96
submitted 1 day ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/gaming@beehaw.org

It's been a while since I looked at a main series Pokémon game and thought, "That looks nice." This includes last week's full reveal of Pokémon Legends Z-A, which going from the first bit of footage seems to feature a lot of hazy-edged grey rooftops, futurist UI, and eerily smooth NPCs, and not a lot of consistent, nice-to-look-at art direction to tie it together. This is also a shame. First, because - and I don't think it's too controversial to say this - it's good, generally speaking, when things look nice. Glad we've got that established.

Second, and still pretty obvious but at least a bit more interesting: while they've never been graphical powerhouses, there have absolutely been times when Pokémon games have looked quite wonderful. And there is undoubtedly room for Pokémon games to look even more wonderful. But the series' recent, and quite aggressive moves away from that is both a bummer, and, considering Pokémon's history with artistry - across its spinoff video games, its animations, its strikingly impactful trading card art - a waste.

Saying this out loud among Pokémon fans, however, often leads to some interesting reactions. While even casual observers and non-Pokénerds probably got whiff of controversies like "Dexit", the nickname for the first time it was revealed less than the entirety of the Pokédex would be catchable in a single game, back at the launch of Pokémon Sword and Shield, fewer will be familiar with "tree-gate" of the same era.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 25 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I agree. Pokemon once was my favorite video game series, but it has been technically and to some extent creatively stagnant for quite some years now. And whenever people point that out online, there is always a vocal horde of fans coming to Gamefreak's defense, saying things like "Pokemon never looked good". Which wouldn't be a good argument, but it's not even true. Pokemon games were never technically advanced, but they had a simple, clean look in the 2D/2.5D era. S/V has some really appallingly low-res textures in places that wouldn't have looked out of place on the N64. It just looks muddy and inconsistent to a point where it's distracting from the game itself. At the same time it runs at sub-30 FPS quite often.

Probably the only good looking Pokemon games we got this generation were the "Let's Go" ones. Those had simple but consistently good-looking graphics just like the older titles.

[-] millie@beehaw.org 6 points 20 hours ago

To be fair, it's almost infinitely cheaper to hire a bunch of people to post in threads muddying the waters of any discussion than it is to fix any given issue. If any public criticism devolves into bickering, it's hard for outside observers to make enough sense of it to heavily impact sales.

Look how well it worked for the election. With a proof of concept that dramatic lying around, what money-grubbing executive wouldn't want to follow the example?

[-] Badabinski@kbin.earth 4 points 20 hours ago

Yeah, Pokemon had some nice 2D sprites. I yearn for a pokemon game that doesn't hold your hand and is challenging with nice sprite work. It'll never happen unless Game Freak lets the fans do something like Sonic Mania.

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 2 points 19 hours ago

I've not played many since they went 3D, do all the NPCs still look like they were designed with the Mii Maker?

this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
96 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30889 readers
364 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS