AndreaF96

@SakuraHaruka
1) I am sure that it wouldn't have been more difficult to add all pokemon to Sw/Sh than every smash character considering the amount of money a Pokemon game surely makes.
2) As others have pointed out he was not harassed. It's just that one fan dared criticize his choices on twitter. He could have easily ignored the fan but he decided to reply so that a swarm of "loyal" fans would have thrown crap at the angry fan. He used his influence to silence criticism.
3) I don't play smash but it is beyond any reasonable doubt that sakurai and Nintendo made an effort to create the "ultimate" Smash. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Game Freak did not make the same effort to create the "ultimate" Pokémon game. They removed half of the Pokémon and charged you more. Then they went on adding some of the pokemon that they removed as paid dlc. This is EA level of c**p in my opinion.

@SakuraHaruka sakurai didn't exclude any character. He made an effort to include every character in ultimate.

@Jamaal121 you are a better journalist than the ones here at nintendolife appartently. And I'm not being sarcastic.

It will be dante probably. Madelyn fronm celeste would be great, even though I don't have smash nor plan on buying it.

@tobsesta99 I don't want to sound rude but insulting people you know nothing about is not very mature nor correct, in my humble opinion. The fan didn't insult anybody.

The fan is right, masuda is wrong. It's that simple.

This should be 40 euro, like crash and spyro...

Anyone that has tries the demo knows how to use the base attack (the one that does not use pps)?

I finished the demo and I played the original red rescue team when I was a child and when I was a little older.
There are some QoL changes like the ability to switch the leader inside the dungeon. You now see the location of every enemy/ally/object/pokemon to help/objective in the minimap and not just what is in your filed of view + the ally.
The game stops just before the skarmory/diglett mission and for the moment I can't go where there used to be Friend Area (on of my favourite things of red rescue team).
Morever, you have more moves fron the start I think. And I couldn't figure out how to do a base attack that does not consume PPs. I remember it was quite important to save PPs for strong enemies.

Do you think they are going to remove the friend areas? Do you think they will add an option to disable some of the helps that have been added to this game?

This is not dexit reversal: even after thia (paid, by the way) there will still be hundreds of pokemon left out from swsh.

Yeah! They could've packed in explorers of the sky too...

@Heavyarms55 me too bro, and I don't even like pokemon go to begin with. Peace.

I know it's not happening but I would love a new kyle hyde game.

@MajorBritten great journalists here at nintendolife

Solatorobo 2 please!!!

He was too busy ruining the games

Wow it turns out the game wasn't worth its price and now people are disappointed. Who could have predicted it?

@johnvboy I didn't say that. It just sounds not professional not to include (one of) the main con of the game in the end bullet point list.

@johnvboy yes, the reviewer chose not to mention the major cons of the game. What a good journalist he is!

@johnvboy so, by the same logic, it shouldn't mention dynamax or wild area right?

You can tell how genuine this review is by the fact that they didn't include the fact that hundreds of pokemon are missing in the list of cons... Great journalists.

@Aeleron0X you seem not to understand that I am not denying what askagamedev says. I just say that it is not my problem. They do not give features I like and that were present in previous games so I am not giving them my money. I vote with my wallet. I am not saying swsh is a bad game, it probably isn't. It just is not as good as sun moon usum were. I am not saying they should have hired more people (even though I think they could have). It's just that the new games doesn't give me what I want. For other people it is. And that is fine.

@Aeleron0X you seem to underestimate both the amount of work that goes into a pokemon game and the profits that games like those have (which is a contraddiction).
It seems like you think that the cost of modeling and animating pokemon is the main cost for the game. It is not. You have to design each new pokemon and their animation (which is different and more time/money consuming than just reimplemebting old ones because of trial and error). You have to design and build each object that appears in your world. Then you have to actually use those objects to build the world, decide where each pokemon and character goes etc. You have to experiment with new mechanics until you get them right. You have to script cutscenes. You have to make dialogues and translate the text in many languages. You have to market the game so that people actually buy it, etc.
Now do you really think that the cost of just redo the animations of old pokemon would have a significant impact on the total cost of the game? Do you really think that it would impact so significantly the profitability of the game so much that it would be not commercially viable anymore? If so, that would implied that gamefreak has been selling pokemon games with little to no profitability for years, which is clearly not the case. Top managers at gamefreak just wanted to cut some costs and have a new marketing weapon for future games (the return of some missing pokemon) so that they could get bonuses and get a new car. That is perfectly fine but don't expect me to pay more for less so that you can get a bonus.

