
One year after its initial announcement, Pokémon Legends: Z-A has finally been showcased properly during the most recent Pokémon Presents, giving us a good look at the upcoming title's gameplay and features. It wasn't quite the deep dive many of us were hoping for, but it was certainly enough to whet our appetites for the 'late 2025' launch window.
We're generally quite pleased with what we saw, all told: the battle system looks neat; Mega Evolutions are back; you can jump between building rooftops, for goodness' sake. Lots of cool stuff. We can't help but feel like it's a bit lacking in the visual department, though ("Shocking", we hear you say). Granted, Pokémon games have never been graphical powerhouses – at least since the move into the 3D realm – but going from Pokémon Legends: Arceus to this is a bit of a blow, to be honest.
Watch on YouTubeSubscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube840k
Legends: Arceus, despite being quite rough around the edges (as we've almost come to expect from Pokémon games these days), had a wonderful painterly quality that hadn't been seen before in the series. Judging from this new trailer for Legends: Z-A, it's likely we won't see it again, either. It was beautiful, though; the clouds in the sky, the gorgeous, vibrant colours, the unique flora dotted around the environment.
Z-A, on the other hand, kind of just looks like a slightly more polished version of Scarlet and Violet. Looking at the setting for both games, it's easy to ascertain why one might look a bit more appealing than the other. Arceus was able to take full advantage of its rural environments, presenting us with vast landscapes that, while certainly not as pretty as, say, Breath of the Wild, nevertheless invited a sense of wonder boosted by its colourful art style.

With Z-A being set almost entirely within Lumiose City, the trailer showcased environments that, frankly, look dull. The buildings are extremely simple-looking and largely resemble one another, the terrain beneath them is lacking a sense of verticality that Arceus benefitted from, and the grey, concrete roads and pathways really highlight just how low-quality some of the textures are. It also suffers somewhat from bizarre, static NPCs, a problem that's plagued Pokémon in recent years, but one that Arceus largely managed to avoid thanks to its more open, rural setting.
There's no denying that Z-A looks a lot smoother and cleaner than Arceus in some respects; Game Freak has clearly gotten slightly more proficient in developing games for the Switch, and this particularly shows in the human and Pokémon models. They look nice! But we just can't shake the feeling that the game is missing something; a unique sense of style that Arceus, despite its many technical shortcomings, boasted with its visuals.
It's still early days, and this is merely the first of what will no doubt be many pre-release trailers, so we're going to maintain our current feeling of cautious optimism for the time being. Legends: Arceus was a genuinely great game, and we're hopeful that lightning will strike twice with Z-A.
What do you make of your first look at Pokémon Legends: Z-A? Do you think it looks better than Legends: Arceus, or a bit worse? Share your thoughts and feelings with a comment down below.





Comments 93
So SwSh but worse > better than SV but better?
As much as I would've taken another game set in (relatively) old Japan considering my preferences I'd say going for a completely different setting will help Z-A stand out compared to Arceus - in addition, based on what we've seen it looks great to me in particular in the sense that you can really feel that it's Lumiose City and so Paris, parkour included!
Graphics this, graphics that
The gameplay looks super fun to me and exactly what people have been asking for. I really feel like it might become one of my favourite Pokemon games.
I was hoping for a more vintage aesthetic. Like steampunk Lumiose that slowly get upgrade and made modern.
Not an already modern city made even more hi tech.
A bit disappointed there.
Yeah I’m not really a fan of the style, I was hoping for a more unique take since Arceus had its own.
I haven’t beaten a Pokemon game on Switch, and I don’t think this’ll be one either.
These days I don't expect much from TPC. They always take the safe bet rather than risking a little to try to innovate the series. I'm sure this will be fun but not expecting a huge leap from what we usually get
I'd say the way a lot of the buildings look is pretty distinct, though I'm not sure whether it's an artistic choice or just a concession Game Freak had to make to get an open urban area running on Switch. All the giant boxes with painted-on windows look very faithful to the originals on 3DS. Environments aside, I actually really like the way pokemon and characters look in this and Scarlet/Violet. It's pretty clear that's where most of the artistic effort is going lately.
@FlyingDunsparce Arceus was a muddy, pixelated mess. Can't believe they released it in that state, honestly. However, it's the most fun I've ever had playing a Pokemon game in spite of that. If they can retain the gameplay loop in ZA, I think it will be a success.
I've enjoyed Arceus and Scarlet/Violet for what they are, so when I saw this I got pretty hyped ngl. Even if it means Z-A got the same style as the latter it doesn't really mean anything in the long run tbh. The new battle system looks pretty fun too and more dynamic compared to the rock-paper-scissor style battles in Arceus.
