Random: Is Masahiro Sakurai Throwing Shade At Pokémon's Trees?

I highly doubt it

He's not. If he mentioned anything else that looked unfinished it could be applied to Pokémon because its recent games are unpolished in almost every aspect.

Sakurai has more class than that. I watched Sakurai's video last night, and that thought didn't cross my mind even once. This is tabloid-level stuff right here that is only gonna create pointless drama which I hope doesn't get back to him. The dude has to put up with enough stress as it is, last thing he needs is for a supposedly reputable game news site to make Nintendo question the integrity of one of the best developers they've ever worked with who absolutely loves and respects their brands.

1. Trees are very hard to do.
2. Pokemon's trees are 3D, his are 2D. Entirely different art.
3. The Pokemon trees look fine.
4. His trees don't look any better.
5. Your reading into this way too much.

I don't get that from his statement, at all.

I didn't feel like Sakurai was saying anything other than tips for asset design in games. I think this article is reading way too much into something very straightforward.

I think he just used it as a common example. You are barking up the wrong tree

And I thought I overthink stuff this early in the morning before coffee..

Don’t know if Sakurai was throwing shade. But I DO know, he was probably thinking how ***** Pokemon asset artists and art direction was when Sword and Shield came out.

What he is talking about here is very fundamental in graphics.

As far as I'm aware, Sakurai has never spoken about games or aspects of specific games he didn't like; only ever about things he did. More than likely he was making a point about art design in the environment and picked the tree because its the most generic object to use.

This is the type of article I’d expect from Kotaku, not NintendoLife….

@Not_Soos GameFreak are not one of their best devs. There is a reason why Pokemon games are quite behind in the technical aspect (and arguebly other aspects too).

Aside from that you are right tho. This article is just pointless tabloid-level drama.

Idk but man that guy looks like a Reptilian.

No comment on this. Every game has their own type of trees. Moving on.

@larryisaman okay, this reply is genius!!!

NL sees dead horse, well by golly will NL beat dead horse.

Three Houses has some ghastly trees too. I think they’re just a common offender when it comes to skimming on details.

No as trees have been weird since gaming went 3d. I feel like he is talking overall about the industry. Which is the focus of his channel.

He's probably thinking it.

@ThePizzaCheese The trees in SwSh are absolutely not fine. Even the ones in LGPE looked much better. A lot of areas in SwSh are a muddy mess with a lot of the assets looking terrible. There's a reason why Pokémon games always get singled out as looking bad, maybe with the exception of Fire Emblem: Three Houses.

Thats way too farfetch'd

You have got to be joking me. I swear it's as if you think any mention of trees at this point has to be a slight towards GameFreak.

Please stop.

He was not throwing shade at the trees, as he wasn’t even talking about there trees. He has more class then that, and respects other developers, so I think the last thing he would do is passively roast someone’s tress lol.

I don’t think this article cool.

For what's probably the most common visual element in all of video gaming, it's really hard to make decent trees. I struggle with them constantly, to the point where I just gave up on creating environments that needed them as much as possible. I hate drawing trees. Hate, hate, hate...

@TheAbsol Nah, it's fine. It's a game, not an art showcase. I'd rather have a slightly chunky game than have to wait 5 years for every single game. Most developers put way to much time into the art assets.

You could argue it's not worth the price tag though. Games have gotten way too expensive.

@Ultrasmiles BOO!!!!

This is like seeing a sign saying No Spitting and assuming it’s a Harry Styles reference because you’ve spent too much time on Twitter.

Almost every game has trees!

@ThePizzaCheese "Slightly chunky?" I'd rather wait 5 years between releases than to put up with Game Freak has been putting out lately. At least PLA was fun, but everything between it and XY was pretty bad. It's not just the gwafiks. That's only part of the problem, but it does suck that some of their games don't even look passable. I get that graphics aren't that important, but come on. When your trees look worse than the ones in some N64 games, then something needs to change.