Moreover, money is definitely the only reason behind this decisione and I can prove it with a simple thought experiment: let's suppose that gamefreak had an infinite budget for the games, then they could have just hired one person for each pokemon and do the work in no time. Of course they can't. They can't because of budget constraints. There are no other reasons.

Still, you don't get the point: how and how much the company profits is their problem. I, as a consumer, just care about features. And the new games are missing features that are so important, in my opinion, that the new games are not worth even 40€ (the price of the 3ds games). I will make an example. Let's say that you have always bought a certain model of car in each new iteration and you have always loved it. You find out that a new iteration of said model is going to launch but it will cost 50% more (new pokemon games will cost 50% more than previous ones) and it will be more than 50% slower (new pokemon games will miss more tuan 50% of the pokemon the previous games had) and lack air conditioning (new pokemon games lack megas and zmoves). It will be a technical marvel, anyway and the company used new tech and because of budget reasons they could not make it as fast as the previous model nor include air conditioning. Would you excuse them and buy it anyway or just buy another car instead?

@Aeleron0X you didn't understand my post well. I said they shouldn't do that. I was just proving that they didn't include every pokemon because of budget constraints, which you were denying.
Still you are not getting my point. I know that money can make what I want. They didn't do it. Thus I am not buying it. The consumer shouldn't care bout budget constraints of companies. Consumers should only care about their budget constraints and they should only buy when they think they are getting their money's worth of value. Maybe you think you are getting 60€ worth of value and then you should really buy the game. Be careful: value is different from how much the product costed to the company thay made it. Value is a number that each consumer assigns to a product based on their personal views and expectations. That's the basis of capitalism guys.

@Aeleron0X Yes. Have you? It seems not. "Pokemon has a budget. They have a sales estimate and a revenue estimate, and the budget is based on that." Quoting askagamedev. What I said is right. Still you are not getting my point. When you go and buy a car that lacks features that are important to you and that previous models that costed less had do you refuse to buy the new model or do you excuse the lack of features because the company had budget constraints?

There are potential consumers that can't affoard 60€ games but that is not gamefreak's problem.
Gamefreak can't affoard to include all pokemon in the game because of budget constraints? That is not the consumer's problem.

@Aeleron0X since every pokemon can be modeled and animated separately from each orher you could, in theory, just hire one person for each pokemon and solve the problem in no time. They don't do that (I am not saying they should!) because it would cost too much. Budget is not the only constraint but in this case it is the main reason. Actually they say it is the main reason (between the lines). I don't believe that completely.

Just to reiterate on my point: how they do it is not my problem. I have my expectations and they have not met them. 3ds had 800 pokemon more or less so the switch can have a couple more. What I expect is not impossible. For this reason they are not getting my money this time. It's that simple. They do not owe me anything and I do not owe them anything. They are a company that makes a product. They are selling a product that, in my humble opinion, is inferior to the previous one. For this reason I am not giving them money for it.

@BlackTalon2 everyone likes and dislikes different things and that is fine.

@Aeleron0X you said that they disn't remove it because of budget constraints. Then you went on saying that they dis it because it would have required them to hire more people which would have made the project more expensive. Flawless logic.

Regarding witcher 3: they should have not compromised on resolution that much. Games like lugis mansion 3 and mk8dx put witcher 3 to shame on seitch. They could definitely have done better. They didn't because the costs would have outweight the benefits. And that is normal. What is not normal is people praising the fact that a game barely runs.

