• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Pre-Release Pokémon Scarlet and Violet — Pre-release Discussion Thread (UPDATE: new trailer, see threadmarks)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Magic-Man said:
No, but it's pretty much a guarantee.
Click to expand...
That's interesting then. If I'm right whenever Pokemon comes out in November pretty much nothing else Nintendo comes out the same month. So I might be reading into it too much (and I know this is a Pokemon thread) but maybe this means botw2 isn't coming out until December at least?
 
Tamantayoshi said:
That's interesting then. If I'm right whenever Pokemon comes out in November pretty much nothing else Nintendo comes out the same month. So I might be reading into it too much (and I know this is a Pokemon thread) but maybe this means botw2 isn't coming out until December at least?
Click to expand...
Mario and Sonic at the Olympics came out in November 2019, same as Sword and Shield. And SMTV wasn’t first party but Nintendo heavily promoted that game, it came out in the same month as BDSP.
 
XY came out in October. And before that there were plenty of other games that came out in random months. But that might just be because we didn't used to have simultaneous launches, not sure what it looks like when you limit it to Japan. That said yeah SV is almost definitely coming out in November lol
 
0
To be honest October releases seem smarter from a sales point of view. You get the initial huge launch anyways, and then when holidays actually get closer you get a big bump to the legs, which sorts of blends with the launch when it’s in November too. I think.
 
0
iirc in Japan it was announced to come out winter 2022, so it would be weird if it released in october
 
0
Ozeiyo said:
Wait how does spirigatito relate to pasta. Is it because it sort of looks like pesto-green?
Click to expand...
Both are Green.
Spirig > can is probably the word Sprig mixed in and is the steam of the leaf used for garnish.
Spirigatito has a similar name to to Spaghetti. So Pesto Spaghetti makes sense in connection to roasted duck and hot peppers as it also completes a whole traditional Spanish meal.

The double connections also are that
Spaghetti needs water to boil and soften
Roast duck needs fire to bake and
Peppers need other grass/vegetables to cook into one of its many recipes so it needs grass

This could hint at grass/water, water/fire and fire/grass final evolutions. Each taking a different typing from the trio that's unique to themselves.

So many ways you can just view these starters from the aspect of food. Which makes sense since it's Spain/Italy.
 
0
Aleh said:


Decided to try to be funny on Twitter ™️
Click to expand...

I actually do think Pokemon looks better here (probably less so in close-ups) but both of these are billion-dollar franchises lol. Genshin hit $1b in revenue just 6 months after launch.
 
Caviar said:
I actually do think Pokemon looks better here (probably less so in close-ups) but both of these are billion-dollar franchises lol. Genshin hit $1b in revenue just 6 months after launch.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s the joke lol, people around the release of swsh DLC tried to use Genshin as a way to diss Pokémon as if it isn’t a billion franchise as well
 
0
i always said that genshin was the first open world after BotW that really got the exploration right.
its open world is really well made and makes you want to just look around the corner, reach the next hill etc.
 
I am hopeful about the graphics tbh. It just looks so much better than Legends imo. This also seems to be a bit more colorful than Legends and Sword and Shield.

One thing I hope is that the guy who leads the designing of the Pokemon doesn't get shit on cause after what happened with Sw/Sh it really turned me off on this fanbase.
 
0
I showed my sister the trailer as well (she doesn't really play games) and her opinion on the mc models felt so spot on.

She said they look like those 3d models from popular children yt videos, and now I can't unsee it. XD
They're the only thing I didn't particularly like from the trailer, but it'll probably grow on me.
 
0
I understand they probably wanted to differentiate this game from the others by going with this new weird style for the characters, but man is it off putting lol.
 
0
I was thinking about this the other day....but what if all the gym/elite four battles are all level 50 like in the battle tower. This way it wouldn't matter which gym you take on first.
 
