Board 8 > Pokemon Legends Arceus: Over 6 million sold already.

(+) Yeah! (+)

also I find it funny that having GameCube graphics is an insult but when it comes to an indie game with NES graphics it's charming and doesn't matter

What indie games have NES graphics? SNES graphics have been the trend for years, and those do actually look good.

Yeah BDSP isn't going to be the thing leeching dev resources - the Sword and Shield DLC, and possibly the next "mainline" Pokemon game are.

The Call of Duty and Madden comparison is pretty apt. Pokemon is very close to a yearly franchise. This game was probably made in 2-3 years? Breath of the Wild took 5, the sequel is taking another 5. No one wants to wait half a decade for a god damn Pokemon game.

MZero posted...

also I find it funny that having GameCube graphics is an insult but when it comes to an indie game with NES graphics it's charming and doesn't matter

Finally someone other than me calling out Indie games for getting free passes from fanbase and reviewers just because they are made on a low budget by a small team. It feels as if everyone looks at you like you've kicked a puppy when you say anything negative about an indie game.

KamikazePotato posted...

What indie games have NES graphics? SNES graphics have been the trend for years, and those do actually look good.

Shovel Knight.

See my point right here.

Shovel Knight looks much better than an NES game, and it executes its art style well. It's fine if you're not a fan of retro graphics, but that doesn't make them bad. Legend's graphics are bad by any reasonable metrics. You say that people give indie games slack because they have a low budget - I say that the only reason some people are giving Legends slack is because it's a Pokemon game.

I mean, theres a difference between intentionally making your game in a certain graphical style and unintentionally making your game look a decade old because you lack the time, resources and/or skill to make it look any better.

KamikazePotato posted...

Also I'm in agreement that this game looks close to the PS2 era - at least the environments do.

I feel like people just forgot what PS2-era games looked like outside of pre-rendered cutscenes.

That's ridiculous. Shovel Knight looks like that because they WANT it to. Yacht Club's next game is even more low tech, you think they did that because they couldn't afford not to?

Pokemon doesn't look like it does because they WANT it to look like that, it's just all they're capable of.

And if we're talking style, this may be Gamefreak's worst offender yet. Take out the Pokmon themselves and the world looks like college unity proof of concept to show their professor's they have basic programming knowledge to start off the course. NOTHING in this game visually has anything resembling an aesthetic.

KamikazePotato posted...

What indie games have NES graphics? SNES graphics have been the trend for years, and those do actually look good.

VVVVV, which is old but still further from the NES era than we are from GC now (both in terms of time and evolution of graphics)

and yeah, my point is that people like older graphics, so saying it looks like a "GameCube game" or whatever doesn't really hold that much water. There are other valid complaints about the graphics though

Axl_Rose_85 posted...

Finally someone other than me calling out Indie games for getting free passes from fanbase and reviewers just because they are made on a low budget by a small team. It feels as if everyone looks at you like you've kicked a puppy when you say anything negative about an indie game.

Not really, I'm calling out hypocrisy. If you like the graphics more power to you!

StealThisSheen posted...

I feel like people just forgot what PS2-era games looked like outside of pre-rendered cutscenes.

Only because they're not HD (and SD looked better on CRT monitors). Lots of PS2 era games that have been re-released in HD - even if the graphics weren't changed besides that - look on par with Arceus.

Arceus has better graphics than BotW because BotW only had a dozen regular enemy types while Arceus has over 200.

MZero posted...

VVVVV, which is old but still further from the NES era than we are from GC now (both in terms of time and evolution of graphics)

and yeah, my point is that people like older graphics, so saying it looks like a "GameCube game" or whatever doesn't really hold that much water. There are other valid complaints about the graphics though

VVVVVV didn't remotely reach the height of the most popular indie games. If you're going to use edge cases, sure, there will always be some. The dominating trend for retro is SNES style.

'Older graphics' is a fallacy to use because SNES graphics have overall aged much better than PS2 era. That's something that most people would agree with. A game like Chrono Trigger certainly looks better than Legends does!

KamikazePotato posted...

Only because they're not HD (and SD looked better on CRT monitors). Lots of PS2 era games that have been re-released in HD - even if the graphics weren't changed besides that - look on par with Arceus.

...So we're back to the "Look, it looks worse than PS2 games if you make them not look like PS2 games" argument again?

KamikazePotato posted...

VVVVVV didn't remotely reach the height of the most popular indie games. If you're going to use edge cases, sure, there will always be some. The dominating trend for retro is SNES style.

'Older graphics' is a fallacy to use because SNES graphics have overall aged much better than PS2 era. That's something that most people would agree with. A game like Chrono Trigger certainly looks better than Legends does!

