Imagine Myamoto reviewing this game.....it would be like that Myiazaki clip lolSure. Considering how the game launched it seems QA wasn’t a thing and if it was then it’s was complete ignored. Its utterly ridiculous for a series that regular sells 10+ million to ship a game like SV with how it looks and performs.
At this point gamefreak is just technically incompetent.
Why are you being weird about putting words in his mouth?Imagine Myamoto reviewing this game.....it would be like that Myiazaki clip lol
It's mostly kids buying this game mate, they don't care.the bar is so low that people will literally buy hot garbage
I don't understand why people who have (valid, legitimate, well deserved) criticisms of the state Pokemon launched in are incapable of expressing those criticisms without insulting the people who are not as invested in the technical performance of these (or any other) games, and can enjoy them regardless.the bar is so low that people will literally buy hot garbage
nah. people massively overestimate how many kids buy pokemonIt's mostly kids buying this game mate, they don't care.
I'm sure he adores all the money it brings in lolas miyamoto's second biggest fan I don't think he would see pokemon as an affront to humanity itself
no doubt a billion pokedollars will help fund pikmin 4 and star fox oneI'm sure he adores all the money it brings in lol
I'm sure he adores all the money it brings in lol
Let me rephrase that then.nah. people massively overestimate how many kids buy pokemon
My personal experience is that people also massively underrate how many kids buy Pokemon and are deathly convinced all franchises other than Minecraft are ignored by the children. But if kids were not a majority then it would make no sense for why most of the merchandise is aimed at kids too.nah. people massively overestimate how many kids buy pokemon
That's the bulk of all people who buy any major mainstream gameLet me rephrase that then.
I'd bet good money people who rush to buy Pokemon on day 1 because they really like it, are unlikely to be deterred by a DF performance analysis.
Yeah, that's fair. I was just pointing out the whole 'lol garbage game' comment is useless because you could say that about any game.That's the bulk of all people who buy any major mainstream game
You have a reference for this or are you just extrapolating from personal anecdotes?nah. people massively overestimate how many kids buy pokemon
If it their first game I would start them off with Let's Go first tbhif kids play scarlet as their first video game they might think this is just how video games are
Sounds good to me!if kids play scarlet as their first video game they might think this is just how video games are
nintendo's own numbers heavily skew older. I've never said kids don't buy these games, but I don't believe kids alone is responsible for the massive numbers we see. pokemon transcends age groupsYou have a reference for this or are you just extrapolating from personal anecdotes?
if merch is aimed at kids, then that merch targets kids. the games cast a wide net though to catch every possible age groupMy personal experience is that people also massively underrate how many kids buy Pokemon and are deathly convinced all franchises other than Minecraft are ignored by the children. But if kids were not a majority then it would make no sense for why most of the merchandise is aimed at kids too.
Nintendo shared demographic breakdowns a few years ago, the bulk of the audience is early to mid 20s.You have a reference for this or are you just extrapolating from personal anecdotes?
Okay! Thank you.Nintendo shared demographic breakdowns a few years ago, the bulk of the audience is early to mid 20s.
That the net is cast wide is obvious, but I often see discourse online from people who want to believe that most Pokemon players are adults and Gamefreak is fucking up by not cattering to us, and I think that is a notion that doesn't reflect reality. If the game, and the anime, and the merchandise all obviously skew younger I think it's safe to say that kids are still the dominant chunk of the audience. They're a capitalist money-making company, they wouldn't focus so much on the them if they did not have good reason to believe they are their focus.nintendo's own numbers heavily skew older. I've never said kids don't buy these games, but I don't believe kids alone is responsible for the massive numbers we see. pokemon transcends age groups
if merch is aimed at kids, then that merch targets kids. the games cast a wide net though to catch every possible age group
You have a reference for this or are you just extrapolating from personal anecdotes?
For context again. Here is Nintendo Switch demographic from Nov 2021:Nintendo shared demographic breakdowns a few years ago, the bulk of the audience is early to mid 20s.
For context again. Here is Nintendo Switch demographic from Nov 2021:
Here it is again on Nov 2022
As Nintendo themselves stated on Nov 2022
2000 only recently became the easy “bypass age restrictions” year. No need to scroll down to 1900 anymore.The funny thing about this data to me is it's got some blatant flaws.
You see that weird massive spike in the middle? And how it weirdly moved a bit to the right in the second graph?
That's because a bunch of people, for whatever reason, are picking the year 2000 as their birth year, probably because it's quick and easy.
I'm not sure whether it's kids more likely to do that or adults, but it does show that it relies on people entering their own data truthfully (which kids in particular may well not want to, because of automated age restrictions).
Player thousands of hours of Goldeneye growing up, can confirm.if kids play scarlet as their first video game they might think this is just how video games are
I love open world games. Elden Ring, Horizon, etc.This can be said for any open world game. Even the likes of GTA, The Witcher and Assassin's Creed. AC doesn't even need to be an open world, all the missions can be done in a pretty linear game. Open world environments are very repetitive and empty in each game. Why is it an open world? Collecting, exploration and freedom to run and jump around. All three also apply to SV.
Sounds like you don't enjoy open worlds and that's understandable. They really are not for everyone.
??Why are you being weird about putting words in his mouth?
You're insinuating Miyamoto thinks of Pokemon like that Miyazaki meme "Anime was a mistake. It's nothing but trash" quote. We don't know what he thinks of Pokémon, and it's kind of poor taste to put words in his mouth about it.
Man "just catching Pokemon" is doing an incredible amount of heavy lifting in that sentenceI love open world games. Elden Ring, Horizon, etc.
The Paldea region is just undeniably empty. There are no surprises or anything unique to discover out in the world like those other games. It's just catching Pokemon in bland environments.
Man "just catching Pokemon" is doing an incredible amount of heavy lifting in that sentence
I've said this before and I'll say it again, nothing in Elden Ring made me nearly as excited as finding a random Shroomish in this game (if you've noticed I keep using Shroomish in my examples, it's because that was the one where my excitement shocked me the most, but I feel basically that excited for any Pokemon). But that also comes down to how much I dislike how Elden Ring rewards players, imo
Like, what could you want out of an open world reward? A new weapon? Pokemon. Enemy variety? Pokemon. Lore? Pokedex entries, which you get by catching Pokemon. Collectibles? Pokemon. They're like the Swiss army knife of rewards
Yup. Pokemon gets to cheat. You don't need a meticulously designed world with the landmarks leading you to explore with the promise of new sights or rewards or lore or collectibles, because as you pointed out, Pokemon themselves are an instant cheat code that covers all those. It's actually kind of amazing (and a little unfair) just how much the worlds in these games can get away with relative to other games because of this one, unmatched, unimpeachable strong point. No one will explore the world in Zelda or Elden Ring or Assassin's Creed or GTA to find a new enemy type to beat, no one. Maybe bosses (or boss style enemies), but trying to climb a mountain to see if it has a Snover on top is the equivalent of climbing a mountain with the sole intention of taking down another bandit camp trash mob, except Pokemon can make that work, others cannot.Man "just catching Pokemon" is doing an incredible amount of heavy lifting in that sentence
I've said this before and I'll say it again, nothing in Elden Ring made me nearly as excited as finding a random Shroomish in this game (if you've noticed I keep using Shroomish in my examples, it's because that was the one where my excitement shocked me the most, but I feel basically that excited for any Pokemon). But that also comes down to how much I dislike how Elden Ring rewards players, imo
Like, what could you want out of an open world reward? A new weapon? Pokemon. Enemy variety? Pokemon. Lore? Pokedex entries, which you get by catching Pokemon. Collectibles? Pokemon. They're like the Swiss army knife of rewards
Those options are meaningless without the further context of what's offered. The linear Pokémon games have a wide variety in terms of their content and mechanics, and some are better than others.In terms of Pokemon games, would you want a linear game that runs and looks good or an open world game that runs and looks bad?
OK, so let me fix it for you, would you want a game that's very much like SwSh with all its flaws, but without the wild area, and it looks good and peforms like a dream or would you want Scarlett and Violet?Those options are meaningless without the further context of what's offered. The linear Pokémon games have a wide variety in terms of their content and mechanics, and some are better than others.
We have two open world Pokémon games so far, with one having a world explorable in the vein of something like Monster Hunter, and the other being a numbered gen, fully explorable, proper open world. Both being the first of their kinds for Pokémon.
"Do you want linear and not jank, or open world and jank?" is a loaded question not worth answering.
So you would sacrifice performance for it?Pokemon should be open world. There is no question about this, going back to linear games will be such an incredible regression in terms of not only design but also the implicit promise and appeal of these games.
People want open world Pokemon. They want open world Pokemon so much that even Sword/Shield, which were only sort of openish in two not too well designed areas, managed to overcome all the other negativity associated with them, and became the second bestselling games in the series. People want it so much that Legends instantly became the fastest selling game in the series at launch, two months after a traditional Pokemon game had launched, in an off-season. They want it so much that S/V generated enough hype to sell 10 million at full price in three days off the back of just that one promise - open world Pokemon.
We're not going back to linear.
I mean I would rather an open world game that is also a functional, complete game which is actually coherently held together and doesn't fall apart if you so much as look at it the wrong way (which is very literally true in the case of S/V), but to answer your question, if the choice is SwSh as-is versus S/V as-is, I pick S/V every single time.So you would sacrifice performance for it?
My question wouldn't be Swsh as is, it would be SwSh but it looks incredible BOTW tier good and it performs wonderfully vs SVI mean I would rather an open world game that is also a functional, complete game which is actually coherently held together and doesn't fall apart if you so much as look at it the wrong way (which is very literally true in the case of S/V), but to answer your question, if the choice is SwSh as-is versus S/V as-is, I pick S/V every single time.
I'm honestly a bit baffled to see so many users in this very thread make use of the "it doesn't deserve it" line of thought. Hard to take some of the reactions in here seriously, honestly.The whole discussion around whether a game "deserves" its sales (or lack thereof) has to be one of the most useless ones in video game discourse - which is saying something.
It's essentially all a euphemism for "I'm happy a game I enjoy is doing well" or vice versa.
I can't believe Splatoon broke the record only to be destroyed two months later by fucking Pokémon
SwSh could be a Genshin Impact level looker and I would not pick it over S/V.My question wouldn't be Swsh as is, it would be SwSh but it looks incredible BOTW tier good and it performs wonderfully vs SV
That doesn't really fix it, as you're wording with the assumption that Scarlet and Violet are still jank in this scenario, but even so, I would take Scarlet and Violet.OK, so let me fix it for you, would you want a game that's very much like SwSh with all its flaws, but without the wild area, and it looks good and peforms like a dream or would you want Scarlett and Violet?
This doesn't matter. Scarlet and Violet's performance is jank, but fine. It doesn't impact gameplay to any significant degree.So you would sacrifice performance for it?
You keep framing this question absurdly as "god-tier graphics and performance Sword/Shield versus regular Scarlet/Violet," and this is still an unrealistic comparison and an extremely loaded question where you seem to have predetermined that the smart answer is Sword/Shield.My question wouldn't be Swsh as is, it would be SwSh but it looks incredible BOTW tier good and it performs wonderfully vs SV