isn’t Shin Megami Tensei already edgy pokemon? what am i missing here?
Hell, Megami Tensei is from 1986 (not that good of a game tbh. Megami Tensei II otoh is surprisingly good, in spite of some old age related jank)
3d survival crafting guns edgy pokemon is pretty different from top-down jrpg turn based battle edgy pokemon.
I cant go back to pokemon either cause its a garbage game for babies
Honestly the main reason the discourse around this game is annoying is that the whole idea of an edgy version of pokemon is juvenile as hell, but people are instead moralizing about stealing from fucking nintendo
I recall a romhack where you could be team rocket.
It was edgy teenage nonsense, but it had some ok to decent moments.
I’ve played that and it’s okay! I like that you get a Zubat as your starter 'mon and every time you battle with Red you get trounced.
nah, i’m moralising because you can sell people into slavery, protecting nintendo is incredibly cringe
It’s sad too because I don’t want edginess, I want Nintendo to just explore Pokemon like they’re living creatures.
The worldbuilding is so shallow and the Pokedex entries don’t make sense. And the new Pokemon roll out to replace the old ones (hate that it’s called dexit).
It’s frustrating to think about the proposed ideology of Pokemon about stewardship, compassion, and working together when the franchise itself is just that, a franchise.
I mean, it just kinda sounds like you want Monster Hunter then (or maybe MH: Stories given it’s a turn based team RPG ala Pokemon).
I just want Pokemon to actually do more of its early premise of humans and animals working together in community. I would love a team-based mon game, but I really just want to see Pokemon answer and explore the philosophical questions present in the series.
It’s frustrating to think about the proposed ideology of Pokemon about stewardship, compassion, and working together when the franchise itself is just that, a franchise.
Tangential to that, it always annoyed me growing up with the media and the games that key to all the stories is the idea of individual pokemon actually being important and growing meaningfully as part of a largely static team, but in the games they’re just disposable type, stat, and move pools that get switched out or binned indefinitely and your static team at the end is a bunch of stuff you caught in the last fifth of the game or less. The one, singular exception to that in my experience was when I caught a shiny vulpix in one of the gym challenges in Sword (of all places), and that became my sweeper for the entire rest of the game and both DLCs, but that’s the most edge case of all edge cases being something that was insanely rare and special in its own right, that was also a very strong and viable pokemon, with nearly perfect stats on top of that.
Like there’s a huge disconnect between the sort of collecting gameplay and the story about growth and whatnot, since you’re basically playing a looter shooter and the pokemon are just new weapon rolls to be evaluated and kept or tossed, and none of the franchise’s mechanical attempts at fixing this have worked because they’re always just limited gimmicks that can’t get in the way of that core looter-shooter progression loop.
Consequently, I’ve always wanted to see something where a given pokemon’s progression is more fluid and has higher peaks than just “this is a one stage low-stat trash mon and that’s all it will ever be, bin” or “this has one mid-tier evolution that comes super early, good early game bruiser and then trash as soon as something better comes along,” as long as you actually invest in it and keep it around. But I don’t think Pokemon could ever do something like that, because that turns it into an RPG where pokemon are mechanically characters instead of weapons and the evolutions or whatever are like classes they prestige into instead of fixed forms.
I think there’s something deeply contradictory in Pokemon’s messaging that there is a quantifiable hierarchy in power, even in the anime. Training is great and everything, but a starter bird wouldn’t win in a matchup with any fully evolved mon, let alone a legendary.
There’s a cynicism that’s passed off as realism that decides that one creature is inherently better than another. Is that biological essentialism? I had a similar issue in Steven Universe where Jasper was treated as a superior fighter to Amethyst regardless of training and tactics.
Like yeah, a physically weaker creature might not win in a battle of strength, but that doesn’t mean there’s no way to win a fight in another way. And even if not, it’s fucked up that there is an inherent value system in place.
Then again all of the Pokemon values they express in the series falls apart when you look at the fact that it’s possible to trade a Pokemon, and there’s an incentive to do so. It really fucked me up as a kid seeing ash trade his Butterfree and then later feeling sad when Butterfree left on his own accord and was sad. Pokemon are depicted as sentient and it’s bizarre at this point they still incentivize trading with the tagline: Gotta Catch’em All!
in the games they’re just disposable type, stat, and move pools that get switched out or binned indefinitely and your static team at the end is a bunch of stuff you caught in the last fifth of the game or less.
That’s on you, Pokemon games are generally pretty easy and you can beat them with most any party. I beat gold with pretty much just my feraligator because I was a dumb kid who didn’t level anyone else.
I’ve long felt that friendship level should be explored much more deeply and be at minimum equally impactful as the rest of the stats combined.
Ash is objectively a bad trainer. His ability to befriend Pokémon he trains and coaches in a talentless manner transcends the rest (except for every time he reaches a final).
The power of friendship and bonding with companion creatures is the main thing about the show.
The worldbuilding is so shallow and the Pokedex entries don’t make sense.
they’re written by children
That’s the cute meme, but the reality is that they were written by the developers without much forethought. I read that post about Diagetic Essentialism a few days ago, and I know it’s splitting hairs to over invest in worldbuilding, but I think such a popular series could stand to be a little more responsible in how it explores the relationships between humans and animals. Even fictional ones.
I don’t want an age-up or edgy story, I just want the world to be depicted with more depth. I just want to know where the ham comes from when you make sandwiches in the new games. Or just don’t have meat. Nobody asked for it and it just raises more questions.
Signed,
An autistic person with terrible luck in special interests.
If we didn’t exist under capitalism and I didn’t make my livelihood off of selling art I would say “yeah whatever let’s free-for-all this shit and see how weird we can get with it” but we’re converging on a situation of using ai and shit like this that is a threat to workers in creative industries. Eventually all corporations will just adopt the new playbook and cut workers out too, but I think there’s some legitimacy to being a little concerned about how this stuff shakes out over the next 5 years or so.
a situation of using ai and shit like this that is a threat to workers in creative industries.
Isn’t the case here just traditional asset ripping and plagiarism against a notoriously litigious huge corporation? There’s no way AI was involved given the models are all literally just official pokemon meshes with some changes here and there.
Yea I think mostly, I do think the dev has a history of using it in other places which is why people were wondering but it does seem like it’s mostly traditional asset “theft.” Mostly what I’m going off of is how the discourse has been bc a lot of tech bros have glommed on to it to use as a jumping off point for excusing ai stuff
people are instead moralizing about stealing from fucking nintendo
I’ve noticed this a lot. people who defend intellectual property (already cringe) often go above and beyond what it’s supposed to entail (mega cringe). They think that not just the actual creative content is protected by copyright law, but that anything conceivably closely resembling it is as well. Imagine if, for example, the guy who made Stardew Valley was sued into oblivion for “stealing Harvest Moon.” Like. What? Corporations would love to establish such a Draconian understanding of creativity as a legal precedent.
This is basically just the “Barney is gay and I want to shoot him” shit being rehashed
This is a game for adults!!! I scream holding up a picture of a little uwu pink haired cartoon creature holding a Tommy gun
It is at best a game for 13 year old boys
