Here we go again- I was really not expecting to have to do this again so soon; yet, my hand has once again been forced. This is far from the first editorial I've debunked about this topic, so I will not be totally out of practice; but it still bears addressing.
This time, it's a Forbes piece from a writer I shall only be referring to as "J. Jonah Jameson" to protect their identity. Though the writer has made some sound pieces (with one debunking claims about NFTs being key), this isn't one of them. It's one stating "There's No Excuse for Pokémon Legends Arceus Looking this Bad on Switch." It's because of this I am writing a response to dispute this claim, but I will not be attacking him to do so. People who hold this mindset don't need to be "ratioed" (though this has happened all the same), just informed. So, in a calm manner and with evidence to refute Jameson's arguments, let's begin. Here's why there's no reason for takes on Pokémon Legends Arceus and the Switch being this bad.
As per usual, I will be including quotes when necessary to address the claims being made as well as refute them. I've never even really liked the word "excuse," (even typing it sounds like a person expectorating phlegm) I consider it to be less elegant than "reason." Well: Here we go.
Quote: "Nintendo and Game Freak just released a new 13 minute look at Pokémon Legends: Arceus, going over some of the features of the game, and it’s one of the longest looks at it we’ve seen so far.While certain aspects look perfectly fine, the battle system, player customization, many of the animations, one thing has not changed since the game was first revealed: the graphics, the visuals, look utterly terrible. Like so dated this might as well be a Gamecube title."
False- the game's graphics have actually made considerable change since the initial reveal last February; whether Jameson chooses to acknowledge said changes or not. I just came off writing an article about that subject late last year. Also, the Gamecube analogy didn't work with Galar, and it's not going to work here. In fact, this is actually quite close to how certain commentators reacted before the release of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker in 2003; and were inevitably proven wrong as they often are. If anything, stylized visuals tend to come off as less dated over time than "realistic" ones, which is why it's easier for me to replay a game like Super Mario 64 than one like WinBack: Covert Operations.
Quote: "There are two halves to what’s going on here with these absolutely barebones environments with comically low quality textures. At least part of this can be blamed on Switch tech. As in, this is a system that is now almost five years old, and when it debuted it was already well below its Sony and Microsoft rivals in terms of power output, due to its handheld nature (not that Nintendo had been winning any graphics competitions the last few generations)."
I'm going to have to stop you right there Jameson, since there are numerous errors made in this section. First of all, the environments being shown in the clip are explicitly shown to be areas where the characters are on a mission; as well as the main hub of Jubilife Village. Suggesting those areas are "barebones" is akin to using that term to describe a business at closing time. Second, it's not that the textures are "low-quality," it's that the art direction is deliberately invoking the style of Japanese calligraphy and paintings; which in turn fits the setting. Lastly, it's inherently clear that Nintendo hasn't been directly competing for sheer raw graphical power since the original Wii; and developers instead have been making some creative use of visuals that work with the technology rather than against it; and we'll come back to this.
Quote: "In those five years, the Switch has never gotten more powerful. The last upgrade to the system was the OLED model which did not contain any internal performance upgrades at all past the screen. This has not stopped the Switch from being a success, but it’s mostly relied on hyper stylized games or retro-inspired titles like Metroid Dread. Very fun and well-made, not reliant on a lot of powerful graphics capabilities. But when you have a game like Pokémon Legends here, you need more than what the Switch can provide to a certain extent."
See, it's passages like this that undermine this take; Jameson. Writing that should have given you an epiphany that there's nothing wrong at all with having games with a stylized visual flair and honor the legacy of their seniors while also updating them for a new generation. So, no, sheer raw power isn't necessary to make a visually-distinctive and entertaining game (the fact the bestselling game across all platforms is currently Minecraft is proof of that). Also, more capability doesn't always result in a better-looking game (the eFootball 2022 debacle is a recent example). That, and given how I learned writing; I don't start sentences with "but," it's a gaffe comparable to ending a sentence with a preposition.
Quote: "But I would say the majority of this is simply on Game Freak. Fans will say they’ve never made a game in this style before, but in 2022, there’s just no excuse for how poor this looks. And as many Switch fans will note, there are many, many other Switch games that look just fine or even good within the system’s technical constraints. One common point of refence [sic] is the gorgeous art style of Breath of the Wild, doing the most with what the Switch has to work with thanks to its art direction."
All right- I'm going to overlook the fact you just started another sentence with "but," Jameson; and instead focus on this contradictory claim in regards to Breath of the Wild and Game Freak. The developers are clearly using that title as a template not just in visuals; but in terms of presentation and tone as well. Again, I addressed this before; but I think the developers are doing the right thing by taking what people are saying in stride while also not bending over backwards for more extreme fans. We can all want things to be a certain way; but when a title is made with a specific vision in mind and many of these same Switch fans are praising this direction for the reasons you're criticizing it, dismissing the endeavor as an "excuse" or claiming it as "poor" isn't a constructive argument. In fact, despite the accusations of "incompetence," it's clear JJ has highlighted his own instead.
Quote: "Pokémon Legends: Arceus is a game more or less devoid of art direction. These environments are barren and ugly and empty. The character models are barely passable, and look okay for the cartoony style of Pokémon and trainers, but only just. And the environments, both city and in the wild, are simply not acceptable, and no amount of new footage is changing this."
No, Jameson- it's more accurate to suggest you're openly refusing to accept the art style for what it is; and that the only thing the new footage isn't changing is how the argument you're making is fundamentally broken at its core. It isn't possible for a game to be "devoid of art direction," and just because you have an issue with the graphics doesn't mean it automatically makes the game a piece of bargain bin refuse. Even that infamous Popeye game that's essentially a glorified ashcan copy had to use the assets in some way; dubious purpose or not.
Quote: "Nintendo has done extremely well with the Switch to date, but the system is absolutely starting to show its age, and I think fans were right to be disappointed when the OLED model was revealed and it didn’t contain even a moderate power boost after half a decade on the market. Game Freak, meanwhile, needs to examine what exactly went wrong here, either on the technical side or the art side, and figure out why their game specifically looks worse than more or less every Nintendo game I can remember going back a few generations. This is not acceptable for any franchise, much less one as valuable as Pokémon, in 2022."
That won't be necessary at all: in fact, if you're looking for someone who needs to examine what went wrong, Jameson, all you require is a mirror. Some fans were disappointed; but personally, I'm looking forward to getting a Switch OLED in the near future, especially as a full on upgraded SKU is still a ways off (if it happens at all).
The only thing that isn't acceptable is another contradictory statement and a pretty blatant "either/or fallacy." If this was being submitted as an assignment in the classes I studied under, it would be grounds for an F on that alone. I'm not suggesting that Jameson and I played the same games on these systems: I am saying that it's premature to dismiss both the technical and artistic choices as "wrong" when the game is still just over a week away from release. There is a fine line between being a skeptic and being a cynic: consider it crossed.
This may not be the first article this individual has written about the game; but it's quickly become infamous a textbook example of how not to write about a video game. I know that accentuating the negative is nothing new in video game discourse, but this is honestly ridiculous. Usually Forbes' coverage is better than this; but this may very well go down along with "it's just a fad" and "too much water" in terms of infamy in the fandom. The whole idea of perceiving the title as "looking bad" by doing little more than winging about the console and the developer choices is utter nonsense.
Whatever the case might be, I will be looking forward to telling you more about the game when it does launch in 10 days; and I will have more posts coming fairly soon. That will be all for now, going to see Spider-Man again tomorrow. Later.
