Thoughts on the Upcoming Pokemon Switch Game?

[Ignition]

Worst part about these games is that Virdian Forest is the exact same map as Sanatalune Forest. Talk about laziness smh

 

[Prof. SALTY]

Is that so?

Well, if the speculation is right and they are trying to cater casual fans who play mobile games then i guess i am part of their intended demographic aswell. And, despite being a fairly casual gamer, i still feel like these game feel somewhat lacking :/

If anything, you are probably more of a hardcore fan than i am and you probably know more about bronies than i do lol

Children. Children are the main demographic. Not casual mobile games, not hardcore fans. Children. It is a game to give a better opening to children who either like pokemon GO or who want to get into pokemon. It also offers a feature for parents to play along side their kids, which I know a lot of parents look for.

 

[WhiteBlair]

Worst part about these games is that Virdian Forest is the exact same map as Sanatalune Forest. Talk about laziness smh

Even if so, that would be XY's problem not LGPE's.

 

[Acer11]

Just saying, in the original games, HMs normally wouldn't be obtained until certain points in the game. However, if you have 2 Pokemon games, 2 Game Boys (any kind) and a Link Cable, the first game would trade over a Pokemon with a certain HM move to the second game. This would actually give major shortcuts in the second game once they get certain badges without having to get the HMs. For instance, after getting the Cascade Badge, the player would simply use Cut on the trees without travelling to Route 24, 25, or the S.S. Anne. Would this be one of the reasons for the changes in the new games?

 

[Ignition]

Even if so, that would be XY's problem not LGPE's.

Obviously a joke but ok

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

There is no sudden change of heart. I'm just not letting this entire debate over these games seem like a big deal (i.e what most of the fandom is doing) but letting my personal gripe with these games be how I look at them.

I can respect that. Do you, bro.

Yeah, Pokémon Go isn't really that old. It was released in 2016, 2 years ago.

So they were rather quick with the development compared to other games like XY which took them 4 years to develop i think.

And that's where you screw up.

You assume Let's GO began production after Pokémon GO's release, because like most people, you don't actually know - or care - what it takes to make a video game, especially a Pokémon game.

Masuda said himself and I'm tired of having to explain this that it takes roughly three to four years to develop a Pokémon game: 1-2 for groundwork and 2 for programming. Mind you, he mentioned this back in 2010, so you can imagine how accurate it is now with a new engine.

If it wasn't blatantly obvious, Pokémon games are often made simultaneously. How else do you think we've gotten a new game every year for the last ten years? Nothing was rushed. This was carefully planned.

Obviously, they began Let's GO's groundwork in late 2014, around the time they began Sun and Moon's programming. This would also be the same time Niantic began developing Pokémon GO. They allowed GO to finish development first, to capture the gist of its mechanics, and then appropriated accordingly. Sun and Moon was used as a toolbox/sandbox for Let's GO, hence the walking and running animations. After Sun and Moon's development, they took the basic animations from that, combined it with the graphics and mechanics of GO, put a little pixie dust on it, and began programming for Let's GO.

In short, this may not be what you wanted, but it was definitely carefully planned.

 

[FrozTKnight]

If people really want a game on the level of BotW or Mario Odyssey, then they better get used to having 4 to 3 years of no Pokemon games so GF (their whole team) could focus their attention on making one game, but (from my personal experience) there is push back from fans saying they don't like having huge yearly gaps between Pokemon games.

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

If people really want a game on the level of BotW or Mario Odyssey, then they better get used to having 4 to 3 years of no Pokemon games so GF (their whole team) could focus their attention on making one game, but (from my personal experience) there is push back from fans saying they don't like having huge yearly gaps between Pokemon games.

That would explain the massive increase in employees at Game Freak. They're doing their best to please fans by continuing dishing out a new title every other year.

I honestly wouldn't mind waiting two years or more for the next installment if the first one is good enough to last that long. I mean, if I can wait 4 to 6 years for a new Smash game, I can definitely wait a few years for a new Pokémon game. Just not for Gen 8. I want it now.

 

[Bguy7]

And that's where you screw up.

