this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
227 points (92.8% liked)

Games

16796 readers
850 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NewPerspective@lemmy.world 78 points 10 months ago (10 children)

I hope Game Freak sees this as a wake up call. People will kill for a Pokemon game with a little innovation.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 58 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why would they? It takes effort to make something innovative. They can make buckets of money by doing nothing. They might make more, but it's going to cost a lot more too.

[–] Renacles@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

This game literally cost 6 million though, that's nothing to the Pokemon company.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Pokemon Arceus had a little innovation. The thing is: a little innovation after decades of doing the same thing is like a textbook example of "too little, too late".

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Also Pokémon Arceus was still empty and boring

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So is Palworld if you played it. The island kinda lacks cohesion

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not even remotely the same level of empty. In Palworld there's 10-100x times the density of creatures and resources. Plus Palworld just looks better than Pokemon Arceus and also doesn't resort to fog to hide things popping into existence

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh we wanna use graphics as an argument? Guess I should play Ark survival instead

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works -2 points 10 months ago

Ok? Then go play Ark and leave the rest of us alone

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah. But it's also put together by a group of misfits that barely cobbled a game together. Not a decades long gaming empire.

" He built it in a cave, with spare parts!"

It's also worth noting, that this is an early access game.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Considering the studios treck record, I won't get my hopes up. I'll believe when I see

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that GameFreak will see this as a wake up call. And even if it does, it might not do the necessary changes to Pokémon main series.

The stagnation runs deeper. It is partially caused by inertia ("we're selling well, why bother innovating?"), but also by GF's insistence on making the main series story-driven instead of gameplay-driven. Even if story-driven Pokémon goes a lot against the franchise's biggest strength - a wide, unique, and immersive universe to explore.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except Palworld is insanely popular with essentially no story...

[–] TheQuietCroc@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That's the point. Pokemon could be successful in the same way but they're saying Game Freak doesn't want to change how they do things.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Omg I'm an idiot, I completely misread what they were saying, I thought they were saying gf needed to focus more on story and the gameplay being stagnant doesn't help. I'll chalk that up to morning brain.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Why would they downgrade in terms of success?

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Shouldn't they have learned the lesson from Pokémon Go? That had absolutely no story that I was aware of.

[–] TheQuietCroc@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That wasn't made by Game Freak, that was Niantic.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

So? They proved first no one gives a shit about story

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

Because it's gameplay-driven.

There's no Rotom bossing you around. No "sit down you player, as we tell you what's supposed to be your story". No unnecessary broken bridges forcing story linearity. The story that you see in this sort of game is the one that you build as you interact with the game, not the one that the developer wants you to watch.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

More importantly: The Pokemon Company is a separate entity from Game Freak and Nintendo, with a third company also participating, Creatures Inc.

Pokemon games exist solely to drive people, especially the current younger generation, into the franchise. Licensed merchandise is THE money printer for them. In 2022, they reported 11.6 billion dollars in revenue just from that. They're at a point where they can literally ask "Why even bother with games?"

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

Yeah really goes to show just how massive this market is, and how horribly game freak has whiffed here

[–] Secret300@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People will kill for a pokemon game that doesn't release broken as hell from bugs. Crazy idea I know

[–] stockRot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

People will kill for a Pokemon game. Any Pokemon game. And gamefreak knows that

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

or just one available on pc

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They're probably finding out all the ways to sue PalWorld in.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People like cathing cool animals and do thing with them valling it a pokemon like game is just weird. No one called pokemon final fantasy with animals.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah it's obviously like Pokémon in several key regards but from what I've seen of it the actual game has a lot of originality and new concepts. We shouldn't need to completely reinvent everything all the time, when something has a big cultural impact on people as children they should be allowed to play with and evolve those concepts - I know Pokémon doesn't understand how evolution works but we as a society should take our cultural property seriously.

If you shove your ideas into kids brains then the adults who grow from those kids should own those ideas, the only reason we don't is because Disney wanted a monopoly on mouse picture.

Set copyright to something reasonable like twenty years and focus on making a better society with free growth of ideas and expression rather than protecting the profits of the richest few

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Pokémon doesn't understand how evolution works

The wordplay... I love it. Haha

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Honestly, I don't think it has any original concepts, but it does merge a lot of concepts from other games into a fairly cohesive package. There's nothing it does, from what I've seen, that isn't done in another game, but the fact that all systems connect with each other and work together is fairly impressive.