I'm not giving GF a pass for not upping their game much from a technical perspective but we also need to understand that this is still being developed on the OG Switch. You might compare it to the likes of Xenoblade X that's also on Switch but not all studios are the same and has the same level of proficiency. Pokemon is also a franchise that caters to both kids and adults so if you think about it graphical fidelity isn't really something that's on top of their list (crappy performance like in SV should be though...). A bit naive of me but that's how I see it. Having said that, they still have less than a year to polish things up and and yes I agree they should improve things such as textures and variety. At least they have some initial feedback now. To be honest my only real concern is why they didn't go with Gen VI starters 😆
Since this is still late in the year I'm hoping they'd add some enhancements for Switch 2 though.
The visual style isn’t interesting in the slightest and (so far) lacks variety. Disappointed
Looks quite bland doesn't it?
I don't think the art style of Arceus was much to ride home about, maybe if the textures were a higher rez. I think the look of this game does a better job matching the tone they're going for. We haven't seen nearly enough of the game to start arguing about art styles anyway
I mean the gameplay looks cool but the site looks dull and empty. Wonder how they benefitted from an extra year of development
What I really wanted from ZA was to wash the taste of **** from my mouth after ScarVi, not remind me of it from the vapid look of architecture reminiscent of a freshman college student's game development class project circa 2005 to the soulless art style. Arceus may not have been remotely technically competent but it at least had vibe and style with the watercolor aesthetic and mysterious setting. I'm still excited to see more but if this trailer did anything it was to remind me that if GameFreak does anything right anymore it's by mistake and to not expect a pattern of it.
It's very ugly and bland. Pretty sad. Arceus was technicallywise very lacking, but its art was good enough to save it visually (most of the time anyway).
This is mobile free to play run of the mill mediocrity
I don’t understand why people care so much about graphics. All I care about is if the game is fun and if yes, then that’s all that matters
Legends Arceus was beautiful in places but incredibly ugly in others, and I feel like this may well be similar. Also a shame that the art isn’t more stylised. I think Legends Arceus was trying to evoke old Japanese art, so a Skyward Sword style impressionist look would have gone a long way for a game set in Paris.
@8bitKirby I think you understand. I think some people pretend to not understand, which is silly.
The gameplay doesn't really excite me, but I do think today's presentation was holding back. And for those like me who weren't interested, just go play Xenoblade.
@8bitKirby The success of Pokemon flies in the face of the idea every game needs to be a graphical showpiece that demonstrates the raw power of the system. So it angers people when Gamefreak don't waste their time intricately designing every building you run past and will forget about lol in favour of a simpler visual style.
Even on the Gameboy Pokemon was behind the curve visually. It's hard to believe it's been 30 years of Pokemon and people still don't get its not remotely meant to be a graphical spectacle, or that it not looking as good as the best looking games on its system is something new.
I think it looks good.
I like it. The combat system looks really good.
Isn't that a great thing in a game where 50% of what you do is battle ?
Same for character design and the general vibe of the city. I feel like it's going to be a really cozy game
I completely agree with this article. Going to the past and having such big open areas made Arceus feel magical.
I thought it was pretty 😔
@Lxlxrxzx They benefited from an extra year by having more technical polish (I hope) and it seems to me like it's slightly better looking graphically than Scarlet/Violet.
While Arceus wasn't a technical powerhouse, it did have really good art direction, taking inspiration from classic Japanese painting. I kind of wish they had done something similar here (maybe try to look impressionist?).
@8bitKirby high quality graphics and art direction are not the same thing.
I want the sprites back...give me the sprites back.
@Dr_Lugae I 100% agree but people just enjoy being on the hate bandwagon way too much to be honest about things.
What lol Arceus also looked like butt
The game was so muddy I couldn't tell when I left the swamp.
Still enjoyed it, though (and I'll say this every time: in spite of its God awful story and horrible battle changes).
They have managed to make every single game after Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee look progressively worse, they truly have a talent.
How can they not just do decent graphics, still? Remember GTA V came out on PS3, there really is no excuse!
Looks like a step from Arceus to me whilst keeping the same art design and character model types.
What’s makes this feel different is the flip from an Ancient Rural Landscape to a Large Urban city set in the present, so tonally it should feel different.
I can appreciate what they were trying to go for with Arceus and its style, but it is by far one of the most visually unappealing Pokemon titles they’ve ever developed, muddy, dull, empty, visual clippings everywhere and N64 fog aplenty. For all its issues even Sc/Vi was a substantial step up.