You assume Let's GO began production after Pokémon GO's release, because like most people, you don't actually know - or care - what it takes to make a video game, especially a Pokémon game.

Masuda said himself and I'm tired of having to explain this that it takes roughly three to four years to develop a Pokémon game: 1-2 for groundwork and 2 for programming. Mind you, he mentioned this back in 2010, so you can imagine how accurate it is now with a new engine.

If it wasn't blatantly obvious, Pokémon games are often made simultaneously. How else do you think we've gotten a new game every year for the last ten years? Nothing was rushed. This was carefully planned.

Obviously, they began Let's GO's groundwork in late 2014, around the time they began Sun and Moon's programming. This would also be the same time Niantic began developing Pokémon GO. They allowed GO to finish development first, to capture the gist of its mechanics, and then appropriated accordingly. Sun and Moon was used as a toolbox/sandbox for Let's GO, hence the walking and running animations. After Sun and Moon's development, they took the basic animations from that, combined it with the graphics and mechanics of GO, put a little pixie dust on it, and began programming for Let's GO.

In short, this may not be what you wanted, but it was definitely carefully planned.

On any other Pokémon game I would agree with you, but Let's Go is almost certainly a special exception. Pokémon Go getting as popular as it did was essentially a mistake. No one predicted it, no one possibly could have. Niantic clearly didn't, as the game was so overwhelmed with players that it broken more often than not for the first month or two. Pokémon Go became an over-night phenomenon, and that's almost certainly the reason why Let's Go was made. What reason would Game Freak have to make a main series game based off of a completely random (and mostly unremarkable) spin-off game? Planning to tie in with Go before its release would be like planning to tie in with a Mystery Dungeon game, or Pokken. There's no way anyone at Game Freak had even conceived of Let's Go before Go came out. Because of all that, it seems very safe to assume that Game Freak, soon after Go's initial release, realized how ridiculously popular the game was getting, and that they needed to cash in on that popularity as fast as they can. Because of this, they likely accelerated their regular game building process in order to have Let's Go released before Go completely died.

That's not to say I think this game has suffered in quality thanks to this acceleration, but I do firmly believe this game is an exception to the normal rule, and only took two and a half years to build.

 

[BCVM22]

What reason would Game Freak have to make a main series game based off of a completely random (and mostly unremarkable) spin-off game? Planning to tie in with Go before its release would be like planning to tie in with a Mystery Dungeon game, or Pokken. There's no way anyone at Game Freak had even conceived of Let's Go before Go came out.

Given Game Freak's involvement with GO and the timing of all the respective elements, it is absolutely feasible that GO and LGP/E were conceived as separate but parallel tracks at the same time, with LGP/E being kept under wraps. We can't prove that, of course, but it would be foolish to claim it absolutely couldn't have happened.

And given that we know Game Freak had Switch dev kits many years ago, it's entirely feasible that Game Freak had a working Pokémon engine and assets on the Switch at the time of GO's announcement and release - a shell that hadn't been filled in, of sorts - and GO's overnight success informed much of the direction in which that unformed clay would be molded.

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

On any other Pokémon game I would agree with you, but Let's Go is almost certainly a special exception. Pokémon Go getting as popular as it did was essentially a mistake. No one predicted it, no one possibly could have. Niantic clearly didn't, as the game was so overwhelmed with players that it broken more often than not for the first month or two. Pokémon Go became an over-night phenomenon, and that's almost certainly the reason why Let's Go was made.

I am going to have to look for the sources, but early on following Pokémon GO's announcement in late 2015, Masuda stated in interviews that he had great interest in designing a Pokémon game that ties in with GO. This is why the reveal the Let's GO did not surprise me all that much; while I simply expected Gen 8 to have transferable capabilities with Pokémon GO, I had already known Masuda was planning something.

To correct myself from earlier, I will say I believe the groundwork for a Let's GO-esque game began in late 2014, and became Let's GO by mid 2016, when programming began.

For real, I do need to find these articles, because I am shocked so few people know that Let's GO - or a game of that design, at least - was predetermined. Never for a second did I ever think any of its development was due to Pokémon GO's popularity. Like you said, no one expected it to blow up.