Is NLife taking a mile from an inch, again?

@TheAbsol You don't have to play them if you don't want to. But I fail to see the issue with the "gwafiks"(wut?). Lots of games look like that. What exactly are you hoping for? Pokemon games have always had comparatively poor graphics anyway. Just compare Emerald to Golden Sun and you'll see what I mean.

And it's way better then the N64. Mario 64 had sprites for trees. Zelda trees were essentially card board cut outs.

That aside, I feel like you're being pretty disrespectful to Game Freak considering you named yourself after a Pokemon. If you're upset with the quality of their assets I recommend you donate some you've made to them.

Here's the link to Blender for you: https://www.blender.org/
You can also check out their sapling add-on here: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/addons/add_curve/sapling.html

There's also a few guidlines to remember. You're making asserts for an open feild area filled with lots of Pokemon. The models for these Pokemon were only ever intended to have a few of them in memory at a time, so they're very unoptimised for open gameplay. There really isn't anything that can be done about that since they were provided by Creatures Inc. who standardized the Pokemon models. Unfortunately Game Freak didn't have the time to make new ones since the internet through a fit when it found out not all Pokemon will make it in. You just have to use what you already have to put in as many Pokemon as possible. Oh, and keep the framerate in mind too, because, you know, that's the most important part about an RPG, at least according to the internet.

As a result you're going to need to keep the polygon count of you're assets to a minimum. And, the textures should be simple enough so as to not take up too much memory.

Can't wait to see what you come up with!

You okay Ollie? You aren't drunk, or anything like that?

@ThePizzaCheese You seem to think the Switch is some kind of massively limiting hardware. The trees in Breath of the Wild and Skyrim (two titles on Switch with massive, seamless open worlds) do not need to look this low quality to run on the hardware, especially Skyrim which is way older

@ceemster It's not the hardware, it's the optimization. Game Freak simply didn't have the time or resources to make it perform any better.

@ThePizzaCheese Yes which is undoubtedly a problem and not a good one for consumers or the developers, creating a mediocre product. They have access to plenty of funds, Pokemon is the most profitable media franchise in the world after all.

@ceemster It's not a funding issue either. It's the unreasonable exceptions people put on them.

The graphics are actually pretty good, way better the a lot of other Switch games. People just like to find problems. They ask for more and more which makes it very hard to know what to focus on.

This is such a stretch….
Seriously Nintendolife, no more articles like this….it’s rough.

@ThePizzaCheese Xenoblade 2 is a very badly optimized game, rushed harder than any Pokémon game ever released, and it STILL looks better than every mainline Pokémon game on Switch so far, aside from the aggressive dynamic resolution.

I'm not really being disrespectful to Game Freak here. If I want to be disrespectful, then I'll talk about bigger issues, like them lying about the Pokémon models in SwSh. I'm just disappointed that their recent games look bad compared to almost every first party Switch game.

If "framerate" were a concern, then why does PLA run at 30fps with drops when some better looking Switch games run at 60?

To clarify, "gwafiks" was intended to imply that I don't actually think graphics are that hugely important. At the very least, I want games to look visually pleasing. They don't have to blow me away with their visuals.

@TheAbsol Obliviously Xenoblade is better optimized then Pokemon then. I don't remember them lying about the SwSh models, I remember them having to import and debug literally hundreds of characters, attacks, and animation, that all have to interact with each other seamlessly.

And were not talking about PLA, you already said you liked that one. You can't complain about the graphics in one game and then make fun of Game Freak when the next one has better graphics. Obviously the better looking game runs worse, what were you expecting?

Seriously though, the SwSh graphics are fine. I really would like to know what you think is visually pleasing. This is just want video games look like.

Plus you can't say graphics aren't important when this entire discussion started because you said there was something wrong with them. Make up your mind.

@ThePizzaCheese No, that's not really how game development works. The issue with Pokemon titles recently seems to be the result of Game Freak being forced to output content quickly and consistently, leading to cheap feeling products.