Moltres006 said:
I was thinking about this the other day....but what if all the gym/elite four battles are all level 50 like in the battle tower. This way it wouldn't matter which gym you take on first.
Click to expand...
Pokémon get higher stats when they evolve, so even with level scaling they would still need to account for whether the player and their opponents are using NFEs or fully evolved Pokémon. This solution also wouldn't factor in movesets, since battle facilities have assigned movesets that use the Pokémon's strongest options, which generally aren't learned until later in the game.
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
The part I care about in RPGs is party/build customization, and being able to brute force by overleveling is a cheap crutch

Change my mind
Click to expand...
What does level scaling accomplish for Pokémon here? The game already implements exp. scaling to discourage grinding in low level areas, and even if you implemented level scaling to ensure equal levels for the player and their opponent, you'd still have to contend with the other advantages provided by brute force grinding - better moves, evolution, more EVs to increase the player's stats, which level scaling alone can't account for.

Beyond that, boss fights in Pokémon are generally designed so that the player is at a level disadvantage if they're hewing closer to the critical path. The imbalance is presented as a challenge that can take either skillful play or grinding levels to overcome, which isn't present with level scaling.
 
Apopheniac said:
What does level scaling accomplish for Pokémon here? The game already implements exp. scaling to discourage grinding in low level areas, and even if you implemented level scaling to ensure equal levels for the player and their opponent, you'd still have to contend with the other advantages provided by brute force grinding - better moves, evolution, more EVs to increase the player's stats, which level scaling alone can't account for.
Click to expand...
I don't understand where you're coming from with this question. If the game is open world then we're each potentially gonna go down completely separate paths. Should I be fighting trainers with level 15s when I already have five badges, just because I decided to go somewhere else first? Some sort of scaling is necessary to maintain even a modicum of challenge.

If we're gonna be allowed to tackle gyms in any order, then obviously I would prefer entirely redesigned teams based on badge count instead, but level scaling would at least be better than nothing. I would be okay if they just went with simple level scaling for normal trainers though, not like I can expect them to craft eight different teams or whatever for every trainer in the game.

Apopheniac said:
Beyond that, boss fights in Pokémon are generally designed so that the player is at a level disadvantage if they're hewing closer to the critical path. The imbalance is presented as a challenge that can take either skillful play or grinding levels to overcome, which isn't present with level scaling.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a hard disagree from me. Maybe before gen 6. Nowadays wild Pokémon are higher level than the trainers in the same routes they're found on lol. And if you're not constantly rotating your team, exp. share ensures that you will vastly outlevel anyone else in the game. I would know because that's exactly what happened to me, until I was forced to change my playstyle. At least in XY you could turn it off, in SwSh you basically have to bench your team just to maintain a level playing field
 
Monster Sanctuary has level scaling and that's one of the best turn-based combat systems I've seen, so I disagree that RPGs can't work with level scaling (though its level scaling system works by fixing encounters in a room to a certain level after they're first reached, so it's not a continuous thing)

Plus if they go for a more open progression route then it's hard to not implement level scaling to some degree I'd imagine.
 
0
Anagrams or references are also pretty popular for Pokémon names. Or having "esp" as the first few letters for some cool psychic types.
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
I don't understand where you're coming from with this question. If the game is open world then we're each potentially gonna go down completely separate paths. Should I be fighting trainers with level 15s when I already have five badges, just because I decided to go somewhere else first? Some sort of scaling is necessary to maintain even a modicum of challenge.

If we're gonna be allowed to tackle gyms in any order, then obviously I would prefer entirely redesigned teams based on badge count instead, but level scaling would at least be better than nothing. I would be okay if they just went with simple level scaling for normal trainers though, not like I can expect them to craft eight different teams or whatever for every trainer in the game.
Click to expand...
Is it a significant improvement to fight a team of Starly/Clauncher/Petilil at Lv. 45 instead of 15, when the player has progressed to using final evolutions? That doesn't pass even as a bandage solution. Creating bespoke Trainer rosters for different points in the game isn't effortless, but we've seen Game Freak implement it before with Vs. Seeker rosters. We could also see solutions such as rankings for NPC opponents, where they could refuse to challenge you at some points in the game, which could alleviate the number of additional rosters created.

