>>35717194What about it is unacceptable? We both know that isn't the case since plenty of people are going to happily accept it and pay for the games come November. Could it be better? Of course. Is it lazy? I wouldn't know, I don't know how Game Freak works. Like I said to the other anon, they're a small group experienced in making a certain kind of game. Hard to say if it's lazy or not, it could be a perfectly good use of their abilities. Monolith Soft makes wide open worlds, but that's what they're good at. I don't think anyone from that company would chastise anyone at Game Freak for being lazy just because the scope of the games that they make is different.
>>35717256>even they know things have to change to stay relevant/on the topExactly, which is why they're taking advantage of GO's massive success. Just because it isn't a change you care about doesn't mean it isn't a change.
>It can retain its key elements while modernizing to fit current game design standardsWhy should Game Freak have to change to fit the standards set by other games and developers? Especially if people still buy the games, which they do.
>unacceptableAgain, why are you saying this when you know it is in fact totally acceptable? Something being unacceptable and you personally thinking it's unacceptable are two totally different things.
>Game Freak has all the resources in the world to hire as many talent or outside help as they pleaseAnd they didn't, which means they clearly weren't interested in broadening the scope of the game. Until a NEED to change presents itself, why should they? They want to make a specific kind of game and they're good at it. Show them that you want change with your wallet, that's the only way it'll happen.
