they make improvements here and there?  Sure they will, but I would not get my hopes up too high.

As for your pricing complaint, talk to the publisher Nintendo.  Game Freak had nothing to do with the pricing.  Last I checked, that was a publisher thing.

Your second paragraph could be right, but because GameFreak has a history of leaving good features behind because it will increase their load every gen then justify (or flat out lie) with comments like, "We want every to feel like your first". Yea ... I bet they do. 

Its a hard pill to swallow coming from GameFreak.



RolStoppable said:
It's a sound theory that makes sense on the surface, but when you dig a bit deeper and analyze the developers' history, then it becomes apparent that good battery life is merely a beneficial side effect rather than the actual reason.

GameFreak's Pokémon games haven't been among the visual cream of the crop on any console they were made for. They've never come close to maxing out a console's capabilities. Actually, they've never been above average. But for some reason the internet community at large always had it in their heads that the first mainline Pokémon on a home console will look impressive. Completely unrealistic expectations after so many meh looking games on handheld consoles.

I think's it's moreso that the Pokédex cut led people to start complaining about other issues that they were okay with before, especially after Game Freak specifically talked about how the cut was for reasons such as polish and making better animations. If you cut content and say it's because of better graphics, but your graphics are still shit, then people are either going to complain about the cut content or the graphics. Pretty obvious, really.

That said, I'm kinda glad all of this happened, because it made people finally realize many issues that have been plaguing Pokémon for years.



Xxain said:
400 Pokemon was still too much for GameFreak for the time frame they were given. It is annoying that it is the answer because they should have expanded to accommodate that number, but they didn't and that in combination with new feature and tech was more than they could chew.

Yeah i wonder what Nintendo's part was with the rushed state of this game,can be that gamefreak tried the best they could in the time that had been given to them.



RolStoppable said:
It's a sound theory that makes sense on the surface, but when you dig a bit deeper and analyze the developers' history, then it becomes apparent that good battery life is merely a beneficial side effect rather than the actual reason.

GameFreak's Pokémon games haven't been among the visual cream of the crop on any console they were made for. They've never come close to maxing out a console's capabilities. Actually, they've never been above average. But for some reason the internet community at large always had it in their heads that the first mainline Pokémon on a home console will look impressive. Completely unrealistic expectations after so many meh looking games on handheld consoles.

Yeah to make a true follow up pokemon for consoles a lot more investments needed to be made than what happened with this game,it is hard to grow on a financial scale when you are used to make semi low budget games that sell a ton on "inferior" handhelds compared to the more "big budget" standards of console games so i think Nintendo or gamefreak did see a risk in increasing the investment by a substantial amount compared to previous games and so it seemed that they took too little risk on that aspect for a franchise like this.

It is a roadblock that they will learn from imo.