• 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.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

News Pokemon Scarlet and Violet sold 10 million in the first 3 days

Reader mode
JazzPotatoes said:
If Gamefreak/TPC have got themselves into a situation that delaying a game has ramifications on merchandising, anime releases, etc, then quite frankly that's their problem, not consumers.

They control merchandising, they set their own schedules. This problem has entirely arisen because of their decision to turn Pokemon into an annual, and now bi-annual, franchise.

They were still able to release merchandise and anime back when they were doing one generation per platform. And quite frankly, no one was upset when Gen 2 Pokemon started showing up in the first Pokemon movie or Pikachu's Vacation, even though the games weren't out yet
Click to expand...
The funny thing about your comment is

1) Gen 2 actually was delayed by a year, it's why the ~80% complete 97 space world demo and the final game we got in 99 are so radically different.

2) The first Pokemon film in Japan (1998) was meant to tease that holiday's release of gen 2 in Japan, since the gen 1 anime was scheduled to end at the launch of gen 2. When the games were delayed, the anime team had to send Ash to the filler land known as the Orange Islands for a year. There was an expanded version of the film released in 1999 in Japan, to try and redo the prior years plan of having the film tease the upcoming games. By the time we got the film in English November 1999, the Japanese release of GS was a week away.

3) GF was basically tied into keeping all the gen 2 Pokémon they showed off in the 98 film when the game got delayed. Who knows what the final GS dex would have looked like if they hadn't already teased pokemon like Marill and Snubull. If you've not seen the 97 spaceworld dex you should because a TON of Pokemon got cut or changed between then and the final game.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
That was just a tease for the 2nd generation of Pokemon, they have never fully started the other segments of Pokemon until the games are out.
Click to expand...
They were able to get away with it as a tease, but looking back it was clearly a blunder, because GinKin had to be basically rebooted.
 
0
With regard to the selling point of open world Pokemon, I agree that it's different from other open world RPGs. I have not played SV yet due to bugs and subpar performance, but PLA already fleshed out the above point to a certain degree: the mons themselves are the motivation for me to explore an open Pokemon world, just like how BotW pulled me in by its own terrain and map design. In a way I find it much better that each open world game becomes unique and holistic on its driver for exploration rather than following merely a standard RPG structure with quests and treasures spread across the map.

For SV in particular, I do really want to play it based on reviews regarding its open structure, but perhaps only until patches arrive.
 
Galgavias said:
What I'm getting at is that they should have taken this into account before they embarked on serious development of S/V. Open World games take a lot of time to develop and if Gamefreak thought they could churn one out in 3 years no problems then that's...well it's naive to say the least. They should have given themselves more time in the first place when the decision was made to turn Pokemon into an open world experience, and adapted the anime, card game et al accordingly. Instead they stuck to their rigid 3-year generation plan and ended up rushing it.

And that doesn't really address the Arceus in the room. The more I think about it, the more I question why that game even exists at all. Like, if the plan was always to have Gen 9 release in 2022, then why did they 'waste' (I say that in the most inverted of commas as I liked Arceus) resources on it when it could have been all hands on deck for S/V? You can't even say 'they were experimenting' as given the close release time between them there's no way they could have applied the feedback in time.

Befuddling decisions are being made regarding this IP and it is having a negative impact on the game's quality.
Click to expand...
Virtually every single developer who has ever made their first open world game thought it could be done faster than it eventually was, Game Freak was no exception here. Most of those have the luxury of being able to delay them not too long before launch but Game Freak would've probably needed a good year, year and a half's notice in order to be able to delay S/V.
 
Skittzo said:
Virtually every single developer who has ever made their first open world game thought it could be done faster than it eventually was, Game Freak was no exception here. Most of those have the luxury of being able to delay them not too long before launch but Game Freak would've probably needed a good year, year and a half's notice in order to be able to delay S/V.
Click to expand...
I think that even more important than "could they have delayed?" is asking oneself if did they even -want- to delay it? I've finished the game by now and absolutely nothing here struck me as significantly worse than similar jankiness that I saw in Sword Shield and Arceus, as far as we are concerned, I think this level of "rushed" is indeed under Gamerfreak's umbrella of "acceptable", with it's own compromises scaled in relation to the workload (see: buildings we can't go inside of cuz they deemed it too much work, while Sword Shield also had a fairly noticeable amount of buildings we couldn't go inside of despite the game not even being open world).

It's easy to want to take the side of the developers and assume shortcomings here are the fault of the Capitalist Demon Machine but we actualy don't really have much reason to believe that Gamefreak isn't perfectly content with the way things are, since they keep running things that way.
 
Bowser Sr. said:
I think that even more important than "could they have delayed?" is asking oneself if did they even -want- to delay it? I've finished the game by now and absolutely nothing here struck me as significantly worse than similar jankiness that I saw in Sword Shield and Arceus, as far as we are concerned, I think this level of "rushed" is indeed under Gamerfreak's umbrella of "acceptable", with it's own compromises scaled in relation to the workload (see: buildings we can't go inside of cuz they deemed it too much work, while Sword Shield also had a fairly noticeable amount of buildings we couldn't go inside of despite the game not even being open world).

It's easy to want to take the side of the developers and assume shortcomings here are the fault of the Capitalist Demon Machine but we actualy don't really have much reason to believe that Gamefreak isn't perfectly content with the way things are, since they keep running things that way.
Click to expand...
In regards to elements like buildings you can't enter, that's nothing really new, particularly in games with large 3D environments. It takes more time and resources to create an environmental interior with 3D modeling than the 2D and simpler 3D environments of the older titles. If there's no reason for a player to enter a building, there's no reason to create an interior for it, regardless of development time.
 
0
meatbag said:
YES. You can get a Maushold with only one little baby mouse. It's delightfully weird. Seriously one of the weirder Pokemon this generation, considering how unassuming its design is.
Click to expand...

Can't wait for Suswaves' reaction to Dunsparce. ;D

Leo said:
lol I love that Pawmo is just Pawmi, but bigger. I missed those kinds of evolutions from gen 1.
Click to expand...

Wait until you see the third evolution.
 
Skittzo said:
Virtually every single developer who has ever made their first open world game thought it could be done faster than it eventually was, Game Freak was no exception here. Most of those have the luxury of being able to delay them not too long before launch but Game Freak would've probably needed a good year, year and a half's notice in order to be able to delay S/V.
Click to expand...
That's true, but it's not like the realities of open world game development would have been a total surprise to them. It's common knowledge that open world games take more time. They could have popped down and had a coffee with Aonuma for all the heads up they'd need on that front.

And that still doesn't address why the original strategy wasn't D/P remakes last year, Arceus this year, S/V next year. That would be far more logical then shoving Arceus out in January of all times. They are making a rod for their own backs a bit releasing so many games in such a short window (and where does this leave them for 2023? It's a bit feast to famine if they only plan on doing S/V DLC next year).

If open world is to be the standard for Pokemon games going forward, then they'd be wise to either pivot to a longer term business strategy with longer gaps between gens, bulked out with more Legends and Let's Go type spin offs. Or if they want to stick with the 3 year cycles, then they need to massively invest in their teams and work on improving their engine. Maybe they're working on that now, I hope they are.
 
Galgavias said:
That's true, but it's not like the realities of open world game development would have been a total surprise to them. It's common knowledge that open world games take more time. They could have popped down and had a coffee with Aonuma for all the heads up they'd need on that front.
Click to expand...
the problem is that different tools get different results. the Zelda engine works differently than the Pokemon engine and there was a long prep cycle for BotW. that seemingly didn't happen for Pokemon, and the game suffered for it
 
0
Galgavias said:
That's true, but it's not like the realities of open world game development would have been a total surprise to them. It's common knowledge that open world games take more time. They could have popped down and had a coffee with Aonuma for all the heads up they'd need on that front.

.
Click to expand...
The realities have been known to the entire industry for many years but that hasn't stopped virtually every open world game out there from being delayed. Game freak is no exception here, like everyone else in the industry they assumed they could do it competently in the amount of time they were given, and just like everyone else in the industry they needed more time.

I do not know how to answer your other questions though, who knows what prompted them to shove so many releases so close together.
 
0
Raccoon said:
strongly disagree with this

sonic frontiers looks good and isn't nearly as buggy
Click to expand...
screenshot2022-11-25aecee2.png
 
Phantom Thief said:
Not sure I follow, given Pokémon is still delivering largely good (if flawed) games.

Halo is a better comparison, sans the terrible brand management going on with Halo.
Click to expand...
Halo is not a better comparison lol.

honestly. The sonic Brand is handled pretty well. Not Pokémon massive, but they really do know how to keep the IP relevant like Pokémon. Just games aren’t were suppose to be.
 