Z-A at the very least seems to visually hold its own a little bit more and has substantial improvements. But it’s no peak of the system like BOTW or the Xenoblade games achieve.
Definitely a downgrade in art style over Arceus; I hoped the Legends games would either carry on with that style or they’d each have their own unique look. This looks just like S/V…not terrible but it’s pretty bland.
As much as I like the whole “anime style” Pokemon battles, I really don’t like how this looks almost exactly like SV. Maybe it’ll look better on Switch 2, but people thinking this game looks good as it was presented are coping. Also, the wild areas seem so random and restrictive
I really disagree with the sentiment that this game looks "worse" than SV. Like sure it doesn't look AMAZING graphics wise, but this seems to polish at least some of the rough edges of SV's texture quality. Granted that's not saying a lot, they'd have to actively be trying to make a game look worse than SV if it did.
For a big city, it’s sure lacking a big population roaming about.
They're still using the same 3DS-era engine, that is apparent not in the visual quality, but how the world works in general. Similar animations, simlar movement mechanics, similar interactivity... I really hope they finally rework the engine for the next generation to allow for more movement freedom, in fact, that was what made Legends Arceus different from the other games, it's like the engine there was different in more respects.
Still, I won't lose hope in this game's cross-gen potential for the franchise. Not even 4K resolution could hide the fact these buildings are basically textured boxes, the development team must play the Insomniac Spider Man games ASAP
You have only seen a trailer or two., To make an entire opinion piece, about how it lacks what one has is a bit premature and disingenuous. Ya let’s crap all over the game a year before it’s released.
It looks like someone dropped a Pokemon prototype into a Microsoft Flight Simulator '98 map. If that's how they choose to present themselves then it's no different than someone who never bathes or brushes their teeth coming up to my door in a soiled robe and asking me to hear their sales pitch. They might be selling something valuable, but, no thanks.
I really don't at all like old timey Japan as a locale, it just feels overdone and dull to me, and anything has to be better than PLA's battle system.
@AdolBannings-Laylee I'm sorry, did they show us what the game looks like or no? Have we seen what they released with ScarVi or no? Where's your optimism coming from? We got a trailer, we're judging the trailer, welcome to the internet.
I will probably pass on this one. I actually really enjoyed Pokemon Legends: Arceus but the setting in this one isn't super interesting to me. I never liked Lumiose City in the first place. I also enjoyed the more primitive time period in the first game as well.
Looks like countless mobile game slop graphics.
@SpaceboyScreams for one I don’t play pokemon but I also don’t crap on games with months of development left. No wonder the gaming industry is in the shape it’s in. No matter what game or genre it sucks. Every major release, Avowed is not Skyrim it sucks. Dragon age is “woke” it sucks, AC shadows, it’s Ubisoft and the world has a bandwagon hate boner for them so it sucks. Monster hunter wilds has more streamlined mechanics then hunter 2 so it sucks. The Internet wrestling community is more positive than the gaming one and that says a lot. Because that’s one of the most negative cesspools on earth you can go.
Modern day Paris doesn’t do much to invoke the theme and title of ‘Legends’ too.
It looks like they recognized Arceus struck a chord with fans and they thought oh let’s pump more resources into this. It’s undeniably lost a lot of charm and the cozy GameCube vibes of the original.
On the plus side it made me want to give Arceus a try.
There is a "Does not represent actual gameplay experience" disclaimer at the bottom in the trailer in the eShop.
The trailer doesn't appear to include obvious CG, and it all appears to be in-engine graphics.
To me, this doesn't bode too well for this new game having good performance, especially since their last game Scarlet/Violet was noted for performance issues that still exist today. Stuttering, pop-in, and more issues still not resolved.
It's not like people can just buy Pokemon games on PC for better performance, so it's important that exclusive titles run well on their exclusive consoles.
If they want the next Pokemon game to sell well, they would do well to make fans feel confident the performance will be much better than Scarlet/Violet.
It has to be open world for it to work. Having a small number of catching areas and a few gimmicks to change battles just won't cut it.
Looks like they have gone with the same visual style as Violet / Scarlet but toned down the textures so it doesn't look choppy.
The graphics don't really sell a game to me, it's the game play. They have taken extra time on this one but looks like all that time has been spent trying to get it to work technically instead of putting together something that might be fun to play.
Still early days though. If there is an open world they are just not showing off then this is clearly the better game.
Looks okay. The wild areas seem real tacked on though. I don’t think it’s very wild for these Pokemon to be living on sidewalks and streets.