@Aeleron0X I've already told you that even if they actually did it because of budget constraints that is not a valid excuse. They decided to save money and so have I. We nintendo fans are just settling with less and less quality lately. Witcher 3 and other laggy or blurry games, and now this. I have decided that I will only buy what meets my standards because I value my money a lot. About pokemon, well, I may buy ring fit adventure or yokay watch 4 if they manage to meet my standards. Or luigi's mansion 3 which seems to be a technical masterpiece that puts a lot of "awesome ports" (and even some first party games) to shame.

@AlexSora89 yeah I know but I just want to take distance from those that care about all this stuff too much and threat people.

@Aeleron0X Even if including all polemon and megas and zmoves did require more money (they could have just cut unnecessary additions) It's the most lucrative brand ever. You are just counting game sales but that is wrong on so many levels. Pokemon is a franchise that is built around games but they are not the greatest money engine of the brand itself. Card game and toys generate a lot more money. You have to factor that into the equation. You can spend more on the games if that means more people will keep loving the franchise and buy other pokemon goodies. I'm not saying they didn't do this calculation. They definetly did and found out that what they make out of the stuff thet removed will outweigh the backlash. And it probably will. Because they know most people will buy the games and other goodies anyway. I'm not. I don't care that they want to make more money from the franchise. It's not like they would have gone down if they kept megas, natdex and zmoves. I am not paying more for less. Never, even if that means abandoning my all time favourite franchise. I have loved Pokémon since I was a kid and still do today. It's just that now that I actually pay games with the money I make I don't want to get less for more. That's it. I am not a settler. They are a company and want to make money and that is perfectly fine. I will do my calculation and from my point of view the game does not give me 60€ worth of value. For some other people it does. I am a consumer, not a fan or a supporter of their company. They make a product for a price and if I think the product is worth it (and I can affoard it) I will buy it. For me the new games are not worth 60€ because of all the removed stuff.

@Shadowmoon522 yeah but as far as I know there used to be a lot of people hating kyoani just because they disliked moe. I actually love sone of kyoany productions...

You shouldn't always be on the side of developers just because you want to have good relationships with them. Damn, you are journalists...

@AlexSora89 One thing is to criticize a brand/product/company. Another thing is to threat people. The second thing is unacceptable. We should remember what happens when people take entertainment too seriously: kyoani fire.

@Aeleron0X It seems pretty obvious to me that gf would tell that they had to cut things. I don't buy it. But let's believe, just for a moment, what gf says. So what? They just decided to do new games the cheap way, even though pokemon is the most lucrative brand ever. Why shouldn't I be as cheap as them and not buy their game?

@FullMetalWesker you know that multiple reasons can stem from the same event right? One thing is to remove sonething, another thing is to lie about it. They are two different reasons.

@Aeleron0X the stuff avout hardware limitations is clearly a lie and I can't see how people do not understand it. If the 3ds could handle 7 whole gen the switch can definitely handle 8. Models and animations can be copy-pasted since they are not hardcoded and if the engine does not understand the old animation format you can just create a program that translates them. It is a lie, and people are buying it. The lies piss me off much more than the removal of stuff per se.

@Aeleron0X What I and many "dexers" dislike about sw/sh, in no particular order.

1)The removal of mega-evolution to make room for a stupid version of them (dynamax/gigamax). I can't really understand why they didn't just add a bunch of new megas. Also, they could have just added dynamax without removing megas.

2)The removal of z-moves: they were cool and it would have been fun to being able to make the dance with the joycons (in docked mode) to activate them.

3) The fact that you can no longer import all your old pokemon (which people are transfering fron gen 3) to the new games, aka the removal of the national dex.

4) the lies that gamefreak told to justify the removal of national dex: they are clearly not using new models and animations. They said that when they created the models for the 3ds they made high resolution models (and downscaled them for the 3ds) so that they wouldn't have needed to redo them for hd consoles. I don't know about you but I don't like being lied to.

4) it is clear to me that they removed natdex from sw/sh so that they could present the return of old pokemon as new cool features in future games. They think people are that stupid.

5) the fact that we are paying 50% more than us/um for a game that will likely have 50% less pokemon or even more. I know, there are cool additions too but at the end of the day the main feature of a pokemon game are the pokemon themselves. I can deal with spinoffs like ranger, dungeon or lets go not having all (or even most of) the pokemon but I expect a mainline pokemon game to have pokemon in it. And I expect it to have each pokemon its predecessor had.

I apologise in advance for all the mistakes you will likely find in my english (I am italian). Also, I am a computer scientist so I know a bit about programming and stuff like that.

@Aeleron0X we are not saying that the people who worked on the game are lazy. They most certainly are not. The people that made the decision at the top are just moneygrabbers

#thankyougamefreak for slowly ruining the franchise so many people love and care about

@KitsuneNight
I don't care about graphic fidelity. I care about eye strain. And a blurry mess does strain my eyes a lot.

Be careful: graphic fidelity and resolution are two different things. You can play zelda wind waker in 4k with an emulator if you want but it does not make it a "graphic fidelity"-friendly game. I don't care about graphic fidelity but I care about resolution because I want to see what's actually on the screen. They should have just downgraded the witcher 3 in other ways without compromising that much on resolution or fps. If it couldn't be done they shouldn't have just done the port.
Moreover, I believe that people that settle for blurry mess ports (and the witcher is certainly not alone there) are actually doing a disservice to the library because they are literally saying "we don't care if it is ported badly, we will buy it anway" and that means that ports will still be low res and low fps. It seems like even nintendo is fine with low res and low fps after the awesome work they did with the 2017 games.

@KitsuneNight the witcher 3 is a blurry mess... It's an insult to consumers. I remember seeing screenshots in the nintendolife review from the phone in portrait mode and they were blurry. They were blurry seen from a phone in portrait mode. How can anybody buy that?

@edgedino I know quite a bit about programming since I am a computer scientist and I can guarantee that programming difficulties have nothing to do with their decision to remove zmoves, megas and national dex. They are really not that hard to code. Even gamefreak didn't talk about that. When they addressed the national dex complaints they said that the reason the sheer number of models and animation they would have needed to redo for all the other pokemon. It is quite infuriating since it seems like they are just reusing 3ds models and animations for old pokemon anyway and they used an even bigger team to create, as usual, stupid minigames. Moreover, there is not an explanation that I know of for the removal of megas and zmoves. Damn they removed megas to introduce something that is similar but not quite the same (dynamax and gigamax). One last thing: It would have been awesome to have been able to actually do the dance to activate the zmoves while playing docked. That would indeed have been a cool addition to the game. That is my opinion, anyway. Oh about the fact that they claim that swsh have had the biggest team for a mainline pokemon game ever: it better be true since they are also charging the biggest sum of money for a mainline Pokémon ever.

@edgedino there is no reason why they couldn't keep national dex, megas and z-moves. They could have just not added stupid minigames that nobody cares for anyway.

@edgedino no megas were awesome and fresh and were meant to stay. They even put them in lets go.

@edgedino z-moves and megas.

@edgedino they used the big team to implement stupid minigames and removed a core feature.

@edgedino people are saying that gamefreak is lazy (or, rather, cheap) because they deleted national pokedex to save some money. They decided to save some money on the biggest franchise of all time. If they are so cheap why shouldn't we be cheap as well and not buy the game?

@Zuljaras The first part of your hypothetical comment does not bother me. Insulting other people just because they like a game (the second part) is wrong in my opinion. And it doesn't seem to be what Anti-Matter has done here. Moreover, who says that just because you don't like a certain game you don't belong to a certain comment section? If you have read the article and are willing to express your opinion then you belong to the comment section. At least, that is how I see it.

I really don't see why a comment that criticises a game someone don't like can bother a person so much.
Have we really reached a point in which we need to be surrounded only by ideas that we agree with because we have lost the ability to simply accept that other people may not agree with us and DARE saying so?

@Zuljaras Nobody should be mocked for their opinions.
@Rpg-lover It's just his point of view and is not inherently contradictory so I don't see it as something "unintelligent" but just as something I don't (always) agree with. There is a difference between the two things.