Bonejack said:
Can't wait for Suswave's reaction to Dunsparce. ;D
Click to expand...
oh believe me, I definitely laughed at that too

honestly I’m kind of worried, because I was banking on Pokémon designs not being so delightfully stupid

now a lot of my Grögols seem like “plausible knockoffs” and not “creatures so stupidly funny that an institution like Pokémon wouldn’t dare”
 
let’s just say that if they make a toilet pokémon I’m fucking sunk
 
Raccoon said:
strongly disagree with this

sonic frontiers looks good and isn't nearly as buggy
Click to expand...
I've never accidentally died due to any of the technical issues or bugs in Pokemon. In the 6 hours I played Frontiers I frequently died due to automations not working correctly or the camera glitching our or the hit detection being awful.
 
Dardan Sandiego said:
screenshot2022-11-25aecee2.png
Click to expand...
Okay I'm having fun with Sonic Frontiers, but it not 0.1 away from Mario Odyssey in quality, lol

...so, uh, which thread is this? Pokémon sales? 10 million in three days is indeed bonkers, wild to see just how astronomically successful these new games are, even with their issues. I'm certainly having a fun time, if my posts in the ST have made that clear.
 
I mean if we’re going to acknowledge it; Sonic fans celebrating Frontiers’ user score (before it got bombed in the opposite direction a little) was one of the most pathetic things i’ve seen from that fandom in a long time. It’s an irrelevant metric with how easily they can be manipulated positively or negatively; moreso than even critic review score aggregations.

I thought Frontiers was okay, even; but who gives a shit about trying to put a number to that enjoyment, or measuring it up against other people. Same applies to Pokémon even moreso; if not for the performance issues it’d be the best main game since Gen 5 in my book. I hope they patch the performance in the next few weeks so I can more easily recommend it.
 
DecoReturns said:
The reasons behind these can range from

“massively hyped game is a buggy mess”

To

“This game has a powerful female protagonist”

Amusing all around
Click to expand...
Or, in one case, "this unrelated game did not have my anime waifu in it as much as I wanted, so I will be scoring THIS TOTALLY SEPARATE GAME low instead to prove... something"
 
"Muh review bombs tho"
Except if you remove the blatant low scores with no constructive criticism, the mean user score for Pokémon Scarlet/Violet is still low.
Also, funnily enough Sonic Frontiers was review bombed but managed to keep its user score positive. Funny how none of you complaining about review bombs mention this huh? Oh, and by the way: both games have around 2000 user reviews, so it's not a matter of sample size.

Just because someone put on a 0/10 as a score doesn't necessarily mean it's a "review bomb". I could screenshot multiple 0/10 grades where the user actually explained his frustration.
Thinking a 0/10 grade doesn't configure as a "real" review is absolutely disingenuous. I could name a huge list of games on metacritic that are flooded with 8+ grades where there's either barely any explanation as to why the user gave such a grade or their points are incredibly biased and/or completely ignore the game's flaws.

You guys keep on buying garbage whilst justifying it so GF and TPC keeps on shipping this trash. Simple as.
 
Last edited:
niconiconick64 said:
"Muh review bombs tho"
Except if you remove the blatant low scores with no constructive criticism, the mean user score for Pokémon Scarlet/Violet is still low.
Also, funnily enough Sonic Frontiers was review bombed but managed to keep its user score positive. Funny how none of you complaining about review bombs mention this huh? Oh, and by the way: both games have around 2000 user reviews, so it's not a matter of sample size.

Just because someone put on a 0/10 as a score doesn't necessarily mean it's a "review bomb". I could screenshot multiple 0/10 grades where the user actually explained his frustration.
Thinking a 0/10 grade doesn't configure as a "real" review is absolutely disingenuous. I could name a huge list of games on metacritic that are flooded with 8+ grades where there's either barely any explanation as to why the user gave such a grade or their points are incredibly biased and/or completely ignore the game's flaws.

You guys keep on buying garbage whilst justifying it so GF and TPC keeps on shipping this trash. Simple as.
Click to expand...
I mean I feel like a 0/10 is always a bad review score. That's like a game that actively tries to murder you or something. And not saying there isn't such a thing as disingenuous positive reviews (there most definitely are) but I don't think a review necessarily needs to explain why they rate a game highly despite flaws. A flawed game can be an 8+ or hell, even a 10/10 in my eyes if what it does right is just that good.

And thanks, I will continue to buy these games if it means GF and TPC keep shipping games like this.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom