Should Pokemon have stayed pixel art?

Misses the pixel art. Would love a new 2D Pokemon game (main game, not spinoff). Views it as a trade-off. Created a grander world in exchange. Executed concepts in Scarlet/Violet that would not be the same in 2D.

Ultimately seems best for the franchise to go 3D. Will not say 2D cannot sell. (See: Octopath Traveler, Undertale, Mario Maker.) Probably dampens sales and the franchise's reach by sticking in 2D, however.

Definitely not. Game Freak made a great decision going 3D. The graphics are better, Pokémon have more life and personality, and it's more realistic. With 3D Pokémon, you have lit battle animations, Pokémon that are able to follow you around and express themselves in different ways compared to other Pokémon, and you can do things such as camp with them. These features would have been horrible if Pokémon remained as 2D pixel art. Pokémon can't stay stuck in the past and outdated forever.

Fine with either honestly

No. If Pokemon had stayed fully pixel art, people would probably complain, "Pokemon refuses to evolve!" But, that doesn't mean I don't think they could have handled the transition to 3D much better. Some Pokemon look so lifeless in 3D, and that still needs to change. I liked the pixel art era, it was great, but moving onto 3D allowed for more expressive facial expressions which could not really be seen in a 32x32 sprite on a screen.

I vastly prefer the 3D style.

Well if they were going to remain 2D they should have kept non-moving sprites like in Gen IV. The animated ones in Gen V were just…ugly. To me they just looked like they weren't in focus during battles (generally less of an issue on summary screens though).

But no, it had to evolve and although everyone who says some Pokémon became lifeless in 3D is absolutely right, 4 generations in to the 3D era we do seem to be getting something really good (have you ever noticed the textures on a Pikachu in SV?). Which I can accept - comparing Gen I sprites to Gen IV is an even greater contrast.

As long as it doesn't compromise the gameplay, I'm fine with either. Certain long time franchises weren't capable of jumping into the 3D, switching perspectives, or modernizing themselves in other ways, without giving up part of their identity in the process.

But that didn't happen with Pokémon. The 3D isn't really an evolution, just a different and more commercial art style, gameplay-wise I don't see anything from the old games being missing (and if certain things were lost it was for other reasons that had nothing to do with the 3D). Dragon Quest XI is the perfect example of how it's possible to have mostly the same game in pixel art than in full 3D. It's a good thing for turn-based RPGs that they don't need to sacrifice much (or anything at all) for going full 3D.

The main issue I see with the 3D is that it makes the lack of characters' expressions and personality, and the poorly done battle animations (like when Pokémon spin around), much more evident. When viewing things from an isometric view, or in pixel art battles, this wasn't a big deal at all, so the problem with a 3D environment is that it requires a lot more work to prevent it from feeling lifeless, while pixel art can be actually a lot more static and ironically feel more alive.

Honestly, I love the pixel art a lot. The sprites had a lot of charm to me. But at the same time, back in the day, I would fantasize about how cool Pokémon would be in 3D and would have loved for us to move in that direction.. but now that it's here I miss sprites a lot. Some of the Pokémon looked more lively and a few of the shiny colors were more vivid and bright. 3D is cool too so you can see your favorites in more motion, but man do I miss sprites. I wish we could have an Octopath Traveler-style game at least even if it's just a spin-off.

I like pretty much all the pixel art over all the 3D but I think Lets Go games might be my favorite I think they captured good mix between the toon and the art feel. If they kept a similar style put in alittle more artistic/ water color style shading. PLUS give them more emotion/ personality, like N64 Stadium animations, more movements, expressions etc. But they would need to do this with every Pokemon which would be alot of work lol.

So if they cant go ALL OUT with it, I would rather just have pixels. But if they could really put the time, detail and love into it, I think the 3D would be PEAK👍
Doesnt seem realistic based on Gamefreaks statements tho

3D would be great if they just had better animations or better colors. Either one of these fixes would make it way better.

Personally I've always preferred 2d games, so I'm gonna be a bit biased with what I'd prefer. However, Pokémon being in 3D was a great idea. They just messed it up.

No, absolutely not. I don't want to spend $60 on sprite games. It doesn't matter how "fancy" and "modern" they try to make them, sprites are an antiquated style that only existed because of hardware limitations. Pokemon had to evolve (pun not intended), and I am so glad it did. 3D games are so much more immersive to me than 2D games could ever be, and the 3D Pokemon are fantastic. They have a long way to go with animation, but the 3D models themselves are great.

I know that people are attached to sprites, and maybe I can't fault them for that, even though it makes no sense to me. I always pull up this comparison when discussing this: I can understand it musically - The harpsichord is my favorite keyboard instrument. Yet, it is objectively technically inferior to the piano. I just prefer the timbre of the harpsichord. I try to tell myself these two situations are equatable to help me understand, but I really can't understand. Video games are such a different medium to me in every way. I'm sorry... Perhaps hire some smaller company to work on sprite Pokemon games, charge $30 for them, let them not interfere with the production of the main modern series and that'd be okay, I guess. Mainline Pokemon HAD to evolve, it would have been so disappointing if it didn't.

Harmonie said:

No, absolutely not. I don't want to spend $60 on sprite games. It doesn't matter how "fancy" and "modern" they try to make them, sprites are an antiquated style that only existed because of hardware limitations. Pokemon had to evolve (pun not intended), and I am so glad it did. 3D games are so much more immersive to me than 2D games could ever be, and the 3D Pokemon are fantastic. They have a long way to go with animation, but the 3D models themselves are great.

I know that people are attached to sprites, and maybe I can't fault them for that, even though it makes no sense to me. I always pull up this comparison when discussing this: I can understand it musically - The harpsichord is my favorite keyboard instrument. Yet, it is objectively technically inferior to the piano. I just prefer the timbre of the harpsichord. I try to tell myself these two situations are equatable to help me understand, but I really can't understand. Video games are such a different medium to me in every way. I'm sorry... Perhaps hire some smaller company to work on sprite Pokemon games, charge $30 for them, let them not interfere with the production of the main modern series and that'd be okay, I guess. Mainline Pokemon HAD to evolve, it would have been so disappointing if it didn't.

Click to expand...

To call sprites inherently worse then 3D is a foolish misconception. It is the same as saying a 2D platformer must be better then a 2D one or a TPS must be better then a FPS. Sprites do not limit a game any more then models do, as they are simply another art style to convey your game in. Such as Hand Drawn Animation, Stop-motion, and CGI. All separate things with their own purpose. Technically CGI is a better form of Animation then Stop-motion or Hand Drawn, does that mean you thing they're objectively worse then CGI?

Is Shovel Knight a lesser game for being 2D? Does Cuphead look worse because it's not 3D? NO! Shovel Knight would have to of been a much different game in 3D and Cuphead would be objectively worse looking in 3D. So clearly sprites have uses and I'd argue 2D often looks better then 3D.

To say that sprites are a useless style that has no point anymore just because 3D is more modern is the most pretentious thing I've heard on this forum. You sound like the people who say Fantasy is a worthless genre just because it's not realistic. Like the Oscars calling animated movies only for kids. You sound like the people who insulted Splatoon 3 when it won best shooter just because it's a kids game.

Sprites are not an obsolete style. You're objectively incorrect.

No.

As charming as pixel art is, there's a clear reason they chose 3D over 2D when developing XY; 3D models simply make for a more realistic, immersive, and lived-in environment, which is the direction the franchise is at least trying to move toward. TPC hasn't handled 3D very well (the environments and performance should speak for themselves), but Legends: Arceus has proven that even the cheapest and most plasticine models can feel lively with a few tricks; for example, I really like how Pokémon's eyes actually move around independently instead of being textures, and I actually really like its shading style (pretty much anything is better than SV's). This is a pipe dream at this point, but if new games were allowed more development time I could see 3D looking much better.

I just can't see the new overworld and pixel art meshing well together.