Tech power needed to have a perfected Main Series Pokemon Game
In the event that Switch 2 be a reskin of the original switch. How much technological power level will it require to have a truly perfected pokemon game? Ps4 level? Ps5 level?
Comments
-
Maybe a Playstation 5 level technology might help with the graphic issue for Pokemon and then some.
1 -
I don't think it is a matter of pure power. Games like Breath of the Wild proved that massive open world games can play on the Switch back in 2017. The Pokémon series' problems likely stem from poor optimisation and rushed development, more than a lack of processing power preventing them from achieving their vision.
Gamefreak are infamous for poor coding and optimisation issues. Gen 1 was a buggy mess. They couldn't even get Johto to fit on the Game Boy cartridges before they received external support, never mind including Kanto in gen 2. Gen 4 was agonisingly slow to play, partly due to its frame rate and torturously long save times. Gen 6 had frame rate issues throughout the game, but it was especially noticeable the second you had more than two Pokémon on screen.
Originally Gamefreak was an independent company of game hobbyists. They had to teach themselves how to program and in their early days Pokémon made for a charming underdog success story. (Ironically Pal World's development mirrors an earlier Gamefreak.) But I believe at least some of their issues today stem from never really growing out of this mindset in the way they manage their company or develop their games.
When a little indie company puts out a fun, albeit buggy, little game, that is charming and you can forgive their missteps. But when the highest grossing media franchise on Earth puts out a buggy version of the same game they have been reiterating for decades, that is less excusable, to put it mildly.
And the pattern shows that Gamefreak struggle when they move to new hardware. It happened with gen 4 and the DS, it happened with gen 6 and the 3DS, it happened with gen 8 and the Switch.
More power can only go so far to compensate for inefficient, or even bad programing practices. Perhaps if the new console's architecture and development environment resembles the Switch's, the transition might not be too rough. They might even resolve a lot of the last few generations' crippling issues.
But I think Pokémon's troubles run deeper than a lack of terraflops or blast processing.
1 -
It isn't technology it's time, switch games may not be the finest of qualities but they don't need to be, I have fun with my Pikmin 4 the way it is, it is all because of pressure from the fans that rushes them in making games
Stop calling the switch graphics bad
0 -
it is all because of pressure from the fans that rushes them in making games
I don't think it's pressure from the fans causing them to rush development. Yes, there are a subset of fans clamouring for a new game the second they finish the latest one, but I do not think that is the majority.
If anything, the collective sigh of relief the internet seemed to express when it was announced that Z-A would be delayed until next year is indicative of the opposite. Fans are begging Gamefreak to slow down their releases.
I think it is much more likely that the powers that be at Nintendo, TPC and even Gamefreak itself are pushing for more frequent releases, regardless of the costs to QA and innovation. If you are going to break sales records with whatever game you slap the Pokémon logo on, why waste time and money developing a good game?
0 -
@theJeffers I understand that the new Pokemon Game require more time but the technology in such tech will help stabilize and further help the programmers meticulously code the game to prevent another mmo catastrophe like Pokemon scarlet and violet.
1 -
@MajorBrendan How? Why do you think that?
New does not automatically mean better or easier to use. Hopefully it does, but if anything I think it would likely delay and inhibit Gamefreak further while they learn to use the new hardware.
Honestly I think the best thing for the next Pokémon game would be for it to remain on the Switch. Despite their faults, generally the games developed later in a system's life tend to be of better performance and quality than the first games released on it.
Look at the DS era. DP was a bit of a misstep, but then we got Platinum, HGSS, and the entirety of gen 5.
If the next games are on new hardware, I suspect we will see more of a Sword and Shield than a Black and White.
0 -
@TheJeffers Fans Shouldn't rush things and I understand newer doesn't mean better while more time and better software along with companies that handle the designs perfectly would be the ultimate recipe and I would like to see certain remakes of said games coming to the successor to switch 2.
1 -
@TheJeffers For starters, Leakers need to stay away and fans need to be more sensitive to the workers who are working hard on it. If not 5 years, perhaps 7 or 8 years especially with the latest development software will provide the workers ease without them feeling rushed. Plus I would like to have the 3ds games either remade or remaster into the successor to the Switch 2 along with Pokemon Heartgold, Soulsilver, platinum, along with the better remakes of diamond and pearl.
1 -
@clasingla Yes, game cycles and revisionism are real things. People here already claim to love Sword and Shield.
I think there are a number of factors contributing to the phenomenon.
Chief among them for a child-focused franchise is people who played the games as kids, before they had developed a more critical eye, growing up, going online and joining the conversation.
Nostalgia certainly makes us remember the good parts while the problems slip our minds.
Buggy releases tend to be more forgivable in the current era when the game can be patched, and it tends to be the state of the game after its last update that people remember, and the previous bugs and glitches of earlier versions are forgotten or forgiven.
While there is often some ire directed at new installments of a franchise for differing from the old, it is also true that there is something of a recency bias.
Something that is new and interesting can also have a lot of its flaws overlooked. When Scarlet and Violet came out a lot of people professed their love for them and that they were the best games in the series, despite all the problems.
Then, once everyone completed the games and had time to step away and reflect; when it wasn't the hottest new thing, the issues became more apparent and pressing. People's appraisal of the games became a little more considered once removed from the hype of the release window.
I do agree that if we want to analyse media beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that", one needs to try and remove as much bias as they can from their assessments and look at it as objectively as possible. Only then can we identify the qualities that make a good game and the flaws that make a bad one, and seek to use this knowledge to improve future endeavours.
It is still okay to like objectively bad games or hate objectively good ones, of course. I like a lot of the 3D Sonic franchise, for instance, even though I could spend hours listing the problems with it.
The key is to recognise what is just subjective taste, and what is useful critique.
0