I was under the impression VVVVV was pretty popular, but if not that's my bad

Also, your age is showing. I would agree SNES era has aged better than the N64/PS1 era, but not PS2. Vanilla FFX looks way better than any SNES game, and Legends looks a lot better than that. I mean, it comes down to preference in the end but I think most people who didn't grow up with the SNES would disagree with you (and even a lot that did like me). Not that there's anything wrong with liking that style, but saying Chrono Trigger looks better than Legends is far from the objective statement you're stating it as

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I do KIND of get it, Pokemon finally decides to do something new and it works, there's a fan mentality that NOBODY should say anything bad about the game at the risk they they may go back to formula.

Jesus christ, fuck off

Snes > ps2 for sure.

Anyway I love the game and could not give a fuck less about graphics. Not why anyone plays pokemon and why they don't budget for it.

I'm not trying to defend Legends because it certainly does look bad compared to what it could/should be. I just think these "It looks worse than X old system" arguments are tired and kinda undermine the point, since they either count on:

A. Forgetting what games from that era actually looked like, or
B. Turning into "Well yeah maybe not normally but if you emulate them/HD-ify them and make them look better than they actually do, they do!"

It's just a silly argument all around that people seem obsessed with making as if they think it adds more credibility to the criticism or something.

My first console was the N64, so that's not the 'gotcha' you were hoping for.

Some people will think Arceus looks better than CT, yes. I don't think most would, especially the hardcore crowd who know what good open world graphics can actually look like.

StealThisSheen posted...

...So we're back to the "Look, it looks worse than PS2 games if you make them not look like PS2 games" argument again?

SD was a strict hardware limitation that had nothing to do with art style. It's a more fair comparison to use their non-remastered HD versions - or imagine Arceus in SD if you want.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not trying to defend Legends because it certainly does look bad compared to what it could/should be. I just think these "It looks worse than X old system" arguments are tired and kinda undermine the point, since they either count on:

A. Forgetting what games from that era actually looked like, or
B. Turning into "Well yeah maybe not normally but if you emulate them/HD-ify them and make them look better than they actually do, they do!"

It's just a silly argument all around that people seem obsessed with making as if they think it adds more credibility to the criticism or something.

Exactly. Saying it's ugly is fine. Saying it like like a GameCube game is idiotic.

Of course resolution needs to be equalized when comparing graphical quality of a game.

I can't imagine thinking that's some kind of ridiculous statement, it's common sense.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Anyway I love the game and could not give a fuck less about graphics. Not why anyone plays pokemon and why they don't budget for it.

They dont budget for it because people will still buy it in spite of its shitty graphics.

All were saying is it would be nice if they took longer to make something better looking, which I dont think is asking a lot for the latest AAA entry in, again, the worlds highest grossing media franchise.

KamikazePotato posted...

SD was a strict hardware limitation that had nothing to do with art style. It's a more fair comparison to use their non-remastered HD versions - or imagine Arceus in SD if you want.

That's... No. If you have to take it out of the hardware to make it look better, then it's quite literally not a "PS2" or whatever game anymore. It's a PC game, or whatever you made the HD version for. If the HD version wouldn't run on the hardware, then you can't count it as a game for that hardware anymore, which defeats the entire argument.

JackMan posted...

All were saying is it would be nice if they took longer to make something better looking, which I dont think is asking a lot for the latest AAA entry in, again, the worlds highest grossing media franchise.

I think by definition a game with zero budget and bad graphics is not AAA. >_>

So if I buy Psychonauts on PS4 it's not a PS2 game anymore? Yeah I find that line of thinking to be absurd. We're not going to agree on this topic.

I just can't understand the mindset of "yeah I know the games look like crap because they know it doesn't matter, and I'm fine with that".

People have to hold developers to some kind of fucking standard. One day they're going to slack on something you actually care about and suddenly you're going to care.

JackMan posted...

They dont budget for it because people will still buy it in spite of its shitty graphics.

All were saying is it would be nice if they took longer to make something better looking, which I dont think is asking a lot for the latest AAA entry in, again, the worlds highest grossing media franchise.

Sure. But market says they don't need to so market wins

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I just can't understand the mindset of "yeah I know the games look like crap because they know it doesn't matter, and I'm fine with that".

People have to hold developers to some kind of fucking standard. One day they're going to slack on something you actually care about and suddenly you're going to care.

lmao

Interestingly enough, there were a few PS2 games that ran in 1080i. Here's an example of one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcddVRnuhlI

You guys be the judge of whether or not that looks better.

KamikazePotato posted...

So if I buy Psychonauts on PS4 it's not a PS2 game anymore? Yeah I find that line of thinking to be absurd. We're not going to agree on this topic.

