And people on GameFAQs are *already* deeming the game "stale"...

[DjautheJackal]

LGPE is the example of taking someone out back, capping their head, and then somehow them managing to hobble on; albeit with the intelligence of a potato. Removing aspects that define a pokemon game is not innovation.

 

[JohnLynch]

Mostly to the tune of wanting free-form cameras, visible encounters, much higher-end graphics, BotW-type open world, etc. Typically in the name of "immersion" (which I wonder whether it's even that desirable; I genuinely fear addiction can result from too much immersion, and/or forgetting the physical world for a time).

I will grant that GameFreak seems a little insulated from common player desires, although my evidence for that is more their surprise at XY's customization being so beloved. Mostly a matter of what they deem integral, and what peripheral. But wanting the game to hit every current norm seems like a form of entitlement. (Never mind that I can't see how adhering to the "normal" is either a moral or a financial imperative. Since when is the market all-wise?)

Calling someone entitled is a great way to dismiss them without actually addressing their points.

Pokemon is stale. The game's core gameplay has not meaningfully changed since it was first released. Call of Duty is also stale. So is Fifa. The reason they keep getting the same thing is because that's what players of the game want. Just as players of Pokemon want the core gameplay to remain the same.

They could have removed paths from the wilderness. But it wouldn't have changed the game from stale to fresh.

This game does exactly what fans of the game want. Unless GF are unhappy with the number of units they sell game after game, there is no reason to introduce a radical change. Iterative design can work and is a valid method of meeting fan desires.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Are you serious about saying Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu and Let's Go Eevee was back to basics? They watered down Gen 1, no wild random battles, gyms that restricted access til you had certain Pokemon. Those games were not back to basics, they were extensions of Let's Go, an experiment in casual watered down gaming.

That is by far not what I meant when I said back to basics.

Have you considered the possibility that some people don't want either style? This isn't an either or scenario, you don't have to like either Let's Go or the traditional style. Neither form of "back to basics" really addresses the criticisms people have with the recent games, so it's easy to see why people are still complaining. Just because you revert a change people hated doesn't mean that they're satisfied, it's about making the right type of change.

Calling someone entitled is a great way to dismiss them without actually addressing their points.

Pokemon is stale. The game's core gameplay has not meaningfully changed since it was first released. Call of Duty is also stale. So is Fifa. The reason they keep getting the same thing is because that's what players of the game want. Just as players of Pokemon want the core gameplay to remain the same.

They could have removed paths from the wilderness. But it wouldn't have changed the game from stale to fresh.

This game does exactly what fans of the game want. Unless GF are unhappy with the number of units they sell game after game, there is no reason to introduce a radical change. Iterative design can work and is a valid method of meeting fan desires.

Just because people are buying the games doesn't mean that's what they want. There seems to be a major sentiment in this fanbase of "this isn't the game I want but I'll try it anyway", they're just being open minded for whatever reason. Furthermore, poor sales is NOT the only reason to make a change. Developers also make changes because improvements in technology allow them to explore new possibilities. This is why people are so disappointed with it being so samey, because the Switch is vastly more powerful hardware that could drastically improve the series, but so far it looks like they're not doing much with it.

 

[JohnLynch]

If you buy a game you dont want or enjoy then that's on you. Not only is it a waste of your money and time playing that could be spent on doing other things, you are telling the devs "this game is good enough to buy". Dont expect them to change how they approach the pokemon games whilever you keep buying them. And dknt expect them to change their approach while they keep selling as well as they do.

Also I dont see huge swathes of people complaining. Gamefaqs (in my experience) is a toxic forum. They're not representative of the larger gaming populace.

 

[Ignition]

I’m so confused about the purpose of this thread. Who cares if they complain? Why do people concern themselves with whether or not someone is for/against buying a game rather than, Idk, being content with their own choice? It happened with USUM & LGPE and I will never understand how much controversy stems from seeing some stranger not liking a game

 

[BCVM22]

Who would ever willingly read the GameFAQs forums for any reason? Good god, love yourself more than that, and definitely love yourself more than to worry about what the mouthbreathers who populate that sludge pit have to say about anything.

 

[Sushi]

Some random irrelevant person's opinion should not have an entire thread dedicated to it.