I think it looks leagues better than both Legends Arceus and Scarlet / Violet personally.
I agree, honestly. Arceus looked so unique and this kinda just looks like Lumiose City and its inhabitants with some minor tweaks. Still very much looking forward to the game though
It looks so similar to SV that it exposures these legends games as being half measures where they make them to do things that they’re unwilling to do for the main ones, a different art style goes a long way into selling it as its own thing.
What's with all the comments about graphics? This article isn't about the graphics, it's about this new Legends spin off looking so bland.
Arceus has a unique setting, unique art style, new gameplay, an unprecedented scope for the series - everything about it was bold and exciting. This looks like... just more Pokemon content. What happened to the striking black and neon blue cyber aesthetic from the teaser trailer, for instance?
@Novamii Yeah I've seen some of the ending, probably one of the best Pokemon endings (love the credits song as well). For sure my favorite part of the game I've seen (aside from Geodude). Some of the glitches actually seem kinda fun to do, those things would be the biggest reasons for me to play the game!
I'm getting XY and SwSh vibes. Definitely not SV vibes.
@Buizel I agree. I also think the battle system is close to what people have been asking for for years now.
As long as it runs well and does not launch like their last trashfire game then I will be happy. I am a huge fan Of Arceus. I get tired of the same old formula so something different is nice.
Looks nice, at least when comparing it to the dumpsterfire that Arceus was.
If it's more like Scarlet/Violet(best Pokémon experience I've had since Omega Ruby), I'll be very happy.
i'd say that there are lot of archeus graphics style there....
@FlyingDunsparce well, with a n64 graphic game they could sell it at n64 game price nowdays.
For me, I just can't imagine a Pokemon game being based entirely in a city would be fun. Sure there are the "wild zones" but that just sounds so weird. There's, small parks and abandoned streets for Pokemon? In the city? What?
I'm thinking/hoping it actually looks a whole lot more futuristic at parts. The fact that it already looks this nice, and that they aren't dropping it until the end of the year really speaks volumes about how much time they are spending on this game. I'm genuinely really excited, and will probably be preordering this game.
Sure, a unique style would be nice, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are spending even more time on gen 10, a game I expect to be quite different
It still baffles me how people act like Scarlet and Violet weren't many steps in the right direction, specially compared to the previous entry. Sure, they did have problems that shouldn't have in terms of performance and room to improve but still had a good open world, better pokemon animations, actual dynamic battle backgrounds that changed with the location, engaging gameplay and a great story. That hate should have been directed to Sword and Shield, which not only ran poorly despite of being way smaller, they were also the games with the worst animations, annoying characters, linear places to explore, mediocre story and ridiculously easy.
This game looks very promising and I think that at this point it's more of a tendency to hate on Pokemon games and other popular things. People don't even know why they are whining about so much anymore they just can't stop and seem to find more entertainment in hating and being aggressive.
As a fan of the pokemon games since Red and Blue, Scarlet/Violet have been the most fun I had since Silver/Gold/Crystal. All they need is more significant places to explore like factories, towers, etc. And no, open door houses in towns really didn't add much as people suggest online. They were almost the same, had an individual or two saying something with little to no relevance and the occasional item to get.
Real-ish! Time! Combat! About! Time! Whatever generation we're on, it's that many minus one too late.
@kalosn are you saying that the engine for Z-A is different than what they used for Arceus?
Yeah the city environment isn't exactly playing to Game Freak's advantages. It's weird seeing some wild areas in the city just being normal city streets. Like I hope your favorite asian buffet isn't located where the city decided to dump the lions lol.
@roy130390 What's baffling about it? I really wanted an open world Pokémon game, but the one in S/V is really poorly done. The objectives on the map are placed haphazardly and don't scale with your progress, leading to many challenges being entirely moot because the actual intended route based off the levels is unintuitive.
The world itself isn't just ugly and glitchy, it's also dead. There's nothing to interact with outside of the Pokémon strewn about seemingly at random, it was extremely disappointing to see.
I haven't played sw/sh so I can't fully say on whether or not it's an improvement over that, but from what I've seen it's not a high bar to clear.
@Kingy These games are 90% interacting with Pokemon, so saying that there's nothing else to interact with it is, as I said, baffling to me as I don't see what else would one need to interact with in that world. It isn't also the only way you interact as traversing through it is actually enjoyable. Climbing and gliding was very fun for the entire playthrough. I didn't miss pushing boulders like in previous entries and I certainly prefer just grabbing items than doing mining or some tedious mechanic that other open world games have. I don't know what you wanted for a more engaging world.I suppose that some well done puzzles here and there could be fun.
