By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - New Pokémon Legends Arceus trailer

konnichiwa said:

If I want to be kind I would call the graphics dissapoint, at the moment it feels they did the bare minimum for the Graphics/Story/New gameplay elements.

Weird thing is I want it to succeed so they build on it and make a big open world game with plenty villages and towns with a ton of exploration side quests.

I am curious about its reception on the release it seems to be one of those games that could bore a gamer after 10 gamers or be addicting like hell.

If it succeeds they won't improve the formula but will regurgitate the same game years over years instead. 

We're not talking about any other Nintendo studio here, it's the useless, lazy and uncopetent gamefreak that we're talking about.

I have no trust in them nor in the company that rules them. I am fully convinced about the fact that nintendo should take full part in developing pokémon games and have full control on them since the pokémon co. gives no f*ck about the console games anymore.

It still doesn't make sense that they are taking THAT much time to adapt to HD. it's amazingly bad how they're still struggling with 3D and HD in 2021.

Sword and shield looked like an HD remaster of a 3DS game (if not worse), and since that game, we've seen so little improvement. 

It still doesn't make any sense that the most lucrative franchise in the world can't finance the development of a proper game to look at least better than indies. And that's extremely ridiculous.

I hate gamefreak as much as i hate EA in the industry. They're doing with Pokémon what EA is doing with their sports games.



Around the Network
heavenmercenary01 said:

If it succeeds they won't improve the formula but will regurgitate the same game years over years instead. 

We're not talking about any other Nintendo studio here, it's the useless, lazy and uncopetent gamefreak that we're talking about.

I have no trust in them nor in the company that rules them. I am fully convinced about the fact that nintendo should take full part in developing pokémon games and have full control on them since the pokémon co. gives no f*ck about the console games anymore.

It still doesn't make sense that they are taking THAT much time to adapt to HD. it's amazingly bad how they're still struggling with 3D and HD in 2021.

Sword and shield looked like an HD remaster of a 3DS game (if not worse), and since that game, we've seen so little improvement. 

It still doesn't make any sense that the most lucrative franchise in the world can't finance the development of a proper game to look at least better than indies. And that's extremely ridiculous.

I hate gamefreak as much as i hate EA in the industry. They're doing with Pokémon what EA is doing with their sports games.

My number one most hated thing is when people use hyperbole like this. While Sword and Shield are disappointing graphically, suggesting they just like an HD remaster of a 3DS game is ridiculous, let alone suggesting it looks WORSE than an HD remaster of a 3DS game. I've included comparisons. 3DS games were from Citra in 4K, but I had to compress the pictures for both to post this. Now please tell me how Sword/Shield looks worse than the 3DS games?



I don't think it is wrong to say that the best-looking 3DS games if remastered (given higher-res textures and a resolution bump) would look similar to Sword and Shield.

Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate has better animation work, and roughly comparable visual quality to Sword and Shield. Both games incorporate fixed cameras in their perspective, so world design is very similar. 

Of course if you're going to compare a Game Freak game to its predecessor it will look better. But Game Freak's 3DS efforts were lazy as well. The 3DS isn't that much less powerful than the GameCube yet the Pokemon games looked far worse than their GameCube peers. 

Now compare these efforts to something tailored for the Switch and has high quality assets like Monster Hunter Rise. 



I couldn't give a shit about the textures resolution. The game is not a marvelous graphical show but is not as bad as some baseless comparisons that some people are trying to throw in this thread.

My only concern is how shallow it looks the overworld gameplay aspects, other than the traditional pokemon battles.

Open world game: I don't see nothing special about it, tundra, mountain, beach, small cities, fieldzzz...

Wild pokemon visible: Already addressed that before in the article about the new trailer "Pokemon roaming around really don't click for a wild atmosphere... it's just pokemon taking an walk on nature". Yeah some pokemon's will attack you because of some mysterious event that a lightning appears out of nowhere yada yada, from the trailer it all seems pretty clunky.

Pokemon team: Fly around, ride and swim. That's cool but not a big deal.

I can't look at this game without seeing a lot of potential missed.


Last edited by 160rmf - on 23 August 2021

 

 

We reap what we sow

sc94597 said:

I don't think it is wrong to say that the best-looking 3DS games if remastered (given higher-res textures and a resolution bump) would look similar to Sword and Shield.

Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate has better animation work, and roughly comparable visual quality to Sword and Shield. Both games incorporate fixed cameras in their perspective, so world design is very similar. 

Of course if you're going to compare a Game Freak game to its predecessor it will look better. But Game Freak's 3DS efforts were lazy as well. The 3DS isn't that much less powerful than the GameCube yet the Pokemon games looked far worse than their GameCube peers. 

Now compare these efforts to something tailored for the Switch and has high quality assets like Monster Hunter Rise. 

Monster Hunter Rise looks better than Sword and Shield absolutely. Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate though? I mean, the remastered textures do great work hiding the very low quality assets and poly counts, but I would not say that it's overall better than Sun and Moon (except for maybe those god awful tree bark textures on Sun and Moon). I'll show you:

Also, I disagree that the Gamecube games on 3DS look better than Sun and Moon. I think those are rose colored glasses. Just about everything has much better models on Sun and Moon. Texture resolution is lower on some things, I do agree, but I don't think it was just a shoe in. Personally I think that Sun and Moon are great looking 3DS games. This is what it looks like (4k compressed, btw):



Around the Network

For some reason when I try to quote you, Doctor_MG, my browsers have a memory leak. 

So I will just quote you manually. 

" Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate though? I mean, the remastered textures do great work hiding the very low quality assets and poly counts, but I would not say that it's overall better than Sun and Moon (except for maybe those god awful tree bark textures on Sun and Moon). I'll show you:"

I said MHGU is roughly comparable (not better, other than animation work) to Sword and Shield and does indeed have much better quality assets than Sun and Moon. You have a tendency to emphasize very close up images from cutscenes in Sword and Shield which have been polished by the developer precisely because they are a cutscene where the camera zooms in on the environment and therefore are more noticeable whereas the MHGU shots you select are from normal gameplay. But asset quality varies significantly in Sword and Shield. Most of the game doesn't look like the images you selected. Most of the time when you are playing the game you see this. 


or this

or this 

Sword and Shield looks best in its cutscenes and in the turn-based, scripted battles. 

Which is why I tend to talk about "average asset quality" rather than cherry-pick the few best looking assets found in either game. 

You posted pictures of Colosseum but not Sun and Moon. 

Here is XD Gale of Darkness, for example on Dolphin and without the distorted aspect ratio. 

Notice that the battles are in fully 3D environments and if you see them in motion the camera pans in all 360 degrees, unlike Sun and Moon which have 2d backdrops and the camera rarely rotates in a full circular motion. Also notice that the pokemon are proportioned properly in the GameCube games, whereas you have infamous instances like Wailord in Sun and Moon.

I personally think Sun and Moon has the better art-style (cel-shading works nicely in Pokemon games of that era) but technically its assets aren't all that impressive, even for a 3DS game. 


Last edited by sc94597 - on 24 August 2021

sc94597 said:

I said MHGU is roughly comparable (not better, other than animation work) to Sword and Shield and does indeed have much better quality assets than Sun and Moon. You have a tendency to emphasize very close up images from cutscenes in Sword and Shield which have been polished by the developer precisely because they are a cutscene where the camera zooms in on the environment and therefore are more noticeable whereas the MHGU shots you select are from normal gameplay. But asset quality varies significantly in Sword and Shield. Most of the game doesn't look like the images you selected. Most of the time when you are playing the game you see this. 

Sword and Shield looks best in its cutscenes and in the turn-based, scripted battles. 

Which is why I tend to talk about "average asset quality" rather than cherry-pick the few best looking assets found in either game. 

You posted pictures of Colosseum but not Sun and Moon. 

Here is XD Gale of Darkness, for example on Dolphin and without the distorted aspect ratio. 

Notice that the battles are in fully 3D environments and if you see them in motion the camera pans in all 360 degrees, unlike Sun and Moon which have 2d backdrops and the camera rarely rotates in a full circular motion. 

I personally think Sun and Moon has the better art-style (cel-shading works nicely in Pokemon games of that era) but technically its assets aren't all that impressive, even for a 3DS game. 

Bold 1: Sure, because you're comparing a remastered game to a game that isn't remastered that was from the same device. However, I'd argue that, again, polygonal models for Pokemon on Sun and Moon are better than the models for the monsters in Generations Ultimate for 3DS. I guess texture work is "better", but it's also very different. Pokemon is going for a cel shaded style. Realistic textures wouldn't work well with that game. Monster Hunters textures look blurry by comparison, but that's honestly just a hardware limitation since it's aiming for higher end. 

Bold 2: The first picture I chose is from the character creator screen. Not "normal" gameplay. Also, Pokemon Sword and Shield do not swap out models for in-engine cutscenes. Thats why your character is always wearing the same clothes that you've styled them in. This complaint is invalid as it isn't true. 

Bold 3: You never mentioned average asset quality. But regardless, I showed you how insignificant assets are incredibly low texture low polygon even in the remaster for MHGU. They are much better in Sword and Shield. The only thing I'd agree with you that Monster Hunter has over Sword and Shield is level design, but that's not a technical limitation but an artistic one. 

Bold 4: No, I posted pictures of XD Gale of Darkness. Yes I didn't include pictures of Sun and Moon because, well, I already posted like six pictures by that point and didn't want to take up the whole thread. Besides, the photos of Sun and Moon are up above. You can reference those. 

Bold 5: I'm not sure why you think that camera panning is what makes the game better on a technical level. That's like saying Pokemon Stadium looks better than Sun and Moon. It's camera also pans. Look at the Eevee I posted, then look at the Eevee model that is in Sun and Moon. If you think the former looks better then we aren't having an honest discussion. 

Bold 6: Polygonal models for Sun and Moon are impressive on a technical level. Textures aren't very impressive, but it works with the art style regardless.

Here are comparisons, it was difficult finding an Eevee one for Sun and Moon via Citra, so we have to deal with 1080p compressed, but all other pictures are 4K compressed.  



"Bold 1: Sure, because you're comparing a remastered game to a game that isn't remastered that was from the same device. However, I'd argue that, again, polygonal models for Pokemon on Sun and Moon are better than the models for the monsters in Generations Ultimate for 3DS. I guess texture work is "better", but it's also very different. Pokemon is going for a cel shaded style. Realistic textures wouldn't work well with that game. Monster Hunters textures look blurry by comparison, but that's honestly just a hardware limitation since it's aiming for higher end."

As far as I can tell, mesh quality hasn't been changed between the 3DS and Switch versions of MHGU, so if we are looking at total geometry of any given scene, the Switch version should be representative. Textures of course are better, but that is a given since the reason why developers go with cel-shading in the first place is because it goes well with lower-resolution textures. 

"Bold 2: The first picture I chose is from the character creator screen. Not "normal" gameplay. Also, Pokemon Sword and Shield do not swap out models for in-engine cutscenes. Thats why your character is always wearing the same clothes that you've styled them in. This complaint is invalid as it isn't true."

I never intended to suggest that the cutscenes in Pokemon are pre-rendered. What my point was -- was that a cutscene is going to show the best asset quality and asset density of a game because 1. the camera is limited and therefore render-loads are reduced to the small-scoped visible scene and 2. the developer has control over asset density within this limited camera view. So a scene like this looks much better than the average scene in Sword and Shield precisely because it is scripted, is indoors, and if it didn't it would be very noticeable.  



I can do the same thing with MHGU. Here is a scripted in-game sequence. Notice that the asset density and quality is much better than usual for that game.  

"Bold 3: You never mentioned average asset quality. But regardless, I showed you how insignificant assets are incredibly low texture low polygon even in the remaster for MHGU. They are much better in Sword and Shield. The only thing I'd agree with you that Monster Hunter has over Sword and Shield is level design, but that's not a technical limitation but an artistic one."

When you make the bolded statement, what are you basing it on? For example, when Sword and Shield released the game was data mined and polygon counts for many Pokemon were shown to be the exact same as in Sun and Moon. This isn't as bad as it sounds because the asset density of any given scene in Sword and Shield is better than Sun and Moon (you don't have 2d backdrops in battles, the battle field isn't a circle with a small radius, etc) but when looking at the actual wireframes I am not seeing what you see here. 

There are about 5,000-10,000 polygons in any single Pokemon/character model in the 3DS era games and Pokemon Sword/Shield. 

Comparatively Monster Hunter monsters in Monster Hunter Tri (which should be similar to Generations Ultimate as assets are reused between Monster Hunter games, like they are in Pokemon games) are about 10,000 - 15,000 polygons with characters and minor enemies having about 6,000 - 8,000 polygons -- roughly similar to Pokemon Sword and Shields characters but with a higher maximum. Similar can be said of Monster Hunter Stories and other 3DS games. Compare that to say Daisy in Mario Tennis Aces who has 20,000 polygons or Morag from Xenoblade Chronicles 2 who has 17,000 polygons. This is what you should expect for a character in a Switch game. What then matters is asset density (how many polygons in a given render-load.) This is what I mean when I say Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate and Pokemon Sword are roughly comparable. 

Source for character polygon counts: Download the models from here and open them up in 3D Paint, switch to wireframe. https://www.models-resource.com/

"Bold 5: I'm not sure why you think that camera panning is what makes the game better on a technical level. That's like saying Pokemon Stadium looks better than Sun and Moon."

Camera panning is important because limited camera perspectives allow one to incorporate many tricks to get away with much lower model density and to reduce the render-load. For example, in Sun and Moon you have pretty much just the character models and a small circular field being rendered. Not much else. In the Gamecube games there are more polygons beyond the Pokemon being rendered (as it is fully 3D.) This means that even though the Pokemon have fewer polygons in the Gamecube games (about 3-5 times fewer) the actual render has more assets in it, meaning total polygon count is probably roughly the same in any given scene. 

"It's camera also pans. Look at the Eevee I posted, then look at the Eevee model that is in Sun and Moon. If you think the former looks better then we aren't having an honest discussion.

I didn't say the camera didn't move at all, my point was that the degrees of freedom in Sun and Moon are much fewer than in the GameCube games and this is for a reason. Compare the respective motions of the cameras in these two battle scenes. Consider that the total scene is almost always present in XD while Moon switches to blank back-drops as the Pokémon animate attacks. When that happens, pretty much the only thing being rendered is the Pokemon model. Also a good moment to look at how limited animations are in the newer Pokemon titles. 

Bold 6: Polygonal models for Sun and Moon are impressive on a technical level. Textures aren't very impressive, but it works with the art style regardless. Here are comparisons, it was difficult finding an Eevee one for Sun and Moon via Citra, so we have to deal with 1080p compressed, but all other pictures are 4K compressed."

In the characters I can say they are about par for the course for a 3DS game. Most 3DS games have characters in the 5000 - 10,000 polygon range. I don't agree if we are talking about total polygons rendered though. While characters have a normal number of polygons Game-Freak uses tricks to reduce the polygon load of environments and to limit character count in active scenes. These are tricks you can't do in an Action game like Monster Hunter. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 24 August 2021

This is the Rathalos model from Monster Hunter Stories with 4,800 triangles and 14,400 vertices. 

This is the Charizard model from the 3DS Pokemon games with 6,322 Triangles and 18,500 vertices.

This is the Rathalos model from Monster Hunter Tri (Wii) with 10,600 triangles and 31,800 vertices. 

This is the Dialga model from Pokemon Sword/Shield with 7,768 triangles and 22,726 vertices. 

This is an ab instructor from Ring Fit Adventure (hardly a graphical masterpiece) with 25,026 triangles and 20,391 vertices. 

This is Luigi's model in Super Mario Odyssey with 21,571 Triangles and 62,428 vertices. 

Zelda model from Breath of the Wild - 42,376 Triangles and 30,189 Vertices

Last edited by sc94597 - on 25 August 2021

Ugh, I think you guys broke the thread, the reply page now won't load properly.

Anyway, not sure why Sword/Shield became the focus here. Legends Arceus definitely doesn't look like a 3DS game.