Not by players, but by their parent company. Which has ten times more power over what they do than random people like us on the internet.

You have to remember that this is a business and they seem keen on keeping it as the most profitable media franchise in the world. Which doesn't always equal making a very good game, if people keep buying them.

@ceemster No, Game Freak doesn't have a parent company. It's a (relatively small) independent company and can develop Pokemon as it pleases. Obviously they develop in a way to make the most profit, are do cooperate with Nintendo, Creatures, and The Pokemon company, but they have the most say in the development of the franchise and are not "forced" to produce games. If they didn't want to make a game, The Pokemon Company could just contract out to another studio, which that did for the gen 4 remakes and Pokemon Go.

The finished result of their development is mostly based on what they thought fans would enjoy (yes really, Game Freak is that kind of company). They spend most of their time working on those things. The didn't prioritize the graphics because nobody had an issue with them before SwSh.

The really isn't anything wrong with the graphics, people just feel like they are entitled to complain so they look for flaws. They just don't want to enjoy the game. There's lots of games with worse graphics that people love, but because it's Pokemon people look for thing to criticize.

@ThePizzaCheese Xenoblade 2 is one of the must unoptimized games on the Switch. It runs terribly.

Game Freak said in one of their trailers that they "remade every Pokémon from scratch." They didn't.

I do like PLA but it still looks pretty bad.

SwSh looks bad compared to almost every first party Switch game.

Graphics and visuals aren't exactly the same thing. A lot of Nintendo games have objectively bad graphics but still look good. Xenoblade DE's graphics are rough but the game still looks great because effort was put into the art direction. SwSh looks bland on top of many of the assets looking bad. The only first party Nintendo game I can think of with assets as bad as the trees in SwSh is maybe Three Houses.

@TheAbsol How is saying xenoblade 2 is bad an argument for Pokemon having bad graphics?

No, Game Freak didn't lie about remaking the models and animations. They've said in multiple interviews that they needed to remake everything (it was never said in a trailer). That also included needing to make gigantimax forms for every Pokemon. What makes you think they lied about it? A Twitter rumor? Regardless, how is that even an argument that SwSh has bad graphics? You're arguments don't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, graphics and visuals are, for a video game, exactly the same thing. Saying "bad can still be good" is not a logical statement. Xenoblade's graphics are either bad or good, they can't be both. And again, talking about a game that had 10 years of development time and way more staff then Pokemon, is not going to convince some one Pokemon has bad graphics. If you want to talk about Pokemon, then talk about Pokemon.

I never said Pokemon had the best graphics out there, but they're far from terrible. Sure it may not stack up to 1st party games that have way more developers and development time, but it's a lot better then a lot of 3rd party games that people rave about. Singling out Pokemon to dump on just because you happen to feel xenoblade is better doesn't make any sense.

@ThePizzaCheese They literally stated in a trailer that they're "using the resources allocated away from porting every Pokémon to remaking the models of the Pokémon that they are including." I'm paraphrasing, but they literally stated that as a reason for cutting Pokémon in one of their earlier trailers.

Speaking of the number of developers, SwSh had over twice as many developers as Xenoblade 2. Only 40 developers worked on Xenoblade 2 in the two years between it and the release of Xenoblade X. I think you're the missing the points I'm making with the Xenoblade comparison. Monolith Soft did much more with much less and the game still looks better despite still looking very rough. My point is that SwSh looks extremely rough and it somehow looks even more rushed.

@TheAbsol I'm very confused by what you're trying to say.

I don't deny Game Freak remade the models, I just said it wasn't said in a trailer. You're the one who denied it, not me. That's not usually the sort of thing in Pokemon trailers, but if you have a link for it I"d love to see it.

I really don't get the comparison with xenoblade. How can a bad looking game still look good? That's not logical. And still has nothing to do with Pokemon. And wouldn't you expect a rushed game to look rough?