EDIT: While it's not from 2015, or 2016, I did find this article (06/03/2018) that explains it, and it appear you and I are both correct.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-borrowing-from-pokemon-go-and-lets-gos-story

Masuda confirms that both the 2019 title and Let's GO have been in development for the same amount of time. However, most of Let's GO features is due to Pokémon GO's success. While the game wasn't rushed, it did indeed take a massive turn in development after GO blew up.

Thus, I will concede to you on that.

 

[Bguy7]

Given Game Freak's involvement with GO and the timing of all the respective elements, it is absolutely feasible that GO and LGP/E were conceived as separate but parallel tracks at the same time, with LGP/E being kept under wraps. We can't prove that, of course, but it would be foolish to claim it absolutely couldn't have happened.

And given that we know Game Freak had Switch dev kits many years ago, it's entirely feasible that Game Freak had a working Pokémon engine and assets on the Switch at the time of GO's announcement and release - a shell that hadn't been filled in, of sorts - and GO's overnight success informed much of the direction in which that unformed clay would be molded.

I am going to have to look for the sources, but early on following Pokémon GO's announcement in late 2015, Masuda stated in interviews that he had great interest in designing a Pokémon game that ties in with GO. This is why the reveal the Let's GO did not surprise me all that much; while I simply expected Gen 8 to have transferable capabilities with Pokémon GO, I had already known Masuda was planning something.

To correct myself from earlier, I will say I believe the groundwork for a Let's GO-esque game began in late 2014, and became Let's GO by mid 2016, when programming began.

For real, I do need to find these articles, because I am shocked so few people know that Let's GO - or a game of that design, at least - was predetermined. Never for a second did I ever think any of its development was due to Pokémon GO's popularity. Like you said, no one expected it to blow up.

EDIT: While it's not from 2015, or 2016, I did find this article (06/03/2018) that explains it, and it appear you and I are both correct.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-borrowing-from-pokemon-go-and-lets-gos-story

Masuda confirms that both the 2019 title and Let's GO have been in development for the same amount of time. However, most of Let's GO features is due to Pokémon GO's success. While the game wasn't rushed, it did indeed take a massive turn in development after GO blew up.

Thus, I will concede to you on that.

I suppose we could say that somewhere between the two extremes is the truth. They certainly would have had the basis for a Switch game already in the works, and perhaps even a return to Kanto planned, but then it would have been Go's massive success that transformed Let's Go into what we see now.

One interesting thing to note that might give us evidence as to how this all worked is the fact that Sun and Moon had an icon programmed into the games that would be put on Pokémon sent over from Go (akin to the icon used on Kalos-captured and Alola-captured Pokémon). The fact that this was never used, and we're only now able to transfer Pokémon from Go to a main series title, tells me that when Sun and Moon were first being made, the plan was to allow them to connect to Go in some way, but, at some point after this icon was implemented, the concept for Let's Go was fully solidified, and they decided to cancel the feature, in favor of making it a main feature of Let's Go. That would suggest that Let's Go wasn't fully conceived as we know it now until after the release of Go.

 

[Cradily17]

I feel like the people complaining about LGPE are like bronies. They're mad because the product isn't aimed at them, even though they're not the target demographic and not the majority audience.

Is this really the level that shills have fallen to now, comparing Pokemon to freaking My Little Pony? I can't tell if you're being serious anymore or trolling. Also, if LGPE aren't aimed at hardcore fans, then why does GameFreak still want them to buy the games? Your comment makes no sense.

 

[BCVM22]

Also, if LGPE aren't aimed at hardcore fans, then why does GameFreak still want them to buy the games?

???

Because... a sale is a sale, whether the buyer is "hardcore", "casual," business casual, formal, or any other kinda meaningless label they choose?

Surely you knew this and you weren't actually asking "why does Game Freak want as many people as possible to buy one of their games?", right?

 

[Sulfurian]

Yes, there are faulty business practices in the gaming industry, but Let's GO isn't one of them. This is people being pissed because the game isn't what they wanted. They're accusing it of being low quality because it's not what they wanted.

You're not basing this on any proof of malpractice, but simply not being satisfied with their plan of action.

