stungun

@AlonditeFE "if" a remake or remaster is currently in the works or has already been made, Tanabe absolutely knows well enough not to give a quote for an art book (or any reason) that would confirm its existence before it was officially announced. That's why nothing can be "implied" by his words. Taking any meaning from the quote is simply reading too deeply into words that were likely carefully chosen as to avoid "implying" anything. It just doesn't make sense to treat this quote as a confirmation of anything.

@Olliemar28 Can you elaborate on that? You don't really explain in the article why you think this quote seems to debunk the existence of another remake or remaster, I'm just not sure how you reached that conclusion from the quote.

@VinylCreep I agree with all of what you said, but I think also think it's a bit of paradox to try to reboot the series without imitating Kojima. I think his style is integral to the franchise itself, and it will barely feel like Metal Gear without it. At that point, they should just come up with a new IP; a spiritual successor would always be in the shadow of Metal Gear, but it wouldn't necessarily have the impossible task of living up to those games. Also, Metal Gear Survive is a thing they actually made...

Of course they won't do that, because Konami is a very risk-averse corporation to the point where they destroyed their relationship with their most successful developer.

Port already-existing titles to modern systems and nothing else.

Metal Gear was my favorite franchise growing up. But I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see someone beg Kojima to make a new MGS twitter, for multiple obvious reasons. Kojima himself wanted to stop making MGS multiple times. Some fans just want the person behind the art to keep making the same thing, even if they don't want to. Metal Gear has had a long, successful run. It's a shame that The Phantom Pain is literally unfinished, and the timeline is so long and complex that there will always be room for 'more'. But Konami doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt until we actually see how good these Snake Eater/Silent Hill remakes actually are. Even if they end up being good, I'm not interested in new entries.

What happened between Kojima and Konami sucks, but we got Death Stranding because of it, and I'd much rather play weird new Kojima franchises than Konami games trying to milk his creations and imitate his style.

This is a horrible take. You're only considering the immediate aftermath of the new console's release, and I think you're underestimating how many people trade in their old consoles. Even if I don't trade in my Switch, it's still a launch-edition console whose battery life has declined over the years. So yeah, I'd prefer to keep playing those games when I get new hardware, and I'm not going to buy another Switch just for that purpose.

Beyond that, you're not considering catalog access five or ten years down the road. We can see that now with the PS3; try to track down some console exclusives on eBay, as well as working console, and tell me the PS4 didn't need backwards compatibility. That's where we'll be once the Switch goes out of production.

It's such an absurd, near-sighted argument. We don't NEED a Switch successor at all, since we're making arguments just for the sake of being contrarian.

@Bobb Trust me, I really wanted to enjoy it and I've tried going back to it multiple times to give it another chance and it's difficult. I got Pokemon Blue when it came out when I was like 7. Gameplay-wise SV seemed to have everything I wanted in a dream Pokemon game as a kid. It's just disappointing because Legends: Arceus felt like such a step forward for in terms of immersion and the performance and visuals were fine.

I think a lot of people tend to be hyperbolic when they have negative feelings for a game and it can be hard to distinguish between people who just want to hate on something or had unrealistic expectations versus those who have reasonable criticisms. It's great if people are able to overlook the issues and enjoy it. But I would have preferred a world separated by zones like Legends: Arceus if it meant stable performance and visuals.

@Bobb It's really great that a lot of people don't have issues with the visuals or performance. I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong for still being able to enjoy the game. But I think you're understating the issues a lot of us have with it.

I agree that graphics aren't everything. I think visual art style is more important than graphical fidelity. Legends: Arceus wasn't even close to being the "best-looking" game on Switch, but I still thought it looked great. But SV don't even come close to that. And I could accept that if the game ran decently, or wasn't filled with weird visual glitches and pop-in from twenty feet away, but that's not the case. It was incredibly distracting for me and it kind of killed the enjoyment. The immersion of Pokemon out in the wild breaks (for me) when they pop in so close to you, and when they disappear because you're just slightly too far away, then they're totally gone. Some structures in the game just don't exist until you're about twenty feet away. There are certain areas of the map where you cross a threshold and half of the terrain disappears briefly. On top of all of that, the game slows down when the framerate drops.

There are a myriad of open world games on the Switch that look vastly better and perform better. One of them was a launch title. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect stable performance in a game designed for one piece of hardware from a long-established developer. No reasonable person is expecting 60fps or 4k.

@Mauzuri I don't hate it, but the performance and visuals were so distracting that the game was difficult to enjoy for me. I come back when these update articles appear in the hopes that maybe they've made some effort to optimize the game, but they haven't. Yeah there's no reason to just talk ***** on the game, but I can't think of any other Pokemon game that looked so bad or ran so poorly considering the hardware. I think what the game does in terms of gameplay is great and I really wish I could enjoy it. It's the Pokemon game I always wanted as a kid 20 years ago. But I think the people upset about the visuals and performance are totally justified. It's a bit depressing that we're just expected to accept that they'll never fix that.

It won't change anything for me if the visuals and performance stay the same. It runs like garbage and feels like slow motion in some towns, and everything pops in ten feet in front of you, it completely breaks the immersion. Sometimes I'd walk across a specific area and half of the world in front of me would blink out is existence for a few frames. I can't play it without constantly getting distracted by how bad everything looks.

I had maybe an hour of fun when it came out when I was able to run around with my friends. But beyond that it was incredibly difficult to overlook those issues. If I want to play a modern Pokemon game I'll just replay Arceus. It's so disappointing that they ***** up a mainline release when Arceus was so good.

@Dragonite89 It's a thirteen year old game that ran perfectly fine on my Xbox 360 in 2010. The visuals in the trailer look more or less the same as the original release, and the Switch has already shown that it can handle the engine quite well with LA Noire. Your assumptions are based on nothing.

@Quarbit Well I don't know where you live, but in the US we absolutely do not have universal healthcare, one political party is trying to cut social security, a large portion of the country does not believe in welfare because they have no empathy for those in need, and it doesn't matter if a CEO only has one vote because when members of Congress and the Senate make legislative decisions that only benefit the people who are already rich. The things that you're suggesting are supposedly already commonplace in wealthy countries are by no means overwhelmingly popular ideas here. Half of elected politicians consider those ideas to be Communist and therefore evil, and that each of them bring the US one step closer to being an authoritarian dictatorship.

It's nice to think that once a crisis becomes serious enough that the government will surely step in and do something about it to make things right. But mass shootings have been a regular occurrence for the past 15-20 years and nothing has been done about that.

@Quarbit Most wealthy governments already do a poor job at taking care of people who are unemployed or even homeless. There would be substantially less tax revenue to support unemployed people because there would be substantially less people paying taxes. And at least in the US, many of those massive corporations who would profit from replacing jobs with AI currently don't pay taxes.

I get what you're trying to say, it's very utopian and optimistic. But it doesn't reflect the reality of our society. Most large corporations implement automation to save money. They don't care if it makes someone's job easier or outright eliminates it. Outside of areas like medical science, it's rarely done with altruism in mind. Companies trying to save money isn't "progress".

Do you trust corporations to suddenly stop being greedy? Do you trust governments to suddenly start taking care of people in need? If and when society reaches that point, that's the only real level of progress where society as a whole would actually benefit from what you're suggesting. No, we shouldn't just embrace corporations replacing jobs with automation and AI en masse and hope that those other things suddenly fall into place before a global economic crisis occurs.

@Picagrande @Quarbit If AI took over every job it could feasibly do, the people who lost their jobs to it wouldn't just be able to find other work because there wouldn't be enough jobs. It's not simply a case of "well they should have gone into another field" because those fields that still need human employees won't suddenly have an influx of open positions. There will be substantially fewer jobs than working people. Then the poverty rate skyrockets because people can't find work. Then what?

@YoshiF2 I'm not sure the fanbase is as split as you think it is. I think Breath of the Wild is one of the best games I've ever played, but I'm also critical of certain aspects, like how all the Divine Beasts feel the same. I'm also playing through Twilight Princess again and I'm loving it as well. My only problem so far is the solutions to certain problems aren't really hinted at well, but a lot of the older games have that issue. I recently played through Skyward Sword and I think the gameplay, dungeons, art style, music, and general plot are all pretty good. However, the world feels very disjointed and the pacing of the plot is all over the place, so the third act felt like a slog.

I like the classic games and the modern games. I can appreciate the strengths of each game while still being critical of the drawbacks. I'm very critical of Skyward Sword, but I'm not going to pretend like the aspects I dislike are objectively bad, or that people who don't have a problem with them are wrong. Just because people on the internet tend to be hyperbolic doesn't mean that's how the majority of fans actually feel.

@Lxlxrxzx exactly. The lead-up to the dungeons feel so much more involved than the Divine Beasts. Just reaching the Wind Temple is incredible. I finally got to it after like thirty minutes and my girlfriend was like "wait, you mean you weren't already in the dungeon?" They put so much more effort to make the journey to the dungeon memorable this time.

I replayed Breath of the Wild last month. I think the concept of the Divine Beasts is great, but there's so little difference between the four of them. You do a little mission to get on-board, find the map, manipulate the structure/orientation, fine the terminals, fight some Blight Ganon, get reward.

Being formulaic isn't the issue, it's the fact that there's so little variation between them. They all look the same. They all have the same gimmick. The boss battles mostly feel the same as well. That is to say, overall they're pretty memorable, but individually they all sort of blur together. The concept is great, but none of them stand out from each other.

I've completed two dungeons in Tears of the Kingdom so far and they're so much more unique. Yes, they're still formulaic, you still gotta explore and activate five things and then fight the boss. But the lead-up is so much more involved than before, the initial part of the Rito quest where you're just trying to reach the dungeon took me like thirty minutes. The trek to the Goron dungeon was also quite involved, but in a totally different way from the Rito dungeon. The dungeons themselves also have completely unique themes, gimmicks, methods of traversal, and bosses.

To me, what makes Tears of the Kingdom's dungeons so much better than Breath of the Wild's isn't about the semantics of "traditional" Zelda dungeons, it's the fact they all stand out from each other and are memorable on their own. The elemental theme are a big part of that, but you can't undersell the gameplay differences that weren't really present in the Divine Beasts either.

@wouldyoukindly I'm honestly jealous of people who were able to look past the issues and still enjoy it. I know a lot of people ***** on Pokemon just for the sake of it, but that's not me. I don't want to be hyperbolic, but it's the same feeling I got when I played Cyberpunk 2077 on my base PS4. I was so torn because I knew the game was intended to be something I know I would love, but again, it looked awful and ran awful.

Except it's more frustrating with Scarlet and Violet because we all know the switch is perfectly capable of handling bigger, more complex open world games with vastly better visuals and stable performance. My friend still put around 60 hours into Cyberpunk on PS4 while I opted for a refund. It's just easier for some people to overlook those things, and I'm certainly not a 60fps/4k snob. I genuinely want to enjoy Violet but it's so difficult when Pokemon pop in and out of existence 20 feet away, environment textures/geometry look worse than some GameCube games, and the animations of some kids in a classroom (let alone the actual open world) run at half the normal framerate. Arceus had none of those issues. Some Pokemon in the distance would animate at a reduced framerate, but it was subtle enough to not be distracting, and that's the whole point of optimization. If they ever fix the performance and pop-in, even if it still looks as bad as it does, I'll be happy to play through it. It's so close to being the immersive Pokemon game I wanted 20 years ago, but it constantly breaks that immersion with all the visual issues.

@Mauzuri I've never been overly-critical of the franchise, but I haven't played more than ten hours of Violet because of the lack of polish. I loved Arceus and it's probably my favorite entry. I know a lot of people complain about the "graphics" because they don't like the art style. I never felt that any Pokemon game was "ugly" or had bad visuals, but I think Scarlet and Violet do look really bad. The environment geometry and textures are so low-poly/low-res, especially from a distance.

Beyond that, I get so distracted by things popping in constantly. Scenery objects, people, Pokemon... everything pops in at such a close distance. That completely breaks the immersion for me. I've never played a game with such bad pop-in before.

The framerate is an issue because the the speed of the game (unless they changed it in an update) seems to be tied to the framerate, so when the framerate drops in a town, everything slows down.

The game has never crashed on me, and I didn't experience any serious non-visual bugs, but it was so difficult for me to play without getting distracted by all the weird visual ***** that was constantly happening. If it was just one thing, I could deal with it. If the game actually looked good, maybe the performance issues would be more understandable. But it looks ugly and still runs poorly. The fact is they rushed this game out less than a year after Arceus came out and made no effort to optimize and polish it. I really wanted to enjoy the game because it seemed to be the Pokemon game I've wanted since Blue, but I really wish they just took the time to make it look nice and run well.

Nothing says "late-90s video production" like unnecessary canted angles...