6th Gen Hate For New Generation 6?

[metalhand]

I think his opinion is about how the graphics affects the game play. In R/S/E and FR/LG game play was smooth due to the simple graphics. Although I'm still not too clear about it...

Lets not forget though. Graphics isn't the only part of the game. For people who dislike how the game looks, it may surprise you with it's other qualities. I think the game looks good (enough for me anyway) in my opinion. It's definitely a step up from the past Generations although I must admit I'm going to miss 2D!

By what I saw in the trailers and the demo, the game go pretty well and even better than 4th and 5th gen games.

 

[Altair1]

By what I saw in the trailers and the demo, the game go pretty well and even better than 4th and 5th gen games.

Yeah they sure look that way. But still some people aren't impressed... Not just by the graphics but by a whole lot of things, it's a mixture of opinions but until people actually PLAY the game, that's when they can be sure of their opinion I guess.

 

[Nakala Pri]

DEATH TO THE 6TH GENERATION HATERS! Just kidding, I only hope you realize how awesome it is and how good it will probably be. xD

Well, sylveon bows made of flesh ruins the kawaii desu fairy types.

Nah, they're fine. What else are they supposed to be made off? Intestines? xD

 

[blue]

To me, even though I haven't even played the games from what I can see I have a strong feeling these are going to be my second favourite set of Pokémon games right behind RSE. I understand people are entitled to their own opinions and people may be a little disheartened to the Mega Evolution or Fairy Type introduction, but in my personal opinion there is literally nothing I dislike about Generation VI so far and I think this generation is shaping up to be one of the best.

 

[Spinosaurus]

Wait...WHAT?!?!?!?

You seriously think that having 2D art would be the better route????

Are you...trolling? Or are you high right now?

Anyway, I've been waiting for 3D Pokémon since Generation 3. You are not raining on my parade.

Yes. There are people who prefer this 2D visuals (see: Rayman Origins) over 3D graphics. In fact, you can't go wrong with 2D. Guaranteed 60fps, cleaner, simpler, easier to AA, and no such things as blurry textures or anything. I don't mind 3D at all, but if I had the choice, then I'd go 2D. (Which is what I love about Wario Land: Shake It! and Rayman Origins for bringing back beautiful 2D visuals to platformers this gen and showing that they can still work.) People just think 2D video games are cheap for some reason, when in fact they can cost more to produce.

It was inevitable for Pokemon to go 3D (and it should have been obvious it was going that route since D/P), sure. But why? What does 3D do for Pokemon that 2D can't? Nothing. Top down simple 2D pixel art is perfect for Pokemon, no reason to change that to ugly, dated 3D graphics because...I actually don't know. Why do people WANT 3D? 3D just demands more for less. Trust me, that novelty will wear off really fast and sooner or later you'll miss 2D Pokemon.

I'm agree with you about the graphics, but pokemon never was great when it comes to graphics, I don't know why to start complain now. And I'm not one of those who amazed by the X and Y graphics, but I'm really happy about this because compare to the pokemon games of the past this is a big improvement.

While the visuals themselves bug me, it's actually more regarding the performance that I'm really unsatisfied about. Basically this:

I think his opinion is about how the graphics affects the game play. In R/S/E and FR/LG game play was smooth due to the simple graphics. Although I'm still not too clear about it...

Hands on impressions say the framerate is not only pretty bad but tends to drop occasionally, especially in battles (meaning they're gonna be slower and sluggier than ever). Which really worries me because the sole reason I can't finish the DS games anymore is because of 30fps. (turning off battle scenes didn't help either!) I'm sure it'll improve, but no way am I gonna expect 60fps. :/

It's either buy the game and pretty much expect never, ever finishing it and enjoying it, so it becomes a waste of money, or not buy a Pokemon game that makes changes that I've always wanted to happen. I hope people understand the situation I'm in better now. :/

 

[Captain Gizmo]

This generation seems to be having a lot of love compared to Gen V. The new graphics and 3D models are really appealing to people, and the Pokemon revealed until now are making people wanna buy a 3DS JUST for Pokemon X & Y. But since the Mega Evolution, it was a hit or miss. Some people hated the idea while some really liked it and further enhanced their desire to get the game.

 

[TreeKangaroo]

Woah, some people are getting out of hand. The graphics don't really matter as they're basically the same as AC:NL IMO. And it's the first main series Pokemon game in 3D. And stop acting the that the graphics suck is a fact, it's not, it's an opinion.