Yes, I do agree that Mew being exclusive to the PokéBall Plus is a load of crap, but I realized going forward that the price of the Plus is strict due to its production costs, and has nothing to do with Mew. It would cost the same regardless.

Nintendo Switch Online costing $20 - the lowest in the market right now - is not highway robbery because the service is spotty. That would imply they deliberately made their service spotty as a plan to trick gamers out of money, and that's just ridiculous. As for the cloud save, that is a decision made by Nintendo to prevent cheating (for which Pokémon is heavily notorious for). Take it or leave it.

Pokémon Bank has never been accused of having malpractice, so the fact that you're even trying it now is pure bulls**t.

Actually, no Pokémon game has gotten a 9/10 from accredited outlets since X & Y, and it only got one, from IGN. The mode rating is 8/10, with consistent criticism.

And for the record, the reason it appears that you're getting a 5-7 hour experience is because you won't put the bloody thing down. Way too often players would complete an entire run of Pokémon in 17 hours, immediately after getting it. The recommended playtime is 1 hour a day, for all games. If you would just pace yourself, put the thing down, and do something else with your life, you will get more out of it.

"Accusing it of being low quality because it's not what they wanted" Maybe from their perspective the graphics are not what they imagined, or how assets are taken from Pokemon GO or from other Pokemon games, and that's how they see it as low quality. Besides the fact it's Kanto again, and yes, that can be a factored too. Do you think having several versions of a single "generation" is not a faulty business practice? Honestly after being exposed to all the DLC garbage I can't believe GF had the jewels to keep this the same. But like I said, it's how the gaming industry became the way it has. They planted the seed early on and now the consumers have to really keep an eye out, and take every trailer with a grain of salt. Nintendo is trying to catch up to that. You scoff at my statements besides Mew as outrageous, when years down the line you're gonna remember when those services were free (event pokemon, internet) which we took for granted.

Also, it's ridiculous to charge any money at all for a spotty service. "Don't worry, this service is cheap but is not effective" is not going to win over anyone. To advertise Let's Go for "casual audiences" but then say "on wifi battles, from a competitive perspective, is full of cheaters" to say that as an excuse to not have the cloud save feature is bulls**t. I can't use a feature that was advertised for the Switch's internet because someone caught a Mew in a Safari ball. Plus, gen 7 had a great security feature that has banned many people, but apparently that wasn't enough. They just want you not to use cloud saves in favor of paying Pokemon Bank when they announce it. Like how Pokemon GO players aren't allowed to transfer a free Mew. I'll "take it or leave it" when Nintendo does more questionable decisions and that is your answer.

Bank has not been accused of much, but again it's that small seed I mentioned earlier. Next it'll be real money for bottle caps, or extra Pokeballs or potio- oh wait. But don't worry, GO is a side game, it couldn't possibly have any effect on anything besides Gamefreak seeing the advantage of mobile games, and how easy it is to get extra cash from consumers. Like how we went from pre-order bonuses and now we have season passes and lootboxes in the industry.

Doesn't seem like that consistent criticism is getting through to them anytime soon. They see a high number, and they'll just keep going. Though Master trainers is a start.

I suppose I'll try to dignify your last few sentences. (Maybe we should do something else with our lives than go on serebii forums) As you know, game reviewers have to sit down and play through an entire game to then make their score. If they can start to finish a 60$ priced game in a few hours that's a problem. (Order 1886) Not including the amount of times you put any Pokemon game down because life called, that "ingame time" is inaccurate. If players can unintentionally speedrun a 60$ priced game, that's a problem. Gamers deserve good, quality content for their money. Devs did well if you were satisfied with the game for the price tag, but more content means everyone wins.

 

[Bguy7]

Besides the fact it's Kanto again, and yes, that can be a factored too. Do you think having several versions of a single "generation" is not a faulty business practice?

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but my answer is no. Not one bit. I thinks it's a wonderful business practice. The last time Kanto had it's own games was 14 years ago in Fire Red and Leaf Green. A ton has changed in Pokémon since then. Being able to revisit a region in modern style is a great draw to people. Not to mention, a majority people playing Pokémon now probably never even had the chance to play Fire Red and Leaf Green, they're just that old. So for them, it's not even a repeat. Revisiting a region allows new players to experience it for the first time, and old players relive their childhood, but better. Everybody wins.

