>>52153080>NoObjectively wrong.
>besides not following the trendsAnon we're not in the mid 90s anymore. The fascination with 3D for the sake of being polygonal is over. Developers aren't intentionally sabotaging themselves for the sake of riding the hype wave.
>it severely limits the scale of worldObjectively wrong. Scale can be conveyed just as well in 2D, the only thing it lacks is the overdone panning shot of a world that you will not be able to reach 99% of. Nobody gives a shit about scale in Pokemon. In fact it has done nothing but hold them back ever since they shifted to 3D because tons of people point out just how often they present a large area only for the player to be railroaded along a thin line with nothing to do.
>as well as mechanicsName a single thing Pokemon has done well in 3D that could not be done in a 2D game.
>presentationsReally? "Presentation"? In a Pokemon game? That's possibly the single most criticized thing ever since the series has moved to 3D. Pokemon has always been behind the curve in pretty much anything related to visuals but it feels substantially further behind in 3D.
>gameplayAgain, name a single thing related to this that Pokemon has done well in 3D that could not be done in 2D. It's a turn based RPG.
>You think you could have pokémon petting animations in sprite form? On a 3D model that's a matter of rigging animations on a model. On a sprite it's a matter of drawing several dozens of sprites to create a petting animation. That's not sustainableYeah they could do that. Pretty easily actually. There are indie games with dog petting animations in both 2D and 3D. Are you seriously trying to argue this?
The core of the issue is GameFreak not putting enough money into the series. It really is as simple as that. They could make 3D look good but they wont. They could make quality sprites with animation but they wont. They never will. It's not a matter of what is and isn't feasible. Pokemon will sell regardless.