While we don't know how Gyms will work, one possibility is using a tiering system, where the player has to battle lower tier Gyms before the higher tier Gyms. They would still need multiple teams based on progression, but instead of 64 different possible boss fights, they could narrow that down to something like 20.
Lord Azrael said:
Yeah that's a hard disagree from me. Maybe before gen 6. Nowadays wild Pokémon are higher level than the trainers in the same routes they're found on lol. And if you're not constantly rotating your team, exp. share ensures that you will vastly outlevel anyone else in the game. I would know because that's exactly what happened to me, until I was forced to change my playstyle. At least in XY you could turn it off, in SwSh you basically have to bench your team just to maintain a level playing field
Click to expand...
That's mostly dependent on how Game Freak chooses to balance the game, which will probably look a lot different in an open world game than a strictly linear one. An open world means it's a lot easier to intentionally skip Trainers, which can keep the player at a lower level and provide a handicap.
 
Apopheniac said:
Is it a significant improvement to fight a team of Starly/Clauncher/Petilil at Lv. 45 instead of 15, when the player has progressed to using final evolutions? That doesn't pass even as a bandage solution.
Click to expand...
Significant? No. Improvement? Yes.

Apopheniac said:
Creating bespoke Trainer rosters for different points in the game isn't effortless, but we've seen Game Freak implement it before with Vs. Seeker rosters. We could also see solutions such as rankings for NPC opponents, where they could refuse to challenge you at some points in the game, which could alleviate the number of additional rosters created.

While we don't know how Gyms will work, one possibility is using a tiering system, where the player has to battle lower tier Gyms before the higher tier Gyms. They would still need multiple teams based on progression, but instead of 64 different possible boss fights, they could narrow that down to something like 20.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for level scaling over other solutions (in the context of Pokémon), when I literally gave an example of an approach I'd prefer in the same post. I agree that your proposed solutions are also better. I was merely responding to the claim that level scaling is antithetical to the core of RPGs, which it far from is in my mind.

Apopheniac said:
That's mostly dependent on how Game Freak chooses to balance the game, which will probably look a lot different in an open world game than a strictly linear one. An open world means it's a lot easier to intentionally skip Trainers, which can keep the player at a lower level and provide a handicap.
Click to expand...
Given Game Freak's track record with balancing, hopefully you can forgive me if I approach this topic with very, very low expectations lol
 
I think doing a Xenoblade-style method for populating the overworld could work. Make it so most areas have a wide distribution of Pokemon of varying levels hanging out. There can still be areas that have higher density of lower or higher level Pokemon. They've already done this to an extent with the Wild Area and Arceus, so I expect them to continue and just fine tune it to better suit a fully open world region.

And then yeah, just having a Vs. Seeker type of progression for trainers where rosters for many/most of them update with gym badges (or whatever method S/V will use for progression).
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for level scaling over other solutions (in the context of Pokémon), when I literally gave an example of an approach I'd prefer in the same post. I agree that your proposed solutions are also better. I was merely responding to the claim that level scaling is antithetical to the core of RPGs, which it far from is in my mind.
Click to expand...
My concern is that people seem to believe that raw level scaling is sufficient to account for players progressing in different ways through an open world in Pokémon, such as the post I responded to yesterday. Any solution Game Freak implements is going to have to involve some degree of creating multiple rosters for enemies, but doing that at all will largely address the issue to the point that adding level scaling on top isn't going to make much of a difference.
 
Apopheniac said:
My concern is that people seem to believe that raw level scaling is sufficient to account for players progressing in different ways through an open world in Pokémon, such as the post I responded to yesterday. Any solution Game Freak implements is going to have to involve some degree of creating multiple rosters for enemies, but doing that at all will largely address the issue to the point that adding level scaling on top isn't going to make much of a difference.
Click to expand...
And I don't disagree with that. Just with the blanket statement that level scaling makes no sense and is antithetical to RPGs.
 
Lord Azrael said:
Yeah that's a hard disagree from me. Maybe before gen 6. Nowadays wild Pokémon are higher level than the trainers in the same routes they're found on lol. And if you're not constantly rotating your team, exp. share ensures that you will vastly outlevel anyone else in the game. I would know because that's exactly what happened to me, until I was forced to change my playstyle. At least in XY you could turn it off, in SwSh you basically have to bench your team just to maintain a level playing field
Click to expand...
I personally didn't mind this. Allowed me to enjoy the different kind of Pokemon Galar had to offer. I'm not saying that makes it okay. I would prefer my main 6 not being more than 5 levels higher than a CPU trainer's Pokemon lol.
 
Lord Azrael said:
I don't understand where you're coming from with this question. If the game is open world then we're each potentially gonna go down completely separate paths. Should I be fighting trainers with level 15s when I already have five badges, just because I decided to go somewhere else first? Some sort of scaling is necessary to maintain even a modicum of challenge.

If we're gonna be allowed to tackle gyms in any order, then obviously I would prefer entirely redesigned teams based on badge count instead, but level scaling would at least be better than nothing. I would be okay if they just went with simple level scaling for normal trainers though, not like I can expect them to craft eight different teams or whatever for every trainer in the game.


Yeah that's a hard disagree from me. Maybe before gen 6. Nowadays wild Pokémon are higher level than the trainers in the same routes they're found on lol. And if you're not constantly rotating your team, exp. share ensures that you will vastly outlevel anyone else in the game. I would know because that's exactly what happened to me, until I was forced to change my playstyle. At least in XY you could turn it off, in SwSh you basically have to bench your team just to maintain a level playing field
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that. I played Shining Pearl this way and am currently playing Legends this way - I’m constantly cycling my team out. I suppose it’s not necessary with Legends but it just helps fill the research level for different mons quicker. But Shining Pearl I basically changed most of my team after each gym battle. It actually made it somewhat difficult (but still relatively doable).
 
I mean to be fair, in almost every pokemon game basic ass route trainers are usually super underleveled and offer almost no resistance, they're mainly there to get you exp for the next gym so you don't just have to grind wild pokemon
 
snikdasnek said:
I mean to be fair, in almost every pokemon game basic ass route trainers are usually super underleveled and offer almost no resistance, they're mainly there to get you exp for the next gym so you don't just have to grind wild pokemon
Click to expand...
time to detach the majority of your experience from battles! time for quest-based experience
 
0
Game Freak has so far been pretty hesitant to throw random trainers into their big open areas, so it wouldn't even really surprise me if S/V is very light on them.
 
mnk said:
Game Freak has so far been pretty hesitant to throw random trainers into their big open areas, so it wouldn't even really surprise me if S/V is very light on them.
Click to expand...
Legends is the first game to attempt trainers in the overworld and it worked pretty well
 
0
Hocot8 said:
I personally didn't mind this. Allowed me to enjoy the different kind of Pokemon Galar had to offer. I'm not saying that makes it okay. I would prefer my main 6 not being more than 5 levels higher than a CPU trainer's Pokemon lol.
Click to expand...
SpringwoodSlasher said:
Funny you should say that. I played Shining Pearl this way and am currently playing Legends this way - I’m constantly cycling my team out. I suppose it’s not necessary with Legends but it just helps fill the research level for different mons quicker. But Shining Pearl I basically changed most of my team after each gym battle. It actually made it somewhat difficult (but still relatively doable).
Click to expand...
That's how I've played the last couple of generations, but basically out of necessity. It's not my preferred method and I wish it wasn't forced on me.
 
Are people in this thread down to post/laugh at fake leaks? Or are we keeping it official stuff only?

There was this one today that immediately got debunked on Twitter:
FNSErg0WYAoiAAR
 
I struggle with the aiming in Legends, dunno of its due to my dyspraxia so I am hoping that SV don't include that in and instead have regular battles
 
0
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom