Skyrim is 200 hours. Any game that isn't 200 hours is overpriced at $60, fact.
Skyrim is 200 hours. Any game that isn't 200 hours is overpriced at $60, fact.
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:
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.
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.
Shiken said:
Never said anything about those draining or not draining battery life. As I said, the game has its flaws but that is not what the topic is about. It is about how we should not be suprised of more 3DS developers treat the Switch like a handheld, despite how badly some might want "insert handheld IP" to be treated like a console game just because it is on Switch. Battery life could be a factor, as seen in my example of Pokemon Sw/Sh. Unfortunately despite stating this clearly in the OP, some who are upset that people are enjoying a game they want boycotted for their own reasons seem to try and change the subject so they can complain some more. You can certainly be disappointed in those things...but that is not the topic. |
I didn't mean to imply that you said something about those things draining battery life. I was just commenting on my own, without intending for it to be a reply to anybody in particular.
I'm actually enjoying the game immensely. Gameplay is more important to me than graphics. I'm excited to see how the meta turns out with so many moves and Poke'mon not making it in.
Immersiveunreality said:
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. |
Naaw man. I'm thinking Pokemon Company could be the other problem. They're in charge of marketing, merchandising and the Animes and you know the game gotta be out in time for that anime. I just dont think that Nintendo had any major hand in this because GameFreak has been on this path for awhile.
Xxain said: Naaw man. I'm thinking Pokemon Company could be the other problem. They're in charge of marketing, merchandising and the Animes and you know the game gotta be out in time for that anime. I just dont think that Nintendo had any major hand in this because GameFreak has been on this path for awhile. |
Eh Nintendo may not be encouraging them as far as we know, but they aren't stopping them either by having them delay the game like all their other developers are willing to do. Naturally they stand to gain more profits with Game Freak putting in the bare minimum resources.
Your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense... I'm 99% positive that not a single person at Game Freak has considered the battery life when designing the graphics. If they did, they probably would have advertised it more than enough. It's a nice benefit, but do you really believe that they would have put in fancy graphics if the Switch had a better battery life? And like Lonely_Dolphin said, if they really wanted to keep presenting Pokémon as a handheld franchise, they would've kept the handheld price.
I don't care much about graphics, but this fits in the general picture of Game Freak / Nintendo not wanting to invest in the games. Aside from the graphics, half of the Pokémon are still missing, there are very few innovations, it's one of the few games that still don't have a Dutch translation... There are plenty games that barely sell 1/10 of what Pokémon does, and that feel a lot more polished in every way.
Game Freak seems to realise that the quality of their games has little to no impact on its sales. They could probably cut their budget in half, and they would still sell 15 million. And that's a shame, because the quality of the franchise will only keep going down this way.
Chrkeller said: The game isn't perfect but no where as bad as some are making it out. It is a good game and I expect any follow ups will be even better. Clearly GF struggled a bit with the HD transition. |
I sort of agree with this sentiment but the more I think back on past Pokemon generations, the more I start to notice patterns. The most apt for Sword and Shield is X and Y, which were the first installments on the 3DS. I distinctly remember the first third to half of the game lacking any reall character or substance, with many of the environments and character models lacking any real sort of style and just feeling generic. Anyone remember the 2D images of trainers in NPC battles?
Sword and Shield exhibits some similar traits, but they more seem to be related to optimisation and techical process instead of design. These sort of issues had been cleared up by the time of Sun and Moon so maybe it's just a case of experience.