AngryBinacle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,294
- Reaction score
- 3,816
You seem to have missed my point. Regardless of commercial succes, series can still be changed if the developers want to. Risks can still be made, if they want to. Commercial succes doesn't necessarily mean a franchise is good. Most forums are also hardly echo-chambers. I'm also not advocating for an open world in any way, shape or form. I think those are overrated.This solution makes a lot of sense to me. Like I said before, competitive improvements are there mainly for competitive players; people who actually want to engage in the PvP side of the game. If the problem with post-game battle facilities really is the fact that they require competitive-level Pokémon in order to make progress, then why not... just make them not require that? That's what the Black Tower/White Treehollow did, after all, as it relied far more on the puzzle and resource-management elements (with some RNG mixed in) to generate difficulty, and personally speaking, that and Restricted Sparring are the only facilities that I not only for once bothered with, but actually completed all the way through. Plus, they've obviously had success with the post-game storylines, so weaving that sort of thing into it could also help give the more casual players an incentive to push into it.
See, it's times like when people say this while SwSh are literally standing shoulder-to-shoulder with BOTW in sales, and when the main series has pretty much been on a clear upward trajectory in terms of sales on each new system, where I feel like actually it's Game Freak who are the ones that are more in touch with what the series "needs," and not the Internet echochambers.
Skyward Sword may have been a "commercial success," but not one that's in the same universe as main series Pokémon games. Even USUM dunks on it. Some people will say that's because of Pokémon's brand power, but is it really? You don't see Pokkén Tournament or Mystery Dungeon DX doing SwSh numbers. It's always specifically the main series that proves titanically successful. The idea that people will buy whatever just because it has Pokémon on the cover is a myth.
Like, I remember when Link's Awakening was announced for the Switch, some people complained about it and compared it to Let's Go in terms of being a cutesy simplistic remake with a soft color palette, but commercially speaking, LA wishes it was Let's Go, which over the course of its lifespan has been thrice as successful. I'm not convinced that there's really anything worthwhile to the constant analogies that people draw between Zelda and Pokémon. To me, it seems they're different beasts with very different appeals.
The games can be much, much better and they don't even have to radically change the formula. If you've been reading my posts for a while, you'll know what I mean. Why should my, and many others', concerns be silenced by financial succes of a series? I think criticism is always needed. PvP content is fine, but challenging PvE content is severely lacking. Why can't we have that. It makes no sense. Really; It doesn't. Many of the things I want can be easily coupled to the games and STILL be a success.
@BackSet That's a toxic mindset, my friend. Let people enjoy their features, okay? It isn't too much to ask if you look at the game's poor difficulty. Many of my team-members remain barely used. Multiplayer is just not everything (raid battles, ranked battles, internet random's, etc.). Wanting a non-gimmicky feature to return is not 'crying'.
Last edited: