>>45725542>If you have to take two years to design a game in a series as formulaic as Pokemon then it speaks volumes about the piss poor management of their development process. Technically, but you'd be surprised how long it takes to develop games. 3 years used to be average during the PS2 era, and with technology getting more advanced it only gets harder. Other formulaic Nintendo games take a long time to develop too, and they're very polished. Video games don't take two years to develop anymore, not if you want them to be good. Shit like Sly 3, or the Genesis Sonic games aren't happening anymore, you won't get a good game so quickly even with an existing engine.
>They didn't have time to optimize for battles, a major part of the game, yet they had time to animate for inconsequential features like Pokemon Camp?For them, that's where they think people get interactive time with their Pokemon. If Camp was as bad as battle animations can be, it'd be even more noticeable. Pokemon is more than just battles, in case you haven't noticed they've been struggling with maps too. I'd say maps might even be in a worse state, generally.
>Why not just improve the flow and presentation of the battles, and then just scrap Camp or whatever stupid Amie clone they have?There needs to be a balance of battles, exploration, and other activities. Any one of those could tire you out or bore you if it was too much at once. If they never implemented Amie, you might have a point, but since they have the Amie animations they might as well keep doing what works. I'd also like to see some stuff from Amie transfer over to battles, that seems feasible, Refresh let you go straight from battle to it so there's clearly something going on there.
