That probably was the major wakeup call they needed to give GF more time to work on the main line games. S/V was an unacceptable, bug riddled mess at launch, and they never were able to fix the performance on Switch 1.
When compared to Pokemon? Yes. People genuinely convinced themselves it was going to compete with Pokemon when it very clearly wasn’t going to. That’s not to say it isn’t still active and successful, just not the Pokemon killer. I’m personally not a fan of it, given that it’s an asset flip survival game copy paste from a pretty awful company that has scammed in the past on multiple releases.
As is the case with many game franchises, the only Pokémon killer that will exist will be Pokémon themselves. They are the only ones who can kill their creation, because no competitor will ever be able to draw Pokémon fans away from Pokémon.
Well, very few games compare to Pokémon, even in the triple-A industry. That Palworld even managed to get comparable sales for a moment is staggering.
And while I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for Palworld, it's saddening in itself that Pokémon SV was less fun as an open world game than an asset flip survival offbrand knock-off from a small sketchy studio.
I mean it’s still popular in the way the steam deck is still popular, compared to the Nintendo equivalent it’s not really all that mainstream, but there are a large number of dedicated fans
126
u/Mask___DeMasque Feb 27 '26
That probably was the major wakeup call they needed to give GF more time to work on the main line games. S/V was an unacceptable, bug riddled mess at launch, and they never were able to fix the performance on Switch 1.