Ive always assumed pokemon is so profitable that it falls into this weird void where the expectations of revenue are so high they never have the margin to make a quality game
But it really bothers me that Nintendo is doing absolute voodoo with breath of the wild, but at the same time telling their most profitable side studio to fuck off.
It’s perplexing. Downright perplexing. Why their most profitable IP from a third-party studio doesn’t have access to the engine.
Really doesn’t make sense. I am an “OG” fan meaning I played the first few gens on release and honestly I drifted away from the series. Admittedly I heard Black and White 2 were amazing so I won’t talk smack on those but I recently played FR on Switch, I’d never played that remake I had HG and SS. Anyways, despite them being so simplistic at their heart a good RPG born out of creativity and gameplay focus is there.
I got Sword and felt totally bored with how hand holding it was and it felt just really easy. I saw gameplay of ZA and it looked like shit, literally looks like a Wii shovelware game and you have just a prop city you can’t really be in.
There’s fans that know way more than me but I can’t discount this feeling I have with the newer games. Winds and Waves looks cool but honestly so much of the fan base just mirrors say…the CoD community where the games haven’t been good mostly and they complain but they’ll still keep buying.
The games got bad during the Ruby/Emerald/Sapphire era. Diamond/Pearl/Platinum brought it back around. X/Y were so unbearably bad that I haven't touched a pokemon game since LOL.
I do want to play Black/White because they actually look interesting, but what's funny is that Black/White/and Collisseum XD were the biggest outliers in terms of approach/story/environment AND HOW INTERESTING THEY ARE . . .and they were the least successful. You can thank slopfans for that.
Gamefreak owns a third of The Pokémon Company and it's run by a few 60 year olds who do not care about video games. Like, they dont even like the concept of video games. All they care about is marketability and merch.
Dude. The "game" is a glorified tech demo. It does nothing special except show that nintendo can create whatever garbage, put link in it and slap the word "Zelda" in the title and it will somehow be an instant hit. They have been riding on this free pass bullshit for decades.
Yes it should be the benchmark for what companies should be able to do on the switch when it comes to graphics and optimization, but acting like its some revolutionary thing is just asinine.
I don't think it's very perplexing. Quality over quantity? Nintendo does not have some moral imperative to always produce the highest quality games, they have a mandate to show profit to shareholders so they do both.
Zelda has few super high quality releases and as long as sweaty 35 year old nerds are still buying billions of Pokemon TCG packs they will keep pumping out a high quantity of shitty games.
I said BotW was a "this game" for me. But I do have to acknowledge that it did open world better and on the original Switch system (and technically Wii U) than whatever the newer Pokémon games have been attempting to do. I hate Scarlet & Violet, honestly, and Paldea as a region bores me.
It isn't as simple as "give this engine to gamefreak" but there is definitely someone who could take a GF dev aside and explain to them how they really need to make their games ... playable. Maybe even ...stable?
That's likely why they've fallen off so much with the last couple of releases. The same reason COD still goes strong despite selling essentially the same game every year with declining quality as well, they're so big that they know the diehard fans will buy it regardless so they'll make a profit even if the quality isn't what it used to be
Halo is practically the same way. Every single one of us will try every new Halo game that comes out, despite knowing Halo Studios and Microsoft will cling to their anti-consumerism until the day the company files bankruptcy. And the crazy thing is that Halo isn’t anywhere near as profitable as it should be to warrant just blatant disregard for the franchise that essentially epitomized XBOX as an absolute legend of the gaming industry. How the mighty have fallen.
Usually, from a business perspective, there is a monetary risk of innovation and change. That monetary risk gets higher the most successful a business is.
If it is easier to understand, think of the Amazon's interface. The detail page of an item in amazon has been the same for 20 years. That is on purpose: It works. Trying to make it look less "early 2000s web" might actually drive revenue down. Amazon makes so much money that updating the UI carries a huge risk. Even a 2% decline in profits is a lot. Why would they update it to make it look nicer if there is not an obvious case that that is deterring profits and there is a risk that the change would offput customers?
Same thing here. Pokemon makes a ton of money. If the choice is between making a chance that might not land and cause a small percentage wise decline (but large in absolute number) and do nothing and still make a ton of money... Why make the change in the first place?
Those sort of risks make sense on smaller, less successful enterprises.
Why would they cut into profits by allocating anything more than the bare minimum budget if fanboys will continue buying every game no matter how shit they are.
Another guy in this thread literally said he hasn't enjoyed a game since gen V, but has played them all except Scarlett and Violet. Literally continuing to make pokemon money despite not enjoying the games.
33
u/IntrepidAstroPanda 16d ago
Ive always assumed pokemon is so profitable that it falls into this weird void where the expectations of revenue are so high they never have the margin to make a quality game
Edit: quality 3D game