If the PS4 version would not run on a PS2, then yes, it's no longer an example of PS2 graphics, because... It wouldn't run on a PS2 like that, visually. If a PS2 can't run it the same way, visually, it's not an example of PS2 graphics.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I just can't understand the mindset of "yeah I know the games look like crap because they know it doesn't matter, and I'm fine with that".

People have to hold developers to some kind of fucking standard. One day they're going to slack on something you actually care about and suddenly you're going to care.

Because it doesn't affect my enjoyment. Don't like it? Don't buy it, that's cool. I drop games if they disappoint me. But swsh were super fun and so is this. I literally don't care anout graphics in pokemom.

JackMan posted...

worlds highest grossing media franchise.

Unfortunately this is why it'll never change. Why increase the budget when that doesn't matter? They tried something different with Gen 5 and it did awful by Pokemon standards.

JackMan posted...

They dont budget for it because people will still buy it in spite of its shitty graphics.

All were saying is it would be nice if they took longer to make something better looking, which I dont think is asking a lot for the latest AAA entry in, again, the worlds highest grossing media franchise.

No. Delaying a game a year for better graphics would be terrible. Like delaying Endwalker a year to make it look as good as FFXV or something would've been an awful decision, for another example.

Resolution is not programmed into a game....at least not by a competent developer, and that's something that can typically be unlocked. It's one thing if a game gets and actual graphical pass, but if it's a straight upres then you have to compare games by the best they could have looked under their original programming regardless of the limitations of their era's televisions. The developers didn't make the televisions....uh, again, usually.

I am just super happy this game exists because... it didn't need to. They didn't need to do anything different.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Because it doesn't affect my enjoyment. Don't like it? Don't buy it, that's cool.

Well yes, that's what I did, and the graphics were the biggest reason why

KamikazePotato posted...

My first console was the N64, so that's not the 'gotcha' you were hoping for.

My bad!

KamikazePotato posted...

Well yes, that's what I did, and the graphics were the biggest reason why

Fair enough! We used to call people like you graphics whores in the old country.

Mac Arrowny posted...

Like delaying Endwalker a year to make it look as good as FFXV or something would've been an awful decision, for another example.

They COULDN'T have done because they still need the actual guts to work on a PS3....

UshiromiyaEva posted...

They COULDN'T have done because they still need the actual guts to work on a PS3....

No?

Huh, I didn't know they actually turned off PS3 support. I thought you just couldn't play past HW.

We're ultimately going to have to agree to disagree on the whole graphics comparison debate, because to me, if you have to take the game out of the hardware to make it look better, and the hardware wouldn't run the improved version the same, visually, then... You're no longer comparing a Gamecube/PS2/whatever game. You're just comparing... A game. What the hardware is capable of is very important to the argument of "This looks like a *System here* game."

If you're making the statement of "This looks worse than PS2 games," then one should be able to picture a PS2 game as it looks like on a PS2, not if you have to take it outside the hardware to spruce it up first.

Graphics have always been important for open-world games, and Arceus is so far below the standard that it's a legitimate issue.

Also whether or not people admit it, the majority have always cared about graphics. Even something like FF7 with its lego characters doesn't become as insanely popular as it was without occasionally blowing minds with FMV sequences.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I just can't understand the mindset of "yeah I know the games look like crap because they know it doesn't matter, and I'm fine with that".

People have to hold developers to some kind of fucking standard.

The thing is they are being held to a standard and it's different from yours. It's the one that gets set when the primary audience is children and GameFreak is pumping games out constantly.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Sure. But market says they don't need to so market wins

I know why they dont. Im saying it would be nice if they did. The rest of Nintendo generally seems to give a damn about the quality of their games, so its a shame Gamefreak dont seem to have the same standards.

KamikazePotato posted...

Also whether or not people admit it, the majority have always cared about graphics.

I think this has been proven objectively false when it comes to Pokemon games.

KamikazePotato posted...

Graphics have always been important for open-world games, and Arceus is so fat below the standard that it's a legitimate issue.

Also whether or not people admit it, the majority have always cared about graphics. Even something like FF7 with its lego characters doesn't become as insanely popular as it was without occasionally blowing minds with FMV sequences.

Remember my favorite games are mostly jrpgs with let's say quaint graphics from the snes-ps2 era

I don't really care what other people do though, but Gamefreak clearly doesn't have a graphically impressive bone in their body and hasn't for 25 years now.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

People have to hold developers to some kind of fucking standard. One day they're going to slack on something you actually care about and suddenly you're going to care.

Which Pokemon have done repeatedly for years, especially with Sword and Shield. Is your argument really that Pokemon fans, particularly on this board, have been these complacent, content zombies that never "hold Game Freak to some kind of standard"?