>>39762367>considering the platform it's onIt looks alright. Some parts look awful, but you could say that about every Switch game. For every tail whip and tree picture there's a cool environment and detailed pokemon model. It seems balanced to me.
>the popularityWhat exactly does this mean? That they should throw money at it? Maybe, but that's related to TPC then, not the game or the developers. Tpc is garbage but I only hear people whine about GF devs being lazy. Either way, evidently this isn't true, because the games still sell amazingly, meaning people enjoy it. Pokemon Go looks even worse than this despite borrowing models and gameplay from their previous title, and having literally nothing else to it, and it's super popular. Anthem looks gorgeous and no one plays it. People don't need a game to look graphically perfect to enjoy it, as nice as it would be to have.
>time it's releasingAssuming you're only referring to Switch games, it looks like a Switch game. Honestly only Mario and Astral Chain look like graphically amazing, and Mario is still pretty damn cartoony and simplistic.
>priceEvery Nintendo title charges this price. If other first/second party titles were $40 dollars it would also be $40. Price doesn't equate to quality, it's supply and demand. And demand for Pokemon, and most Nintendo titles, will always be high.
>content being cutThey said content was cut because there's too many pokemon, it was going to happen eventually. Every other game does this. Everyone's precious botw also dropped content, like enemy types, weapons and items, to the goddamn dungeons themselves, and no one bitched. The fuck is the difference here? Because you love your digital pet?