As for progresion, I agree that it should offer a scaling option, but it also works this way. I didn't follow the "intended" route on purpose but it was pretty clear for me and the game worked as any other open world: freedom might get you to areas with more or less difficulty depending on what you've done. That's part of the magic of many open worlds that also don't have any kind of scaling mechanic and that I don't see people hating on them. Again, I like the idea but in no way it makes it a bad game.
In no way I perceived a dead game because the pokemon was all it needed to feel alive. Watching some sleep, swim, fly, travel in groups and other things made it more alive and engaging than many open worlds. Cities) towns and people have room for improvement as they are bland with just a few moving and it's certainly a key point to make much better games, but in this entry the amount of time that I stayed in those places made me not mind that problem too much.
They are flawed, but very fun games and good entries that gave an open world, which was a feature that many were asking for.
I was watching this trailer to show my 17 yo daughter, and the 15 yo walked by and thought we were seeing confirmation that 3DS/DS games were coming to NSO. Because it looks so terrible.
@Yodalovesu A big part of video games is that "video" part. And aesthetic is a big part of graphics, so I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.
@Gryffin Possibly, or at least in some sense. There's kind of a difference in how characters move, and the speed of their movements compared to PLA. This game in comparison seems to be using a derivative of the Scarlet and Violet engine. I think both have the same basis, but the PLA team modified it slightly to give the player more interactivity with its surroundings.
Maybe I haven't seen enough gameplay or hands-on with it, maybe it will feel closer to PLA since most of its mechanics will return, but at this point, I wonder when the animations will become more immersive..
@roy130390 If a world being open is all you need to be engaged then that's great for you, but most people expect a higher degree of interactivity or at least things to do from their open world RPGs. S/V doesn't offer much of anything outside of its scripted content. There's no secrets or special events, no dungeons, all four legendary pokemon are relegated to a set of colored switches throughout the region, how creative. Towns and cities contain no optional content, brother the houses don't even have interiors.
The Pokemon strewn about don't have any unique interactions, they don't react to other species of Pokemon, their habitats give no indication that any said species actually lives there outside of super rare situations. It's the same awkward implantation that the other 'free roam' pokemon games have where they just pop in and meander around. It's absolutely a dead world.
You said in your original comment:
"That hate should have been directed to Sword and Shield, which not only ran poorly despite of being way smaller, they were also the games with the worst animations, annoying characters, linear places to explore, mediocre story and ridiculously easy."
I mean S/V is big, but other than that it suffers from all the same issues. It runs significantly worse than Sw/Sh and is riddled with bugs. It does NOT have impressive animations, the way people and pokemon move in the game is just as robotic as the other 3D games. The story and characters are not any less inane than other pokemon games, you're still forced through long dull cutscenes presented through a disjointed narrative that pretends to have a cohesive conclusion. And most important, the game IS ridiculously easy! In fact, thanks to how terribly they handled the map it is the EASIEST pokemon game to date.
So why is Sword and Shield being a cakewalk a problem to you but Scarlet and Violet isn't? Most other open world games do scale difficulty to progress and that's why you don't see people complaining about them like they do S/V. This game is an outlier in that regard. Just like it's an outlier in having a world with no interactivity or interesting things to find/do.
They thought simply having pokemon, the absolute bare minimum for a pokemon game, would be enough. And to their credit, to some people it is enough. But for most others it is not. And that, combined with its terrible performance, is why you see it get as much hate as it has. And probably why you see so much hate for Pokemon in general online. People are not impressed by the same rudimentary mechanics they've been seeing since Red/Blue, even if you graft them onto an open world.
If the next generation is open world (and tbf it should be open world) they have A LOT of improving to do.
Same goes for Mario 2D and Donkey Kong 2D that looks plasticky, starting from the Wii U's New Super Mario onward. Well, looks like Nintendo isn't 100% inspired all the time.
I see a lot of neat ideas in the trailer so the potential is there. But it still looks very rough. I’m worried they’re going to rush it out in an unpolished state, just like their previous releases.
I really hate the S/V “art style” and now it seems to be the default form when bleeding into other games now.
@Kingy You can talk for you but you can't tell me what "most people expect" without assuming. As for "special events", there's outbreaks and tera battles. For "secrets" you have legendaries and hiddden Pokemon that evolve through different methods. You criticize that the legendaries aren't hidden in a "creative" way but then again, other open worlds rarely suprise me so I could say that about several. You also suggest "unique interactions" on a game with 400 monsters in the base game and to practically see a living ecosystem to feel like that's their habitat when I don't see many other open world games accomplishing that. Only one I can think of is Monster Hunter Rise and just kinda. Much less in a console that couldn't handle a world with such detail or that it would need to make the game in a much smaller scale. Again, even when games on bigger consoles I rarely ever see something that resembles an actual living world and they simply don't need to include such an amount of creatures withour people whining if they don't.
I can apply all this that you mentioned to other beloved open world games that don't get that much hate. I could bet you that if this was a brand new franchise with a 1/4 of the monsters in them and better visuals and performance it would have been much more well received. No need for more of the interaction, habitats or secrets that you mentioned, just that. Hell, it's practically what a lot of similar games delivered and people were much more positive with those because expectations are nowhere as high as what's expected from a game from such a popular franchise.
You said yourself that you didn't play Sword/Shield. How do they run significantly worse? those games stop time when you climb ladders. Yes, as in characters freezing doing their animation. The models disappear from even shorter distances. The movement animations are so much worse for many Pokemon. The frames drop on the semi open areas that don't reach this scale. How is Scarlet/Violet so much worse and how can you assure that on games that you yourself mentioned that you didn't play? How are these the easiest games? According to what metric? Difficulty is subjective, but I'd bet that Sw/Sh, X/Y and maybe even Sun/Moon are easier than these, specially if you count the DLCs. In general, Pokemon games are easy and that's intended as they are meant to be as accesible as possible, but at least this one allows you to find areas with Pokemon with higher levels and has Area Zero and Tera Raids, which by the way are among the hardest content to date in the franchise. In a lot of them, people had to do specific builds with certain Pokemon to accomplish them. Even if we just counted story battles I'd give that title to X and Y. About story not being "cohesive" I don't know what to tell you, it's your preference but I don't see how. It handled all the different stories well for me and I can see that a lot of people enjoyed them and consider this among the entries with a good story and characters.
As for the hate that it receives, negativity has always been more noisy. I do agree that they have a lot of improvement to do, but a lot of people aren't giving them credit in what they did right. Their "bare minimum" is including 400+ creatures and no, for me they didn't just do that. They also delivered a good story and engaging gameplay/exploration, not just rpg options to pretty much fast travel as in previous entries.
@Kingy Sorry for replying 2 times, but the comment reached it's limit. Just to conclude what I was saying, don't get me wrong, there's stuff to improve as I mentioned. As you said, dungeons would be nice. Those are the ones I meant when I said that they lacked important places to explore on my first comment. They are pretty much the equivalent in the franchise even if they aren't called dungeons. Events as in finding people and little sub stories throughout the world that you could miss without exploring would also be great for more variety. I have my complaints and expectations too, I simply disagree in the hate was deserved. For me it was blown out of proportion because people didn't criticize previous releases enough so they expected too much change and improvement on just one entry. They definitely need to do something to improve the development process though, because whether they like it or not this is their most important franchise from a commercial standpoint and expectations will always be high. They haven't delivered their "BOTW" or "Mario Odyssey" and they kinda need to after letting the franchise get stale for so long. Personally I think that S/V are a solid foundation for that.
This art style looks generic and souless.
@roy130390
It is an assumption, but it's based off openly available consensus. S/V is the lowest rated mainline Pokémon game on metacritic, an aggregate review site. It's the lowest for critic and user scores at 72 and 36 respectively. It's the most hated Pokémon game to date and therefore fair to assume that out of the audience who played it, more people left this entry dissatisfied than with other entries.
This is fair, I did forget about these. However, unless I was forgetting anything else, we've mentioned everything the base game has to offer. Outbreaks are a feature we've consistently had since gen 2, and tera battles are spin on gigantimax raids, which are credited to sw/sh. Not to say that old features aren't welcome in the game, they certainly are (though I thought the tera battles were terribly balanced in one direction or the other), I just don't find those features alone to be particularly impressive or at the very least satisfactory to make up all the extra content in the entire open world.
These are just plain ass. I'm not against having one of these Pokémon unlocked through finding stakes, it's a fine scavenger hunt. But all four is just ridiculously uninspired. You're telling me they couldn't add an optional dungeon or side quest or anything else to make catching these a more unique experience? Something they've been doing since the very first game.
Yes, if they're able to code behaviors into how wild Pokémon react to you, they can add behaviors to how they react to other wild Pokémon. A Pokémon doesn't need 400 unique interactions, they only need interactions and animations relevant to the creature sets available in the areas they're found in. Same with an ecosystem. You're telling me they can't design a pair of trees that contain large spider webs to signify a spider Pokémon lives there? Well, s/v can't make a forest at all because the only one in the game causes it to chug, but Tagtree Thicket actually does this with Grafaiai roaming around painted trees. It was one of my more positive reactions despite the performance. But as far as I remember that was the only unique habitat in the entire game.
Make nests for bird Pokémon, hives for Beedrills and Combees, dams for Bidoofs (they did this in Legends Arceus), algae pools for water/grass/poison type Pokémon, make a Lotad hiding among a bunch of lily pads, tree hollows for a whole bunch of smaller Pokémon. These are really simple and intuitive environmental details that is honestly baffling that are not in the game considering the game's primary attraction are these creatures. And yes, I'm aware S/V as we know it now maybe couldn't handle all this considering it barely worked properly as it was. But that's just another reason to axe incompetent devs like Game Freak. This is the biggest media franchise in the world, Pokémon has the resources to create something expansive that runs well on the console its made for. We shouldn't excuse mediocrity for AAA games and Pokémon might be the most inexcusable case of them all.
@roy130390
What are these other open world games that are just as guilty of everything s/v fails to do that people aren't as critical of? You keep mentioning them but haven't given any examples, I can't speak on any of these if I don't know what they are.
Yes, if it was a better game it would be better received, such a brave take. The only reason this game has as much defenders as it does is precisely because it's Pokémon. If it was a new franchise, the world would've forgotten about it already.
And yes, like I mentioned before, my expectations are higher for the billion dollar franchise open world adventure than the indie game inspired by it.
Again, this is the consensus people have come to about S/V. Make no mistake I am not complementing sw/sh, I've seen much of that game's performance issues including the world freezing when you climb a ladder, the game is pathetic.
Scarlet and Violet barely function. I couldn't go five minutes in s/v without encountering some sort of hideous visual bug and the framerate consistently dipping to a crawl. I don't need to play sw/sh to know that everybody says s/v performs worse than it, that's why it's the lowest rated game in the franchise.
Maybe so, but I never compared s/v animations directly to sw/sh, I said they were bad on their own.
S/V is the only Pokémon game that doesn't balance its progression system. Meaning your laymen playthrough is guaranteed to result in your Pokémon being vastly over-leveled for more than half the challenges in the game. Speaking anecdotally, Grusha (LV48) was the 7th challenge I tackled in the game because I picked the right side of the map and moved upwards, beating him meant my team were over-leveled for the remaining 11 challenges and overwhelmingly so for every challenge on the left side of the map. This is not an uncommon complaint for this game, and unless you can name me a Pokémon game that facilitates such a huge level gap through normal gameplay, then yes, there's no way s/v isn't definitively the easiest. This isn't me saying previous Pokémon games are inherently more difficult, I'm saying s/v is the easiest because its progression system is broken and works against its own structure.
If you liked the story that's fine, I'm not really interested in breaking down the narrative, my original point was that it wasn't any more or less impressive than Pokémon games before it, but tbh that wasn't a very fair statement, Pokémon stories have obviously been more detailed since gen 7, which I'd say has the strongest narrative of any mainline game thus far. Meaning S/V would probably make the #2 spot naturally because people really don't like sw/sh story. Fair point.
I don't find the story in general very engaging, and that's due to the structure, but the characters in s/v have stronger writing than most other Pokémon characters before them.
No problem dude, I'm doing it four lmao
I agree with all of this, but my argument was these things should have been implemented in s/v, not a future game. These aren't just features that are in other open world games, these are features that were in previous Pokémon games. If the open world meant they needed to strip out everything else but the core mechanics of the series, then clearly they weren't ready to make an open world game.
I think the switch Pokémon games are criticized very fairly for their shortcomings and lack of innovation. If I had to put it bluntly I'd say critique has finally caught up to the series and the Pokémon name is no longer enough to ensure acclaim. That's a good thing, games like S/V shouldn't be accepted without backlash and given what it is it definitely deserves its reception.
And tbf I did enjoy my time with the game, the core experience of Pokémon games are very satisfying, even when they're riddled with issues, so I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think we should be praising a game with as many concessions as it has just because it adds open world to the formula.
And here's the crazy thing, you're talking about them not delivering their BOTW/Mario Odyssey equivalent yet, I don't even think they've delivered their Ocarina of Time/Mario 64 equivalent yet! They've been so focused on iterating on the same Red/Blue experience that they haven't really innovated the formula much. It's a unique problem of theirs that I don't really know the solution to other than I think the Legends games are the best step in the right direction. And considering there are five, soon to be SIX mainline Pokémon games on the switch, they absolutely have no excuse at this point to be as terribly optimized and mediocre as they are.
@roy130390 Sorry about the whole novel. I wanted to respond to as much as I could and got carried away with my thoughts lol.
I might not be able to respond to as much from here on, I'm gonna be very busy for the weekend, but at the very least I'll give a like to your response just so you know I read it.
Totally agree with all of the above. Even the music was blah. I was expecting an Arceus sequel. They didn’t even keep the battle system. They had a good base with arceus and threw it all out.
Its simply ridiculous that the last major 1st party release on a system (and based on the world's biggest IP) looks not just worse, but significantly, epically worse than the day one 1st party release from 8 years ago (which itself was developed for previous system and ported). Yes I am asking why this latest, final big Pokemon Switch game looks so much worse than Breath of the Wild.
And look, I'm not a graphics junky, but it seems this is suffering not even just in polygon count and performance, but simply in lacking, uninspired art design. Personally - I'd have loved Pokemon to return to beautiful HD pixel art format and ditch the 3D that gamefreak clearly has no taste for.
@Kingy Hey, don't worry, it's a lot of points to cover so I understand lol. In fact I was writing another long reply and noticed that they are getting quite extensive so I'll try to make it more concise. Sorry if I don't go into much detail:
About open world games, I didn't specify which because as I mentioned I felt that most are actually somewhat shallow once you spend enough time in them so you could choose almost any. Take Witcher 3 for example, the creatures are just there existing and react to combat. The open world benefits from better graphics and weather effects as well as other things like dialogue from npcs, but technically they really aren't doing that much and that's probably one of the most detailed ones. Optional content is pretty good in that one though, so they could definitely learn for that.
You may have misunderstood my comment about a game with 1/4 of the roster and no link to the franchise. It's a better in some aspects like performance, but my point was to mention that it also a much smaller scale of creatures and that they lack the features that you mentioned such as secrets or special events and would still have a much more positive reception. It really isn't a better game to me and the open world would be just as this one, but expectations are just much more lower.
About the general consensus, it's hard to say that what's said online represents it. This is just my perspective of course, but I think that when people are happy in general they rarely engage in forums or other sites to vent, not to mention that there's also many others that don't care enough to write about how they feel regardless of their position.
As for your performance experience in these games, it's different from what I had. Definitely found some visual glitches, but not every 5 minutes. Spent whole gaming sessions without them. Frame dips were somewhat frequent though. Same with my brother and my girlfriend but that's just our limited experience and many factors could have affected that aspect. I certainly wouldn't discard your experience as the games clearly weren't as optimized as they should have been.
Last but not least, what you said about the critique finally reaching them is pretty similar to what I'm saying. We simply disagree about it being fair and that's because I think that this entry finally felt like a genuine effort so such a concentrated amount of complaints and negativity felt unbalanced. Aside from that we pretty much agree.
Sorry if I missed any point that you consider important, it's hard to try to give a concise reply lol. I appreciate the educated discussion and I'm glad that at least you enjoyed the core experience. In the end we probably might disagree in some things, but I respect your perspective.
I feel like people always forget GameFreak made games were never a graphical showcase of the systems they were released on, of course there was better looking pokemon games but they were made by a different studio like HAL Laboratory during N64 and for Gamecube to Switch with got Genius Sonority, ILCA and BandaiNamco Studios.
Even Champions is given to The Pokémon Works which is a joint between TPC and ILCA. If they would want a game pushing the system they are on they could always have Monolith Soft to work on it.
@roy130390 Thanks, and likewise. We'll just have to agree to disagree but I enjoyed the discussion nonetheless!
@Axecon The gameplay looks to be the best since Pokémon started. What are you on about?
@jesse_dylan Arceus battle system was not that great, this looks much better.
@Arawn93 Welp, then don't play it. Problem solved? JK you know you're gonna play it anyway.
@HXLXIII That sounds like an opinion. My opinion differs. Arceus had the best battle system in the series. If I wanted some goofy action hybrid, I'd play Kingdom Hearts.
Pokemon hasn't had any style for about 20 years now. This would probably be impressive if it were released during the ps2 days. But in 2025? This is just another rushed game to make money.
@HXLXIII Considering I skipped Scarlet/Violent you are wrong. Are you that mad because someone didn’t like an art style you obviously like? :/
@AdolBannings-Laylee if you aren't interested in the series then don't stop people from trying to improve it. We're not complaining so that they shut down forever and we wouldn't be complaining if we didn't love how much potential the series used to have. "Months left" doesn't mean anything to GameFreak, what you see here is what you're getting.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...