Rotimi

Member
Dec 25, 2017
1,759
Jos , Nigeria
Exactly. This was featured in Game Informer leading up to the release of Pokemon SwSh
TcRqJOF.jpg
Pretty interesting the part that creatures gave up some rights to the Pokémon company. It's a very simple explanation but as he said there are some complications. I just wish I can see the owenership documents to fully understand the rights.

Funny how it sounds like they can make the mainline games it third party. Well they can do it in Japan. But internationally Nintendo has to be on board, which I don't think will ever happen for the edgelords of control
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,556
Arceus and S/V were all in development for roughly 3 years. I don't think that's enough time and clearly there are issues beyond that, which need to be addressed asap. But I think we got to be so fair and I just wanted to inform you about the length of development.


View: https://twitter.com/Lewchube/status/1562661206040592385?t=-Cm8S4gZFxg2hjQo1QkwpQ&s=19

Maybe I'm way out of line but this seems like very embarrassing work for 3 years of development. I could be wrong but surely 3 years of development can produce something better than this right? Though that would probably only apply to something not open world. This looks like it needed at least 2 more years.
 

Atom

Member
Jul 25, 2021
11,830
Anyone saying Legends looks better has no credibility. Coming from DF is egregiously laughable, go back to the drawing board.

They straight up give receipts in the video. They talk about environmental geometry, texture resolution and tiling, quality of environmental assets, draw distance and animation culling, overall artstyle consistency etc. They're not talking about which game is more or less ambitious or which one might have some more bells and whistles in specific cases, just which one presents better overall.

Even if you disagree with their take, calling their pretty well substantiated claims "egregiously laughable" and to "go back to the drawing board" comes off as reactionary fan hyperbole. It's especially unfair to probably the only outlet that does as consistently high quality work wrt technical analysis as DF, even if they miss stuff from time to time.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,294
It seems like a general lack of pride, effort, priorities, and awareness. If dev time is an issue, make better decisions. Don't spend anytime on some pointless sandwhich system, don't spend time considering what QOL options to remove, don't spend time on some pointless crystal mechanic, and spend more time on utterly embarrassing textures that makes anyone playing the game cringe and question the dev's integrity.
 
Oct 27, 2017
43,076
Pretty interesting the part that creatures gave up some rights to the Pokémon company. It's a very simple explanation but as he said there are some complications. I just wish I can see the owenership documents to fully understand the rights.

Funny how it sounds like they can make the mainline games it third party. Well they can do it in Japan. But internationally Nintendo has to be on board, which I don't think will ever happen for the edgelords of control
It makes somewhat sense because the former Creatures CEO Tsunekazu Ishihara is now the CEO of TPC

Maybe I'm way out of line but this seems like very embarrassing work for 3 years of development. I could be wrong but surely 3 years of development can produce something better than this right? Though that would probably only apply to something not open world. This looks like it needed at least 2 more years.
I don't understand their insistence on still developing multiple games simultaneously, given the size and complexity of development nowadays. 3 years with the entire company just developing SV could've resulted in something much more polished and feature rich, but I guess the idea of release 2 blockbusters instead of 1 was too enticing.

It seems like a general lack of pride, effort, and awareness. If dev time is an issue, make better decisions. Don't spend anytime on some pointless sandwhich system and spend more time on utterly embarrassing textures that makes anyone playing the game cringe and question the dev's integrity.
The fundamental problem is they like developing 2 games simultaneously. They effectively have an A and B team (not denoting seniority or anything, just denoting that there are 2) yet they clearly don't have the numbers to adequately staff both of them when there is overlapping development time. Legends Arceus being developed wasn't some mandate, like some people still think, but a decision by the studio. None of the third versions or spinoffs have been mandated by them. They've always decided to create them. Even as far back as Gen 4

www.gamedeveloper.com

The Art of Balance: Pokémon's Masuda on Complexity and Simplicity

In a rare interview, Gamasutra talks to the key directors behind the 186 million unit-selling Pokemon series, talking about balancing and developing the massively popular Nintendo-backed series.


Every time there's a new Pokémon game, there are the two initial versions, and then later, there's a third version. Where did that idea come from, and how does that play into the design? You know it's going to happen every time, so how does that play into your game plan for creating a new Pokémon?

JM: We put so much energy into creating Pokémon video games. For example, let's take Diamond and Pearl. When we started thinking of Diamond and Pearl, especially because we were moving to the DS... the DS has lots of capabilities and lots of functions; new functions that you can utilize to adapt into the game. So many ideas.

So by the time we developed D/P, we had to give up some of the features we wanted to put into D/P because of the deadline.

Let's say, for example, in D/P's case, that the second half of the D/P development, you decide that, "There are some features that we really want to do. Let's do it in the third one."

That's how we make a decision. Ideally we wanted to put everything into D/P, but there is a deadline, so you have to make up your mind.

Now, development time between Pokémon sequels like Diamond and Pearl is quite a long period of time for games that look relatively simple. I know they're actually really complicated, but I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that most games would have a very short cycle. I want to know what goes in to that whole process. I can understand why it takes that long, but maybe not in detail. Could you talk about that process, of where you start and where you end up?

Takeshi Kawachimaru: Let me take the example of D/P and Platinum. As Masuda-san said, by the time we almost finished D/P, Masuda-san came to me and said, "Let's make Platinum. Would you like to do it?"

My answer, without thinking, was, "Yes." I put so much energy into D/P. I felt like I completed a marathon. You're out of breath, but I said, "Yes," and I started running again right away after.

As Masuda-san said, there were so many ideas that we wanted to work on. We wanted to revisit those ideas and see what we could do to put them into Platinum, so I had to go back and look at what we did with D/P, and what we couldn't do with D/P.

Also, we had to consider good reasons we should make Platinum, and why not something else. So we had to think of that reason, otherwise the product would not sell. We had to revisit the ideas which came up and see how we could apply them into Platinum.

Also, some interesting points from this fairly old interview

On the target age of Pokemon. I wonder if this changed after Gen 5 and after Masuda's comments about kids having short attention spans though, but it definitely explains the difference in mindset back then
I have a friend who is a developer, and he's working on a kids' game. He's worked on several different games for kids that are developed in the U.S. He says that very often, in his observation, developers in the U.S. aren't all that happy to be working on kids' games. They'd rather be working on games more for an older audience. But I get the impression that you must be very happy to work on Pokémon, because it's so popular. Could you talk about how that inspires you, working on games for kids?

JM: First of all, we did not create Pokémon for kids. We create the Pokémon games for everybody. Everybody can play the Pokémon games, so we try to make the games very approachable. For example, we use different colors. It's not just about the text, but the visual appeal. In the end, yes, even kids can play this game.

Of course, adults might focus more on the storyline. But the main thing is catching Pokémon, and trading Pokémon. You trade Pokémon.
 
Last edited:

Aleh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,372


Damn. You can't trust anybody nowadays. Maybe Aleh might be a more trustworthy news source

They straight up give receipts in the video. They talk about environmental geometry, texture resolution and tiling, quality of environmental assets, draw distance and animation culling, overall artstyle consistency etc. They're not talking about which game is more or less ambitious or which one might have some more bells and whistles in specific cases, just which one presents better overall.

Even if you disagree with their take, calling their pretty well substantiated claims "egregiously laughable" and to "go back to the drawing board" comes off as reactionary fan hyperbole. It's especially unfair to probably the only outlet that does as consistently high quality work wrt technical analysis as DF, even if they miss stuff from time to time.

Something's laughable alright lol

I will literally provide receipts too. They cherrypicked the worst parts of SV and the best of Legends and yet the worst parts of Legends are worse and the best of SV are better. There's a LONG list of graphical improvements that are in SV compared to Legends, and they are an objective quantity. I will post direct comparisons too and am super curious to see how anyone is gonna try to dismiss them.
 

Foot

Member
Mar 10, 2019
11,071
Aleh, bruv, we're all playing Scarlet/Violet too. We know what it looks like.
 

Fnnrqwin

Member
Sep 19, 2019
2,332
Aleh, bruv, we're all playing Scarlet/Violet too. We know what it looks like.
Yeah lol, this is some serious cope. SV has nice looking moments but Arceus has a beautiful unified aesthetic and runs well enough to appreciate it. It might look "PS2" level compared to a lot of modern games, including Nintendo games, but it's still much prettier than this overall.
 

megamanofnumbers

▲ Legend ▲
Banned
Apr 28, 2022
3,190
I will literally provide receipts too. They cherrypicked the worst parts of SV and the best of Legends and yet the worst parts of Legends are worse and the best of SV are better. There's a LONG list of graphical improvements that are in SV compared to Legends, and they are an objective quantity. I will post direct comparisons too and am super curious to see how anyone is gonna try to dismiss them.
Don't take things too personally. I was trying to compliment you. It's only an insult if you read between the lines.
 

