Frankly, It's exactly what was expected. But I think many people (myself included) let themselves hope for more.
No, dynamic 1080p.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I feel like the criticisms of the graphics in Pokemon Sword and Shield are kinda... insincere?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
I agree XC2 would be a good looking game if it was on the PS4, because in terms of image quality it looks exactly like a port of a game not made with the Switch in mind imo.
I still don't understand why flying pokemon don't flap their wings. it looks so weird and would be pretty easy to animate.
---
That's exactly why it's so dissapointing. Gamefreak are known to not be the most technically gifted developers,
but you could excuse previously excuse them due to the lack of power in handhelds....
but the switch is a massive upgrade over the 3ds, but visually, it doesn't exactly feel like it.
---
That's exactly why it's so dissapointing. Gamefreak are known to not be the most technically gifted developers,
but you could excuse previously excuse them due to the lack of power in handhelds....
but the switch is a massive upgrade over the 3ds, but visually, it doesn't exactly feel like it.
Shit. The wild area is the only place with a free camera and it looks lifeless. Not good.
This is one of the biggest issues I have with the game's visuals. There really is just no attention to detail compared to other, similar games on the system.
It's not that it doesn't look good, it actually looks fine to be a Pokémon game but it definitely could be better. Also, people are criticising harshly the graphics and animations because of the national dex thing.
A bunch of the Pokémon animations in the Wild Area are really shockingly bad. Little to no effort seems to have been put in to making the Pokémon move around naturally. They seem to just have plugged in their existing walking animations plus some plain rotation and hoped for the best. This is really the area of the game they should have focused on making bespoke animations for rather than that camp thing. They wouldn't have even needed to do animations for 100% of the Pokémon, just the ones that appear there.
Low res textures here and there are one thing, but the lack of attention to details really makes the visuals fall flat.
Edit: especially like the missing animations and effects for pokemon in the wild area. The gyarados and wingull gifs hurt to look at.
Edit: especially like the missing animations and effects for pokemon in the wild area. The gyarados and wingull gifs hurt to look at.
Last edited:
What I've seen of the towns looks great, IMO. But I have to say, I was pretty unimpressed with some recent footage I've seen of the Wild Area, which did look quite empty and kind of meh. I didn't realize until reading this thread that that was something others had criticized. I'm pretty sure we've seen better-looking footage of the Wild Area in previous trailers, though, so I'm just going wait to find out what I really think after I play Shield.
Interiors look great, cities and normal routes looks good too, but the wild area... not really, it's ugly and barren. On the other hand, if the game is good I really don't care too much about graphics. Three Houses is one of my favoritte game this year and that game is really ugly, but amazing gameplay wise.
They work on multiple projects, it's not like development of this game lasted only one year. I think they have been working on this for at least 3 years
The game looks (regardless of strenghts/weaknesses of the artstyle) like a low to mid budget JRPG at best. And while you can point to weaknesses in games like BOTW, their scale and amount of things to do and interact with in the world easily make up for it.
This game does not have that from the looks of it.
This game does not have that from the looks of it.
Honestly it just looks too plain for me, especially the wild area. It's not an ugly game (I enjoy the artstyle they went and it does have a sense of cuteness and charm to it) but there is definitely room for improvement. There are plenty of 1st party Switch games (ports and original titles) that not only run better (60fps) but have a pretty big graphical leap with plenty going on.
I think it looks... y'know, fine. Some bits look nice, others surprisingly ugly. Overall I feel like the Let's Go games had a more appealing look, plain as they were, just because that particular low budget 3D, no AF/AA, muddy textures look of S/S can be such an eyesore, but it's not something I'm going to boycott the game over. To call it one of the best-looking games on the Switch is just nuts, though.
The argument that "Game Freak is a small team, the games are low budget, it's an annual release so you can't expect too much, etc etc", is so weird when the obvious answer is just, like, OK spend more money then. These games sell Call of Duty numbers, why not give them Call of Duty budgets? I mean you can't say that THE POKEMON COMPANY doesn't have more money to spend on them. Hire more people. Increase the budget. If they absolutely must be annual games, then do what the big Western annual franchises do and set up multiple teams running on staggered cycles. The idea that Pokemon games can't be any better than this is a problem they've created for themselves.
The argument that "Game Freak is a small team, the games are low budget, it's an annual release so you can't expect too much, etc etc", is so weird when the obvious answer is just, like, OK spend more money then. These games sell Call of Duty numbers, why not give them Call of Duty budgets? I mean you can't say that THE POKEMON COMPANY doesn't have more money to spend on them. Hire more people. Increase the budget. If they absolutely must be annual games, then do what the big Western annual franchises do and set up multiple teams running on staggered cycles. The idea that Pokemon games can't be any better than this is a problem they've created for themselves.
The game looks great and I really don't understand how anyone can think otherwise:
- This is the Switch, not the PS4.
- Art style is simple, as it should be for a Pokemon game. it is a perfect mix between a realistic style and a cartoonish one.
- The game is - up to my knowledge - rendering in 1080p, unlike many games which it get compared to, like BotW and DQ11.
- It looks very colorful and beautiful.
- This is the Switch, not the PS4.
- Art style is simple, as it should be for a Pokemon game. it is a perfect mix between a realistic style and a cartoonish one.
- The game is - up to my knowledge - rendering in 1080p, unlike many games which it get compared to, like BotW and DQ11.
- It looks very colorful and beautiful.
Worse criticism is people comparing the graphics to Colosseum lol.
Pokemon were never pushing for great graphics yet this one looks very pretty.
Pokemon were never pushing for great graphics yet this one looks very pretty.
Hmm nah. I have all the consoles and a modern gaming PC and this game looks visually appealing for the most part with some exceptions.
If the whole game was the open area then yeah it would be very disappointing.
Am I trolling when i say that it looks very mediocre as an AAA game?
With stuff like Charizard running around is it any wonder that the human population is kept low?
The wild area looks really bad in my opinion and that's a shame, because it's the most important area/feature of the game and players are supposed to explore it multiple times throughout the story. None of the problems in the E3 footage seem to have been addressed in the new preview footage.
Almost feels like they decided to add an open world area relatively late in development. It looks less polished than the routes and towns in the game.
Almost feels like they decided to add an open world area relatively late in development. It looks less polished than the routes and towns in the game.
The game looks pretty much what I expected from GF, who have never been technically super competent (and I see no reason why they'd start now...). I like the art style enough that it doesn't bother me hugely though.
More annoyed at things like Dexit and how we'll probably end up with an anemic postgame.
More annoyed at things like Dexit and how we'll probably end up with an anemic postgame.
I have no problem with the graphics. It's Pokémon, not the latest UE4 showpiece.
It's the gameplay mechanics what has me worried.
It's the gameplay mechanics what has me worried.
Game looks bad. No way around that. The pokemon in the wild look like they are from an unfished game.
I really like the art style but it doesn't wow me. It feels like a cute evolution of a handheld game rather than a console RPG.
Also: and this is almost certainly because of the quality of the videos I've been watching, but in some ways it looks rougher than Let's Go. I know it's objectively more detailed but some of the more obvious textures look low quality whereas I just replayed LG and everything looks so clean and perfect, like Links Awakening. I'll reserve judgement till I play though.
Also: and this is almost certainly because of the quality of the videos I've been watching, but in some ways it looks rougher than Let's Go. I know it's objectively more detailed but some of the more obvious textures look low quality whereas I just replayed LG and everything looks so clean and perfect, like Links Awakening. I'll reserve judgement till I play though.
I was expecting BotW levels of graphics and animation and I was sincerely a bit disappointed when they first showed the gameplay.
Yes! Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about! There needs to be a trade-off. The graphics and animations are not good enough to be one! Of course I would be okay with that, but we are not getting that. We are getting just another Pokémon game, with a few steps forward and a few steps back, and now we don't even have the whole roster. I am glad you finally understand that.
I looks fine and what you could expect from GF. I admit I was a little dissapointed when the game was revealed because I had my expectations a Little higher. It's ...ok, acting like the game is impressive visually can also be insincere, lots of Switch games looks better
And if the annual franchise thing is a problem, then that is something that needs to be addressed and re-negotiated between the two companies. This is why their are multiple studios working on COD instead of just Infinity Ward and why Ubisoft decided to give Assassin's Creed and off year after (way worse imo) graphical and technical issues began taking notice (Hi Unity).
It does feel like Game Freak is overworked and Nintendo does exploit them a bit for the late autumn yearly money maker. This isn't fair on the devs and needs to change, even if that means an off year for Pokemon like they used to or letting another studio try something with the ip while Game Freak is allowed more time and room to do their own things and polish and improve the games.
It doesn't look very good. There's low level of detail everywhere, the lighting is very basic and flat, and the animations are mediocre.
More than anything it just doesn't seem like they were able to successfully realize the art direction they were going for. Maps are poorly designed. I'm of the opinion that even a PS1 game can look decent in terms of the implementation of art design and environments to match it. But despite the graphical jump, Sun/Moon is more visually pleasing to look at.
This.You can cherry pick bad shots too:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63136112/pokemon_sword_and_shield_runes.0.png)
Also, if people have been playing games on other platforms, and statistics say that they do, they're used to games looking more like this:
So it's not too difficult to see where the criticism is coming from. S&S looks very dated no way around it. It might be a huge step up for the Pokemon team, but other teams (Monster Hunter) made a huge step too with way better results. Even BotW looks better and that's a WiiU port.
Geamfreak don't want to spend huge budget on one game. They treat the ip the same way Activision trears cod, difference is we take 1 year break everyonce in a while. If they have all their team focusing on 1 game and not start preparing for other games before finishing the one you got then we might see results, but nah they want the consistent money flow and I don't blame them since sales no where near slowing down.
The graphics are very mediocre technically speaking.
Low res textures, bad texture filtering, overall low IQ. All of this at 30 fps is embarrassing.
As others have said, the animations are probably the most ridiculous with almost no (if any) improvement from the 3DS games. The game is saved by its art style but that's pretty much it.
For one of the biggest IPs in history getting it's first main home console game - yes, it's completely underwhelming. Nothing "insincere" about that, the ones stanning this game just can't seem to take criticism.
Low res textures, bad texture filtering, overall low IQ. All of this at 30 fps is embarrassing.
As others have said, the animations are probably the most ridiculous with almost no (if any) improvement from the 3DS games. The game is saved by its art style but that's pretty much it.
For one of the biggest IPs in history getting it's first main home console game - yes, it's completely underwhelming. Nothing "insincere" about that, the ones stanning this game just can't seem to take criticism.
Yeah, but we still got Witcher 3 on it :P Also it's dynamic res not even 1080p all the time which is laughable. Also BotW and DQ11 are even more colorful.
Pretty sure it's TPCi and Nintendo has little to do with it. Nintendo regularly pushes back and delays their own games if needed
Its not so much as graphics are terrible but with the budget they (should) have the game should look visually on par with Dragon Quest XI or Xeno 2. But everything looks so lifeless and flat.
Probably one of the worst aspects of the style is the bad use of lighting, that can improve so much a game with this artsyle, and yet, it seem they dont have enyone at the studio that want to push the envolope in graphics.
Animations are... not good. Playing DQXI im always surprised at how well animated that game is with how big and the amount of content it has. Even the monsters are superbly animated (you can switch different animations of them on the monsterpedia). And theres like 100 something of them (i know some of them are repeats with different colours, but the NPCS are also a ton and super well animated, and with the budget of Pokemon theres no excuse).
The wild area looks bare, its a little dissapointing.
Probably one of the worst aspects of the style is the bad use of lighting, that can improve so much a game with this artsyle, and yet, it seem they dont have enyone at the studio that want to push the envolope in graphics.
Animations are... not good. Playing DQXI im always surprised at how well animated that game is with how big and the amount of content it has. Even the monsters are superbly animated (you can switch different animations of them on the monsterpedia). And theres like 100 something of them (i know some of them are repeats with different colours, but the NPCS are also a ton and super well animated, and with the budget of Pokemon theres no excuse).
The wild area looks bare, its a little dissapointing.
When the price goes from being $45 to $60+ and they remove features? Yup. I can admit that having standards sucks. Wish I could be more like everyone who saw these games and didn't feel disappointed.