What exactly don't you like about SwSh? What did you want it to look like? If you prefer xenoblade thats fine but don't blame pokemon for not being xenoblade.

@ThePizzaCheese Maybe I'm misremembering about it being in a trailer, but they absolutely did deliberately lie about it. Where the hell were you when the game launched? That completely shook the entire Pokémon community. It was the entire reason why #GameFreakLied blew up on Twitter. Here's a Famitsu interview where Game Freak claimed that they were remodeling every Pokémon included in the game.
https://www.famitsu.com/news/201906/13177936.html

"Even at the time of Pokémon Sun and Moon , it was actually quite a difficult situation (making it possible to bring in all of the Pokémon), but when the hardware changed to Nintendo Switch, the model had to be remade from scratch." -Ohmori

Why do you keep thinking I want Pokémon to be Xenoblade? I don't. I'm using Xenoblade 2 as an example because that was a larger game with a shorter development cycle with half of the amount devs. What part of my point don't you understand? Xenoblade 2 was a much larger game but had much worse constraints than SwSh and it STILL came out looking much better. The only thing SwSh has over it is resolution. My complaint here isn't that SwSh doesn't look like Xenoblade 2. My complaint is that it looks bad and that it should look better. Some areas look alright but other areas look awful. The hardware isn't the problem and can't be used as an excuse when much better looking games exist under the exact same hardware constraints. Xenoblade 2 looks pretty bad because of how rushed it was, but my main point is that it doesn't look that bad. Swsh looks that bad.

@TheAbsol Yes, I'm aware of what Game Freak said. However, I see no reason to believe they lied about it. Just because it trends on Twitter doesn't mean it's true.

I have never played played xenoblade and have no clue what those games look like. I'm sure you're right that they look better the Pokemon. I never said Pokemon was the best looking game on Switch.

My point is that Pokemon still looks pretty good, especially compared to other games people say look good. People only complain about it because it's Pokemon. You keep saying it looks bad but you still haven't given an example or described what you wish it looked like.

It's also not fair for you to dump on Game Freak as if they were simply too lazy to improve the graphics. No one is making excuses about hardware. You have no clue the kind of challenges that go into game development or the particular challenges Game Freak has to deal with. But like I said, if you're unhappy with the visuals then feel free to provide some yourself. You can't insult people for not being able to do things you can't do either right?

@ThePizzaCheese I got a little carried away with my response and I can't think of a way to trim it down in a way where I'm properly conveying my thoughts and feelings on it, so here's a link.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1830YI6_omWAwSVG_PzWkaA785Mtddc78i98439J47X4/edit?usp=drivesdk

@TheAbsol I'm pretty sure posting a link to you're google docs is unsafe, so I've reported your comment for saftey. Apologies if I'm incorrect.

Again,, Game Freak stated themselves that the Pokemon needed to be remade. Remeber, there's way more involved in an assest then just its polygon mesh.

Like I said, I'm not really sure what you were hoping for. This is just the way games look. It has nothing to due with hardware or development time. Its just the nature of the medium. Most games look this way. People just like to pick on whats popular. If this was a indie game with just as much staff no one would complain. Plus development time and the number of staff involved is meaningless because we don't know how much crunch was involved.

The reason why you don't notice this sort of thing in other games is because developers are really good at masking them. They use clever camera angles, large scenery and repedetive assests to avoid pop in. They avoid making lots of long charcters to hide how hard they are to animate. Etc, etc.

The challenge for Game Freak in making a game of this scale wasn't anything with hardware. It was simply because they had never made this kind of game before and didn't know to tricks to it yet. But their inexperience doesn't give you an excuse to insult and pick on them.

@ThePizzaCheese I used a throwaway email for that.

Individual people with zero budgets have ported 3DS models into SwSh. There's a small group of people actively working to port every missing Pokémon to the game.

SwSh looking bad isn't a "medium" or an "art style." Saying that they "deliberately chose" to make it look bad is a bad argument. Sun and Moon upresed on Citra looks better than SwSh. A higher detailed version of that is what I was hoping for. Also, staff count doesn't matter? How? That has everything to do with crunch. Imagine if BotW were made by 50 people instead of 300.

Oh, great. The "indie studio" argument. Indie games don't apply here because Game Freak is a AAA studio with millions of dollars at their disposal. If an indie studio had that much staff and that much of a budget, then they wouldn't be able to be called an indie studio.

They don't use "clever camera angles" at all. Any and all animate models pop out at about 25 feet away. ...Including in towns outside of the wild area with NPCs. These problems are in SwSh not because they're "bad at masking them" but because Game Freak didn't optimize their game. Legends: Arceus was clearly optimized a lot better because you can go much further away from anything before they start popping out. Using tricks to make performance is a good thing, but those repeating assets don't have to look bad for it to work.

They literally made two full console games on the Switch before SwSh. They don't have the excuse of "not being experienced with the hardware." Monolith Soft has that excuse for Xenoblade 2 because they were jumping from the Wii U to the Switch. And the excuse works even better for them because they were moving from x86 to ARM while Game Freak was moving from ARM to ARM. Ironically, that should have given Game Freak an advantage because they had been working on ARM processors for almost 20 years by the time SwSh came out.

Their inexperience with HD consoles(which is somewhat different than HD architecture) isn't why I'm pissed off at them for SwSh. The reason is because they lied about the models and because they promised more for animations than what we got. I wouldn't be this upset if they were a lot more transparent. Oh, and did you know that the Japanese community had no idea about the Dex cut for months? Game Freak literally didn't tell their Japanese audience about the Dex cut.

It's really stupid to come to the conclusion that I'm mad at their inexperience with more powerful hardware after I went on and on about that stuff.

@TheAbsol lol who are you arguing with? You're just making stuff up.

I never said Game Freak made SwSh look bad on purpose. I never said it looked bad at all.

I never said staff sizes wasn't relevant for cunch. I said the fact xenoblade had a smaller staff wasn't a good argument because they might have had more crunch then Game Freak.

Game Freak isn't an AAA studio. And throwing more money at them isn't going to magically make the game look any better. I also think you'd be surprised at what gets called an "indie studio" these days.

I've said from the beginning that Game Freak didn't know how to optimize the game. And yes, using tricks to mask limitations is part of optimizing.

Why do you keeping bring up the "not experienced with the hardware" argument? I have never claimed that they weren't. And FYI, you're comparison isn't very good. The Wii U is a PowerPC gecko based architecture, not x86, which which is RISC like ARM. Furthermore the Wii U has an ARM processor as well. Not to mention the fact that monolith would have gotten a lot of experience moving from Wii U to Switch when working on BOTW. But ultimately the biggest hurdle would be learning the completely new GPU in the Switch, which isn't similar to either the Wii U or the 3DS (and also why, last I checked, no graphical Vita homebrew works on Switch yet). And then there's the fact that not all ARM processors are the same. But, as I said, I don't think the hardware was a challenge for Game Freak.

You've said from the beginning that you thought the game looked bad. All I've been saying is that it looks exactly like the majority of games out there. Sun and Moon didn't look better (have you seen the textures in that game?), they just had simpler game play so you didn't notice.

The point about the models is irrelevant. But as I've pointed out several times, Game Freak didn't lie. They truly did remake every Pokemon. Just because some fans are porting the 3DS ones over doesn't mean Game Freak did. How did you even jump to that conclusion?

And finally, Game Freak not telling Japan about the dex cut is a complete ad hominem attack. You're now just trying to make Game Freak look bad to justify you're attitude toward them.

I'm just going to refer back to my original point. That SwSh don't look that bad, especially compared to other games. Can you at least name another game on Switch with the same game play as Pokemon that you think looks better? So far you've only pointed to Arceus, which doesn't really do much for you're argument tbh.