 

[hiff8]

@ Spin

I know 2d sprites can be immursive, but the ones in pokemon DIDN'T even move until the newest generation (aside from crystal) and even in the 5th gen they just kinda wobbled around, the moves were still like filters run on the sprites.

 

[Oshamaru]

Welll...I haven't seen anyone act like "MY OpInI0N 1S 1MPORTANT SO Y0U sHOuLD C4RE AbOUt IT". We're just stating opinions. (I don't even think the games will be bad. :I)

I don't think they suck, but there are minor flaws. They ARE great, but the complaint I have is that sometimes, when Pokemon are zoomed in, some lines look...blurred? I don't know how to put my finger on it.

 

[Superfox]

Yes. There are people who prefer this 2D visuals (see: Rayman Origins) over 3D graphics. In fact, you can't go wrong with 2D. Guaranteed 60fps, cleaner, simpler, easier to AA, and no such things as blurry textures or anything. I don't mind 3D at all, but if I had the choice, then I'd go 2D. (Which is what I love about Wario Land: Shake It! and Rayman Origins for bringing back beautiful 2D visuals to platformers this gen and showing that they can still work.) People just think 2D video games are cheap for some reason, when in fact they can cost more to produce.

I don't think 2D is cheap. I just think 3D is better, which it is.

It was inevitable for Pokemon to go 3D (and it should have been obvious it was going that route since D/P), sure. But why? What does 3D do for Pokemon that 2D can't? Nothing. Top down simple 2D pixel art is perfect for Pokemon, no reason to change that to ugly, dated 3D graphics because...I actually don't know. Why do people WANT 3D? 3D just demands more for less. Trust me, that novelty will wear off really fast and sooner or later you'll miss 2D Pokemon.

Uh, besides immersing the player in a sense of reality that wouldn't have been possible in 2D? Pokémon in 2D is fun, but at the end of the day, the game could never imitate a sense of reality that is capable in 3D games. For something to be realistic, the player needs to have the sense that you can reach out and touch it. That is what 3D is all about. It gives the game environment a sense of realism: multidimensional graphics, sweeping cameras, etc.

And trust me: I will probably never miss 2D.

 

[Iceshadow3317]

Ever since Colosseum and XD: Gale of Darkness, I haven't wanted 3D games. So I can't wait for these games.

The normal DS is starting to die out. Little by little the normal DS games fade. It isn't about make us feel it. It is more like moving into the next era of gaming. With in a year or two, you probably will not even see DSi's being sold in Wal-Marts ect.

Why would they make a 3DS game that doesn't use the features of a 3DS? I was honestly getting tired of the 2D.

 

[Jacrad]

My word. It's a little ridiculous that we're arguing over whether or not 3D is better than 2D. Neither one is inherently better than the other and both have their own drawbacks.

2D allows for more stylization. You aren't limited by mathematical undertones of 3D models. There are some art styles that can't be captured in 3D and still work. Take Phineas from Phineas and Ferb for example. The art style of that particular show cannot translate to 3D well because it is too stylized to seamlessly render all the characters from various angles and still maintain the integrity of the art style.

While 2D does allow for more stylization it comes with the drawback of having to have each frame of animation render by a person rather than letting the computer do all the work. While, granted, there are tools that can help speed this process along it can't replace the need for more 'manual' labor.

3D allows for more consistency but takes longer to produce initially. 3D models are great in that you can make a single puppet and you have basically everything you need. The computer can be made to do most of the leg work from there.

While 3D offers more consistency it requires more processing power to render each frame. This makes it easier to experience lag. In addition there are occasionally more issues with rough edges because not enough polygons were used for the model.

As for the 3D in X and Y. I personally prefer it because of how animation has been done since generation III. I don't particularly like how they use filters and one extra frame for the animations rather than manually animating the sprites (like in Crystal.) I think that Pokemon has steadily been headed for 3D for a while. In gen IV we were introduced to a 3D environment with 2D sprites. In Generation V, in particular Black and White 2, we got more dynamic camera angles and the battles moved to a 3D space with 2D sprites. Whether this is a good or bad thing I don't know. I personally prefer full 3D or full 2D rather than a mixture because they don't tend to blend well.

I disagree that Pokemon is 'better' in 2D than it is in 3D. Pokemon's style has always been easy to translate from one to the other. I can see why someone might prefer 2D but I think it's a bit a presumptuous to say it is better.

 

[Spinosaurus]

None of what you any of you said convinces me that going 3D was the right choice. Pokemon was DESIGNED with the limitations of 2D in mind, so it wouldn't make sense to transition to 3D unless there were significant changes to the game design that makes use of the 3D. And there weren't.

X/Y is still entirely top down and the battle are still pretty much the same. What did we gain fro 3D? Animated models, and dynamic camera angles. (Similar to B/W which is actually a feature I HATED because everything looked ugly and jagged up close.) However, what about those that people are so fascinated about they're actually willing to replace better and smoother gameplay for it? I don't understand.

We can talk about the visuals themselves all day as they're entirely opinion based. I think they're ugly, and I'm sure lots of people agree with me (not in this forum for some reason though), and I'm not willing to argue with people who don't mind super jaggies and blurry textures. All power to them.

But in the end, it's still Pokemon. There's nothing extra immersive about X/Y that previous games couldn't do, it's not suddenly realistic (and applying realism to game design for a game that wasn't realistic in the first place is always a terrible and horrible option and nobody should do that), and it doesn't bring anything new to the game design. It's still the same Pokemon, just with more polygons, and less stable frame rate. Now if people wanna choose the former over the latter (even if I'll never, ever understand that), then that's fine, but don't try to convince people who are very dissatisfied about it that it's the right choice.

And just to clarify: I wouldn't mind the 3D graphics at all as long as the frame rate was 60fps. But it's not even 30fps. Hell for some reason having circle shadows didn't help up the frame rate a bit.

I mean hell, why do you think I'm fine with the New Super Mario Bros games? They're also rendered in 3D graphics (and I prefer the sprites) and that didn't change the game design at all, but the games were still very smooth and tight to play, if not more. I'm not getting that with X/Y. It's still too early for 3D for the Pokemon series apparently, even though for some unknown reason the 3DS couldn't play the game in 60fps despite all the blurry textures, bad lighting, low polygon models, lack of anti aliasing and cricle shadows.

Why would they make a 3DS game that doesn't use the features of a 3DS?

Believe it or not 2D games can be played in 3D mode see: Paper Mario, Rayman Origins, Mario and Luigi: Dream Team (well, for the most part), Code of Princess, Epic Mickey, Yoshi's New Island (iirc) and lots of eShop games. And they all look gorgeous in that mode. It's also useful because it actually enables the player to easily tell the distance.

The 3DS's biggest feature isn't the ability to play games in 3D though. The DS could do that, already.

 

[Sceptile14]

None of what you any of you said convinces me that going 3D was the right choice. Pokemon was DESIGNED with the limitations of 2D in mind, so it wouldn't make sense to transition to 3D unless there were significant changes to the game design that makes use of the 3D. And there weren't.

X/Y is still entirely top down and the battle are still pretty much the same. What did we gain fro 3D? Animated models, and the ability to play the game in a different angle. (Similar to B/W which is actually a feature I HATED because everything looked ugly and jagged up close.) However, what about those that people are so fascinated about they're actually willing to replace better and smoother gameplay for it? I don't understand.

We can talk about the visuals themselves all day as they're entirely opinion based. I think they're ugly, and I'm sure lots of people agree with me (not in this forum for some reason though), and I'm not willing to argue with people who don't mind super jaggies and blurry textures. All power to them.

But in the end, it's still Pokemon. There's nothing extra immersive about X/Y that previous games couldn't do, it's not suddenly realistic (and applying realism to game design for a game that wasn't realistic in the first place is always a terrible and horrible option and nobody should do that), and it doesn't bring anything new to the game design. It's still the same Pokemon, just with more polygons, and less stable frame rate. Now if people wanna choose the former over the latter (even if I'll never, ever understand that), then that's fine, but don't try to convince people who are very dissatisfied about it that it's the right choice.

And just to clarify: I wouldn't mind the 3D graphics at all as long as the frame rate was 60fps. But it's not even 30fps. Hell for some reason having circle shadows didn't help up the frame rate a bit.



Believe it or not 2D games can be played in 3D mode see: Paper Mario, Rayman Origins, Mario and Luigi: Dream Team (well, for the most part), Code of Princess, Epic Mickey, Yoshi's New Island (iirc) and lots of eShop games. And they all look gorgeous in that mode. It's also useful because it actually enables the player to easily tell the distance.

The 3DS's biggest feature isn't the ability to play games in 3D though. The DS could do that, already.

I think that whether you like the games graphics or not is down to opinions. You can't change opinions. You either like 3d, or not. I for one love the transition, and think that it is a nice change. Although I know I can't change your opinion on the matter, I do think that you are being slightly unfair on the games. Your reasons for hating it are completely understandable, however, I think that you need to remember that this is their first 3ds game. Look at diamond and pearl, then look at black and white. They didn't get the visuals right(in my opinion) in fourth gen, but with that added experience in making ds games, they made 5th gen an amazing improvement. What i'm trying to say is, you shouldn't really be expecting much from their first experience with this technology. It just seems unfair. Wait for the third installment, or possibly remakes of an old gen before saying that changing the graphics was a horrible move, because I know for a fact that they will develop these factors that you hate, and make them much better. I, like you think there can be improvements, but for a first try, it's pretty impressive. Anyway, graphics don't make a game, so I don't know why this argument is so heated in the first place.

 

[Spinosaurus]

Good god I'm done. You basically said what I said, plus a bit more that's largely irrelevant to me.
Why is it hard to understand that it's not the graphics themselves that I'm really bothered about, it's what it BROUGHT with it. As in, a terrible frame rate (with occasional drops to boot, apparently.), which actually makes the game slower and clunkier. And what does a slow and a clunky game be? A game with terrible pace. And what's a game with terrible pace to me? A game that I'll most likely won't ever finish, thus, would be a waste of money. Pokemon to me has always been about exploring the region and catching Pokemon, immersing myself in the world that is Pokemon's, and having a low framerate REALLY hurts that experience. The battles are largely in effected (actually they become a SLOG rather than a smooth experience.), but Pokemon's battles aren't something I'm exactly fond of.

You guys need to understand frame rate is not and has nothing to do with graphics. It's a completely unrelated thing. However, graphics and hardware pretty much determine the frame rate. Which is what I'm trying to get at. I said it, the visuals themselves bug me, but I'd be willing to excuse that if the games were smooth. And witnessing the game myself and hands on impression say they are NOT. Yes frame rate IS a very important thing for video games, particularly for the people who notice it. In fact, it's actually CRUCIAL for a lot of games, if not most.

I still won't excuse GF's inexperience with technology for this. As a consumer, if they want my money, they need to ensure that they develop a project that plays well, otherwise they won't be getting them. (And they still will, because it's Pokemon and I'm willing to support the devolopers for making a good game in HarmoKnight which everyone should buy, by the way.) I don't want a game that feels sloppy and clunky, I want a game that will provide me with a stable experience. However, let it be known that if X/Y disappoints me the same way B/W did I'll be giving up on Pokemon. In fact, after B/W I was on the verge of giving up but I decided to give it one more chance. Since apparently some posters here care whether I purchase the game or not, they should at least be grateful about that.

If people keep replying to me with "BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE GOOD WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HATER" or "it's an opinion thing" I'll be done with this thread for good. Even after many explanations posters STILL don't get what I'm really bugged about regarding this game. And it looks like they won't ever. So I won't bother anymore.


Though I do have to say your comparison regarding B/W and D/P is sorta funny because I think B/W is one of the ugliest games on the DS whereas D/P wasn't bad. They're both 30fps anyhow so I couldn't care for them anyway.

 

[Sceptile14]

Good god I'm done. You basically said what I said, plus a bit more that's largely irrelevant to me.
Why is it hard to understand that it's not the graphics themselves that I'm really bothered about, it's what it BROUGHT with it. As in, a terrible frame rate (with occasional drops to boot, apparently., which actually makes the game slower and clunkier. And what does a slow and a clunky game be? A game with terrible pace. And what's a game with terrible pace to me? A game that I'll most likely won't ever finish, thus, would be a waste of money. Pokemon to me has always been about exploring the region and catching Pokemon, immersing myself in the world that is Pokemon's, and having a low framerate REALLY hurts that experience. The battles are largely in effected (actually they become a SLOG rather than a smooth experience.), but Pokemon's battles aren't something I'm exactly fond of.

You guys need to understand frame rate is not and has nothing to do with graphics. It's a completely unrelated thing. However, graphics and hardware pretty much determine the frame rate. Which is what I'm trying to get at. I said it, the visuals themselves bug me, but I'd be willing to excuse that if the games were smooth. And witnessing the game myself and hands on impression say they are NOT. Yes frame rate IS a very important thing for video games, particularly for the people who notice it. In fact, it's actually CRUCIAL for a lot of games, if not most.

I still won't excuse GF's inexperience with technology for this. As a consumer, if they want my money, they need to ensure that they develop a project that plays well, otherwise they won't be getting my money. (And they still will, because it's Pokemon and I'm willing to support the devolopers for making a good game in HarmoKnight which everyone should buy, by the way.) I don't want a game that feels sloppy and clunky, I want a game that will provide me with a stable experience.

If people keep replying to me with "BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE GOOD WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HATER" or "it's an opinion thing" I'll be done with this thread for good. Even after many explanations posters STILL don't get what I'm really bugged about regarding this game. And it looks like they won't ever. So I won't bother anymore.


Though I do have to say your comparison regarding B/W and D/P is sorta funny because I think B/W is one of the ugliest games on the DS whereas D/P wasn't bad. They're both 30fps anyhow so I couldn't care for them anyway.

What are you talking about? B/W and B2/W2 pushed the ds hardware to the limit. In terms of framerate, I've always fought that 5th generation games run much smoother. D/P where arguably the slowest. My point is that like d/p x and y are the first games on the system. D/P had EXTREMELY slow battles from what I can remember, however hg and ss, and the rest are all faster. At the moment you're complaining about the frame rate,but the frame rate isn't that bad. ruby/sapphire were just so good in that regard. This however, was only because they didn't push the graphical quality. People complained about it not being 3d like Golden sun.

This game not having the best frame rate actually shows how much effort they are putting into the games visuals. Also what you're saying isn't fact, for all we know the game could be really fast. There could be an option to make the battle animations faster, or even skip them. The way I see it, if you never complained about d/p frame rate, you shouldn't be complaining now.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

On the experience thing. GF has had the Kit for making 3DS games since before BW came out...one would imagine over 2 years will have given them a certain level of familiarity with how to make a 3DS game that looks both good and had a nice frame rate... and this is coming from someone who is more interested in the story and Pokémon than graphics and frame rate. Which btw I get what you mean spin with the slowness. Pt felt slow compared to Emerald when I first got (got used to the slowness though...should try replaying Emerald again to compare with B2W2...).

 

[Sceptile14]

On the experience thing. GF has had the Kit for making 3DS games since before BW came out...one would imagine over 2 years will have given them a certain level of familiarity with how to make a 3DS game that looks both good and had a nice frame rate... and this is coming from someone who is more interested in the story and Pokémon than graphics and frame rate. Which btw I get what you mean spin with the slowness. Pt felt slow compared to Emerald when I first got (got used to the slowness though...should try replaying Emerald again to compare with B2W2...).

I think that 3ds hardware is much more difficult to use (correct me if i'm wrong, I don't know anything about this subjuct, I just assume that this is the case.) Plus, I would have thought that getting it two years before was just to get use to it, and not master it. In other words, just to familiarize them selves with the technology before taking such a massive leap in the franchise.

I think that pt is actually quite fast compared to d/p. Not only were battles faster, but stuff like surfing was to, which made it a better experience in my opinion. Not that frame rate is everything, it just makes it slightly more enjoyable, than it would have been.

 

[MrGriszell]

How did the guy who's complaining alot know about the games frame rate? Did he play it or is he just going by the videos?

 

[Spinosaurus]

What are you talking about? B/W and B2/W2 pushed the ds hardware to the limit. In terms of framerate, I've always fought that 5th generation games run much smoother. D/P where arguably the slowest. My point is that like d/p x and y are the first games on the system. D/P had EXTREMELY slow battles from what I can remember, however hg and ss, and the rest are all faster. At the moment you're complaining about the frame rate,but the frame rate isn't that bad. ruby/sapphire were just so good in that regard. This however, was only because they didn't push the graphical quality. People complained about it not being 3d like Golden sun.

This game not having the best frame rate actually shows how much effort they are putting into the games visuals. Also what you're saying isn't fact, for all we know the game could be really fast. There could be an option to make the battle animations faster, or even skip them. The way I see it, if you never complained about d/p frame rate, you shouldn't be complaining now.

And just like that, with one whole post you basically admitted that you don't know what frame rate per second is.

Educate yourself.

How did the guy who's complaining alot know about the games frame rate? Did he play it or is he just going by the videos?

How about you ask me directly if you want the answer.