• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

SwSh Why are people saying the graphics are "bad"?

TheElderKing said:
He shares one animation,
Click to expand...
We're likely to see this animation many times in the games though. If I'm not mistaken Hau does it often, though I'm not sure on that.

When the models were found to be same, people said that they had to develop new animations for the HD models, when it was figured out Pokémon animations are reused with relatively minor changes the goalposts were changed to moves, and we found that they remained mostly the same. The physical moves still appear as phantom attacks.
Then the new excuse was more expressive Pokemon and characters, and the animations are reused even on the characters.

SwSh look beautiful, but I don’t think the changes are radical enough that entire Pokémon species couldn’t be coded in due to them.
 
PkmnTrainerV said:
We're likely to see this animation many times in the games though. If I'm not mistaken Hau does it often, though I'm not sure on that.

When the models were found to be same, people said that they had to develop new animations for the HD models, when it was figured out Pokémon animations are reused with relatively minor changes the goalposts were changed to moves, and we found that they remained mostly the same. The physical moves still appear as phantom attacks.
Then the new excuse was more expressive Pokemon and characters, and the animations are reused even on the characters.

SwSh look beautiful, but I don’t think the changes are radical enough that entire Pokémon species couldn’t be coded in due to them.
Click to expand...
Even if I don’t think that reusing animations is necessarily a bad things, and that it’s possible that most animations for characters are brand new, I do think it doesn’t justify the cut, in the sense that it was something they pushed so hard on that they couldn’t work on implementing all the Pokémon.

It is howewer clear that the reason goes beyond the actual work made in the games (even if there should be something to counterbalance the cut), because they firmly said that at the moment their plan isn’t going to change and it’s the direction going forwards in future games.

Granted, things may change, but it doesn’t matter in this case, in the sense that animations, models or whatever they worked hard on the game would be only a part of the reason to the cut, since the latter would happen in the future as well.
 
TheElderKing said:
I guess it’s marketing speech, though to be fair he mentioned a number of reason, balance included.
Click to expand...

His reasons were-
  1. Graphics
  2. Balance, which we know isn’t a reason. GameFreak managed to make an unbalanced game with the most limited roster yet. These are the same devs which created Mega Rayquaza, Mega Mewtwo and Ultra Necrozma back to back.
  3. It’s too cold in Galar for my Typhlosion to survive.

I feel free as a paying consumer to see these reasons and question them when they’re proving to be bullshit.
 
PkmnTrainerV said:
His reasons were-
  1. Graphics
  2. Balance, which we know isn’t a reason. GameFreak managed to make an unbalanced game with the most limited roster yet. These are the same devs which created Mega Rayquaza, Mega Mewtwo and Ultra Necrozma back to back.
  3. It’s too cold in Galar for my Typhlosion to survive.
I feel free as a paying consumer to see these reasons and question them when they’re proving to be bullshit.
Click to expand...
You are oversimplifying the first point. He never said better graphics were the reason for the pokemon culling. At least not as how you are putting it. The game is a huge step up from its predecessors in many things and thus requires more time. Putting all pokemon in the games is not something they can do within the time constraints they have. And hence to not delay the games, they had to cut a few pokemon from the games. The time limit was the primary reason.

That said, he did say they want to preserve the feel of each pokemon. Now how this translates into the games themselves is yet to be seen. We have seen some Dynamax pokemon have animations not found in earlier games. We have yet to see most pokemon in the overworld and we also have not seen the camp thing yet. However, what animations they have shown as of now is disappointing. Not game-breaking for me but must be annoying for many. But it is still not what Masuda said so saying that is misrepresenting him.
 
Ambrose7 said:
He never said better graphics were the reason for the pokemon culling. At least not as how you are putting it.
Click to expand...
What did he mean exactly then? I remember 'high fidelity animations' were memtioned.

Ambrose7 said:
Putting all pokemon in the games is not something they can do within the time constraints they have. And hence to not delay the games, they had to cut a few pokemon from the games. The time limit was the primary reason.
Click to expand...
That’s why they need a break, and stop doing yearly releases.

I'm judging them from the stuff they’ve shown yet, which isn’t enough to justify the Pokémon loss.
 
Ambrose7 said:
And hence to not delay the games, they had to cut a few pokemon from the games. The time limit was the primary reason.
Click to expand...
Pokemon is such a big franchise that I don't think they'd be able to delay games even if they needed to. The anime, the games, the TCG, the movies, the merch, etc - everything is interconnected closely and they depend on the influence of one another for marketing synergy. A potential delay might help them accomplish more but that would mean sacrificing bits here and there from other areas of the franchise.
 
Delaying the games isn’t the only option though-
  1. Patching the Pokémon in.
  2. Taking more time with next entries and not making this a full fledged policy.
  3. Having an increased roster per game till the final game of the generation contains all Pokémon: Example- around 400 Pokemon in SwSh, and DPPt remakes featuring 400+400= 800 Pokemon approximately (this is just a rough example). The arrangement adopted by GF is going to make any two games almost incompatible with each other.
 
I wager that Dynamax caused the issue since every Mon is stated to have.
They're PR is also making adding fuel to an already growing fire.
 
I think that the official reasoning, of even the rushing/screwing up in coding are only partially, at best, reasons behind the cut, for a simple reason.

We are most likely going to get Gen 4 remakes in this gen cycle. Given that it’s impossible that all the Pokémon originating from DPPt are in the Galar dex (or even the old ones present in the Sinnoh dex), they’re going to work on them and implement them for the Switch.

Now, let’s say Galar has 550 Pokémon in its dex, missing 50 from Sinnoh. Would the latter have 600 Pokémon in its dex? Based on their words, it appears to not be like this, so there might be cuts from the Galar dex. And they might also implement other previously cut Pokémon not from Sinnoh while cutting some more from the Galar dex.

What would be the point for this? Unless DPPt remakes has a shift in graphical details, models, animation, or even behaviors routines in the overworld, the Pokémon already in Galar could all be transferred to Sinnoh with more to have a larger dex.

If that won’t happen, it’s clear the decision, even if the discussed motivations might have a role in it, is largely based on wanting to give each game a set number of Pokémon, regardless of why they want to do that.
 
Knightwolf09 said:
I doubt Dynamaxing's the problem, they would've backed out the moment it started causing problems
Click to expand...
You'd really think so, but sometimes companies get really stuck in on a concept.
It took Ganglyfish 7 months to make their death beams in Lost Cave get caught on specific platforms sometimes but not other times or other kinds of platforms.
It took almost a year and a half for Capcom to create a workable fight around Zorah Magdaros in Monster Hunter World and about half as long to give up on a skeleton rig that wouldn't quite work.
 
Please note: The thread is from 5 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom