mr-duster

@MsJubilee They might be for some.

@boxyguy They don't want to "wipe our memory".

@MS7000 I don' think they "wander aimlessly.

@Ultimapunch One never knows. Maybe it will.

I just want to know where exactly Kirby is.

@Yosher I didn't feel that way. I think they've all been excellent. Maybe not perfect, but I don't feel like they've dipped in quality.

@UsurperKing No, it isn't "profit-sucking". It goes without saying that they produce video games and the like because they need money to keep their company afloat and provide for themselves and loved ones, but it's not "sucking".

@Yosher I don't think they've been that bad.

@TheFox I wouldn't call it a "buzzkill".

@UltimateOtaku91 Not necessarily.

At last! Now I don't need emulators!

@Piritiup Thank you.
One can hope. Although there's never been a game that pleased everybody.

@Piritiup Well for me, it IS good quality.

@ketsu112 Ah, yes. More "it's not everything I wanted so Game Freak is still the worst". Yep. Just typical.

@Piritiup No, I'm not. It doesn't look 100% perfect, yes, but it still looks good for the Switch. And we've already had good Pokemon games. You just didn't like how they were developed. All the Pokemon games have had good stories and graphics. As for "challenging", I honestly couldn't care less. If RPGs taught me anything, challenge means tedium and monotony. And the recent Pokemon games have done a really good job eliminating the more tedious elements of gameplay. I'm starting to think you just want everything to be 100% perfect. And again, it doesn't matter if it's a multi-billion dollar company or otherwise.

@Judal27 No, it wasn't. It looks FINE. Trust me when I say it could've look so much worse.

@Piritiup Well, I'm not going to set these unfairly high standards for Game Freak. It doesn't matter if they're one of the richest video games companies out there, or if they're a simple little indie company. I'm not going to expect the absolute best or 100% perfection out of anything, because then I wouldn't enjoy anything at all. It has NOT been crap so far. It looks FINE for what it is.
And I'm not treating the company like an "actual individual".

@Judal27 I wouldn't call the presentation "atrocious". It looks okay for what it is.

@Piritiup The Pokemon games look more cartoony than say The Legend of Zelda because they're supposed to. They're not supposed to be Metal Gear or Fire Emblem levels of realistic. I don't know why you think it could be a bad game, when we haven't even played it yet. It looks fine for the Switch. Does it have its flaws? Yes. Is it perfect? Of course not. But trust me when I say it could look SO much worse.
And I'd gladly take this over Fifa any day.

@Piritiup They aren't "profit-sucking", and they don't "profit off nostalgia". You don't have to buy these games if you don't want to.

@Yomogi Exactly.

@Piritiup No, it doesn't. It looks fine for what it is.
And whether these games are good or bad is a matter of opinion. If people like Pokemon Legends: Arceus, that's fine. Don't judge if it's a good or bad game until AFTER it releases. If people want to spend money on these games, let them. It's their choice, not yours.

@CovidBarbie This is the problem with people since 2019. They always throw fits go into long winded speeches about "Game Freak inept/incompetent/lazy" or "Pokemon needs to be the very best ever because it's the biggest franchise ever", while also calling the people who just want to play these games and don't care about all of this "sheep". All because they aren't getting what they want.

@Yorumi Does it even matter if it's open world or not? This isn't Game Freak "screwing up again". You're just upset about not getting what you want. And it's not a matter of "competence" either.

@SeaFishelle Well, I disagree. I had a good time with the Pokemon games after Black and White. Coming after those games doesn't automatically make later games "suck".
And the Let's Go games weren't made as "cheap whip-ups". They were made for beginners. Of course, that didn't stop veterans from playing them.
The series isn't going to end, whether it grows or not.

@SeaFishelle They aren't.

@moodycat Game Freak is NOT "inept".

I haven't got mine. Although I signed up for the newsletter last freaking month. And the site keeps logging me out.

Sakurai has to be one of the most selfless people I've even known about. Respect, man. Respect.

I know it's a metaphor. I'm just a think it's a silly comparison.
Playing Sword/Shield isn't going to get you sick. But it's okay not to like it.

@Edwirichuu I wouldn't compare these games to "junk food". That's kind of silly in my opinion.

My guess is either Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Conker, or Cinderace.

@Ulysses He's already an Assist Trophy.

@Edwirichuu Well, I thought Sword and Shield were fun games, in spite of their flaws.
And the whole "trees" thing is really getting old.

@Browny I'm sorry you feel that way.

@Browny I didn't "gravely dislike" them. I think they both have their flaws, but I didn't think they were bad games. And they weren't enough to turn me away from the series as a whole.

@Browny One last hurrah? Why? You don't think future games are going to be good?

Hopefully this reduces tedium significantly.

@Nymos I personally thing two years would be much too long. I think it could be a classic no matter the release date. Remember, visuals aren't always everything. We'll just have to wait and see in January.

This thing looks so dang cool.

@SuperCharr Clarify, please?

Not really. What is so wrong with Ninji being a playable character?

It's always a treat when games include lesser-known Pokemon into the roster.

@Hesham I really don't think it's a big deal.

@rockodoodle No, it isn't a "waste".

@locky-mavo What's wrong with Ninji?

@Hero-of-WiiU An enemy that first appeared in Super Mario Bros. 2.

@InkIdols No, Ninji first appeared in Super Mario Bros. 2 as an enemy. It wasn't a playable character in Mario Maker 2.

@Ventilator "Barebone"?

I think this is the first time a Ninji has ever been playable in a Mario game.