Also, I assume you don't mind normal remakes, right? Because, at it's core, revisiting Kanto in Let's Go is no different from revisiting Hoenn in Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, or Johto in Heart Gold and Soul Silver. Were those games faulty business practices?

Also, it's ridiculous to charge any money at all for a spotty service. "Don't worry, this service is cheap but is not effective" is not going to win over anyone.

Take that complaint to Nintendo. Pokémon and Game Freak have nothing to do with Nintendo's paid online service. I hate it too, but you can't blame Let's Go for something Game Freak couldn't control.

To advertise Let's Go for "casual audiences" but then say "on wifi battles, from a competitive perspective, is full of cheaters" to say that as an excuse to not have the cloud save feature is bulls**t.

It doesn't matter if the game isn't meant for competitive players. Cheating should never be made easy. It's simple game design logic.

Plus, gen 7 had a great security feature that has banned many people, but apparently that wasn't enough.

Here's the problem, no security feature could ever stop people using cloud save abuse to cheat. A Pokémon cloned from a reversion of game data would be 100% legitimate, as far as any hack check system could tell.

They just want you not to use cloud saves in favor of paying Pokemon Bank when they announce it.

That has nothing to do with it. The real problem with the cloud save cheating thing is that anyone and everyone could do it with extreme ease. No measure taken, short of disallowing back-ups, could stop it. It would run rampant, and would make Game Freak look like bad game designers, which is what they would be, if they allowed such an obvious and easy to exploit system in the game. You can't seriously expect Game Freak to do something so reckless and unprofessional. Now that would be a faulty business practice.

Like how Pokemon GO players aren't allowed to transfer a free Mew. I'll "take it or leave it" when Nintendo does more questionable decisions and that is your answer.

Go players are not allowed to transfer Mew because Go doesn't allow players to get rid of Mew in anyway at all. You can't release it, and you can't trade it. This is because it is only possible to get one Mew in the entire game (outside of a recent glitch), and this being a collection-based game, they don't want you getting rid of that only one. Not being able to send it to Let's Go was done for the exact same reason as not being able to trade or release it. No other reason.

 

[Cradily17]

I know I said earlier that I would stop talking about these games, but I just can't help it. There's at least one more thing I want to bring up in response to the apologists. Why does it make sense to make the target audience of LGPE casuals and kids when most Switch owners are adults and hardcore gamers?

 

[Prof. SALTY]

I know I said earlier that I would stop talking about these games, but I just can't help it. There's at least one more thing I want to bring up in response to the apologists. Why does it make sense to make the target audience of LGPE casuals and kids when most Switch owners are adults and hardcore gamers?

??? All consoles are mostly owned by adults. That argument is invalid. PARENTS are adults. They either buy the console for their kids or for themselves. LGPE has a feature that allows parents to play with their kids, allowing them to play with their kids AND monitor their gaming at the same time.

 

[Akashin]

I know I said earlier that I would stop talking about these games, but I just can't help it. There's at least one more thing I want to bring up in response to the apologists. Why does it make sense to make the target audience of LGPE casuals and kids when most Switch owners are adults and hardcore gamers?

Prof. Salty already covered this, but I really just have to ask: how exactly did you think that the kids this series has been aimed at since day one have been playing it? I can't speak for you, but I was playing this series for the better part of a decade before I was buying either the games or the consoles myself.

Did you think that the Switch's parental controls and Child Accounts were just pointless fluff features? They exist for a reason.

 

[Cradily17]

Prof. Salty already covered this, but I really just have to ask: how exactly did you think that the kids this series has been aimed at since day one have been playing it? I can't speak for you, but I was playing this series for the better part of a decade before I was buying either the games or the consoles myself.

Did you think that the Switch's parental controls and Child Accounts were just pointless fluff features? They exist for a reason.

Do you really think Nintendo doesn't know how to make a market survey and that they just publish meaningless data?
Have you ever read Nintendo's surveys? They literally ask you who plays the darn thing in case parents brought it for their children.