IHaveIce

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,803
Man some pokemon die hards really just have to defend every shit huh?
The games are a technical mess, look terrible, have visual bugs non stop and performance wise most mobile games I play run circles around this shit.
 

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,503
I will literally provide receipts too. They cherrypicked the worst parts of SV and the best of Legends and yet the worst parts of Legends are worse and the best of SV are better. There's a LONG list of graphical improvements that are in SV compared to Legends, and they are an objective quantity. I will post direct comparisons too and am super curious to see how anyone is gonna try to dismiss them.

So you accuse DF of cherry-picking the worst parts of SV and then to prove your point you want to then...cherry-pick good screenshots? Wild.
 

Shryke

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,567
Damn. What a mess and fans will continue to buy this shit up. I would like to play these games but I just can't. Really hope a Switch Pro or successor comes out soon.
 

Deleted member 3208

Oct 25, 2017
11,934
Damn. What a mess and fans will continue to buy this shit up. I would like to play these games but I just can't. Really hope a Switch Pro or successor comes out soon.
No matter the hardware, this would still be a technical mess. At the very least we know that with a higher cpu clock the framerate improves.
 

Aleh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,372
Ok everyone, pack it up. SV looks better than Legends therefore there's nothing wrong with the games, DF are lying and everyone is overreacting.
Stop grasping at straws. This video is a technical analysis and as such should reflect reality. No one said there's nothing wrong with the games.
 

Atom

Member
Jul 25, 2021
11,830
I will literally provide receipts too. They cherrypicked the worst parts of SV and the best of Legends and yet the worst parts of Legends are worse and the best of SV are better. There's a LONG list of graphical improvements that are in SV compared to Legends, and they are an objective quantity. I will post direct comparisons too and am super curious to see how anyone is gonna try to dismiss them.

The problems they highlight with SV, like repetitive tiled textures and extremely low quality environmental geometry, low resolution, lower quality building exteriors, low draw distance, low framerate animations from even a short distance away are present to greater and lesser extents throughout the entire experience. Nobody is saying there aren't some graphical improvements that SV has, like maybe some nicer materials or more normal maps or what have you, or that the scope isn't bigger, but you're going a bit nuts with this. "Looks better" is broader than just any specific new graphical feature and is a more holistic measure, that when taken in tandem with things like artstyle naturally imbue a certain amount of subjectivity on top of that.

Which is all to say that going down this path is both unlikely to convince others (because nobody is going to particularly trust you to fairly present both games given how you initially presented your response as kinda inappropriately inflammatory), and just looks kinda petty in response. I'd suggest just giving it a rest, not getting so worked up about this, and going back to the games that you seem to be enjoying.

Beyond all of this the thing you're never going to be able to convince others of is that the time-weighted fidelity of presentation of one title is better than the other. The highs of SV can be higher than PLA, but what matters far more is how much time you spend in the highs of one and the lows of the other, which is probably going to be impossible for you to substantiate (and really, really, really would be a genuine waste of time and effort).
 

Imran

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,765
Trying to argue which pile of shit looks better is a very funny thing to get heated over.
 
Dec 2, 2017
20,726
I think it's best to ignore the clear SV defender trolls. I'm glad DF highlighted this it's really unacceptable. If be interested to know just how much of this could be fixed or even eased by patch.
 

N7_Kovalski

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,469
You know, performance is one thing. It's bad here. No denying that. But I could look somewhat past it if the game LOOKED visually appealing/had a good art style. These games look awful. Wtf...
 

Serif

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,921
Really hope a Switch Pro or successor comes out soon.

Switch 2 will only lock the game as it is to 1080p 30, it will not fix the janky camera, visual glitches, shadow res, laggy menus, etc. without a patch, a patch that could very easily be applied to the current Switch, no new hardware needed. I bought my Switch almost six years ago and have enjoyed better looking open-world games on that same chipset, I shouldn't need to buy a better device just to put lipstick on a Lechonk.
 

Charamiwa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,086
My only real problem with the video is when he talks about grass density and the way it looks in SV compared to Arceus. He literally chose the worst looking patch of grass in the game I swear. In general the fields of grass in the game is when the game's environment can look its best, and way ahead of Arceus and dare I say closer to BotW. It's not consistent obviously but there are pretty moments in the game. When he said "on the good side, some interiors are nice and that's it" it felt a bit disingenuous.

You don't have to look long either, the very first route, where you learn to catch a Lechonk, has that nice look to it. Swaying grass, nice topology, bunch of cute Pokémon running around... It is there. Runs like shit though.
 

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,503
Who said that? Lol. I will post direct comparison of the most similar looking shots I will personally take of both games.

The DF video was 16 minutes with a ton of footage covering several locations and gameplay scenarios. How can you call that cherry-picking but your proposal to literally cherry-pick screenshots to compare the two games and prove your point isn't? C'mon lol

It's fine if you prefer how SV looks over Legends. Really it's not that deep. Neither game looks good. But calling a reputable tech analysis outlet's integrity into question ain't it.
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,137
Chile
I think it's best to ignore the clear SV defender trolls. I'm glad DF highlighted this it's really unacceptable. If be interested to know just how much of this could be fixed or even eased by patch.

I have 0 idea about this, so it's just baseless conjecture, but considering how much they tried to cut the game to make it run "better" (the low fps animations, low draw distance, low... everything), I'm imagining the issues must exist at an engine level and have been present in past games, and they just became this terrible by going open world and stuff. If that's the case, I don't know how much it can be patched.

The game will probably need a feat on "Iwata took the game and compressed it so much that the team was able to add Kanto as post game" levels of efficiency to be properly patched
 

Red

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,861
My only real problem with the video is when he talks about grass density and the way it looks in SV compared to Arceus. He literally chose the worst looking patch of grass in the game I swear. In general the fields of grass in the game is when the game's environment can look its best, and way ahead of Arceus and dare I say closer to BotW. It's not consistent obviously but there are pretty moments in the game. When he said "on the good side, some interiors are nice and that's it" it felt a bit disingenuous.
"Closer to BotW" is waaaaay too generous. Even when the blades of grass are present and animated it looks a couple technical generations behind.

Now in saying that, I don't actually disagree that grassy areas are where it looks best.
 
Dec 2, 2017
20,726
I have 0 idea about this, so it's just baseless conjecture, but considering how much they tried to cut the game to make it run "better" (the low fps animations, low draw distance, low... everything), I'm imagining the issues must exist at an engine level and have been present in past games, and they just became this terrible by going open world and stuff. If that's the case, I don't know how much it can be patched.

The game will probably need a feat on "Iwata took the game and compressed it so much that the team was able to add Kanto as post game" levels of efficiency to be properly patched
Well that's a shame. I think there's a good game in there behind all the technical issues and I hope they don't abandon all the pretty good ideas and stuff that's in it for the next game.
 

Aleh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,372
The problems they highlight with SV, like repetitive tiled textures and extremely low quality environmental geometry, low resolution, lower quality building exteriors, low draw distance, low framerate animations from even a short distance away are present to greater and lesser extents throughout the entire experience. Nobody is saying there aren't some graphical improvements that SV has, like maybe some nicer materials or more normal maps or what have you, or that the scope isn't bigger, but you're going a bit nuts with this. "Looks better" is broader than just any specific new graphical feature and is a more holistic measure, that when taken in tandem with things like artstyle naturally imbue a certain amount of subjectivity on top of that.

Which is all to say that going down this path is both unlikely to convince others (because nobody is going to particularly trust you to fairly present both games given how you initially presented your response as kinda inappropriately inflammatory), and just looks kinda petty in response. I'd suggest just giving it a rest, not getting so worked up about this, and going back to the games that you seem to be enjoying.

Beyond all of this the thing you're never going to be able to convince others of is that the time-weighted fidelity of presentation of one title is better than the other. The highs of SV can be higher than PLA, but what matters far more is how much time you spend in the highs of one and the lows of the other, which is probably going to be impossible for you to substantiate (and really, really, really would be a genuine waste of time and effort).
The thing is SV consistently looks better than Legends, it doesn't just have higher highs, and not as low lows. The performance is the only thing that's actually worse.

I'm still waiting for the receipts
Lol I'm supposed to have a full comparison ready out of the blue? This takes time.