• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Your controversial opinions

Reader mode
toastghost said:
because I don't like ai? ai steals content from actually talented artists and writers to regurgitate slop, not caring about actual quality and only caring about profit. I don't want a pokemon game where every single character is just an ai. that'll show me that gamefreak doesn't care about the employees that write the game or the actual quality of the story, and nothing turns me off from a piece of media more than knowing that the people making it just don't care.

on the silent protagonist thing, if there has to be a silent protagonist, they have to give you the ability to customize every single part of them, not just hair style.
Click to expand...

AI doesn't always steal from other people's work, it depends on what they're using as source material. Quick lesson on how AI works, basically it takes in a large amount of training data (and that data can take different forms based on what you're trying to use the A.I. for, in the case of creative works it's usually a ton of images, stories, or whatever medium you're working with) and you teach it to find patterns so it can calculate an output by itself. The controversy behind AI in creative works is that they're using other people's work as that training data (which has implications for copyright, compensation, and consent among other things). For this purpose? I don't think they can do that. They'd be using AI to train unique characters, could they really use other people's work to train their own AI models? Considering the characters would need to act at least slightly differently from other existing characters, I'm not entirely sure that they could input dialogue from characters they don't own to generate the dialogue here, they'd need to react in a unique way from those other characters. So I don't think the issues you're pointing to would apply in this case.
 
Bolt Strike said:
AI doesn't always steal from other people's work, it depends on what they're using as source material. Quick lesson on how AI works, basically it takes in a large amount of training data (and that data can take different forms based on what you're trying to use the A.I. for, in the case of creative works it's usually a ton of images, stories, or whatever medium you're working with) and you teach it to find patterns so it can calculate an output by itself. The controversy behind AI in creative works is that they're using other people's work as that training data (which has implications for copyright, compensation, and consent among other things). For this purpose? I don't think they can do that. They'd be using AI to train unique characters, could they really use other people's work to train their own AI models? Considering the characters would need to act at least slightly differently from other existing characters, I'm not entirely sure that they could input dialogue from characters they don't own to generate the dialogue here, they'd need to react in a unique way from those other characters. So I don't think the issues you're pointing to would apply in this case.
Click to expand...
Personally, I kind of even struggle to make sense of the "stealing art" argument, I don't quite get how images in a training set is any different than a real person taking inspiration from existing art they've seen.

But I agree that wouldn't apply to these theoretical video games anyway.
 
BorealRookidee said:
Personally, I kind of even struggle to make sense of the "stealing art" argument, I don't quite get how images in a training set is any different than a real person taking inspiration from existing art they've seen.
Click to expand...
a real person takes inspo, which is the key word. they arent just stiching up pre-existing art but using what theyv learned 2 create something else. ai mish-mashes pre-existing content and stiches it together rather than creating something new. if an actual person just cut out literal pieces of others arts and put those together without any credit thatd be immoral too

buuuut thats not rlly a topic 2 debate on a pokemon opinions thread i just wanted 2 throw in my own two cents u_u
 
KOT0NE said:
a real person takes inspo, which is the key word. they arent just stiching up pre-existing art but using what theyv learned 2 create something else. ai mish-mashes pre-existing content and stiches it together rather than creating something new. if an actual person just cut out literal pieces of others arts and put those together without any credit thatd be immoral too

buuuut thats not rlly a topic 2 debate on a pokemon opinions thread i just wanted 2 throw in my own two cents u_u
Click to expand...
AI isn't stitching together art either, that's a common misconception. It's not like it's creating a collage, it's merely using that training data to learn patterns. Unless the training set is extremely small, it should never recreate anything close to a random individual training image in its set.
 
There Is No Arceus said:
we got dungeons in BDSP. What do you mean that doesn't count?
Click to expand...

BDSP is a remake, I think they're talking about dungeons in the newer, 3D open world types of games. Although honestly I'm fine with some of the dungeons in SV. Alfornada Cavern, Chilling Waterhead, and Chargestone Cavern feel appropriately complex/mazelike for me.
 
Bolt Strike said:
BDSP is a remake, I think they're talking about dungeons in the newer, 3D open world types of games. Although honestly I'm fine with some of the dungeons in SV. Alfornada Cavern, Chilling Waterhead, and Chargestone Cavern feel appropriately complex/mazelike for me.
Click to expand...
BDSP is barely even a remake, at least not in the same way games like HGSS or ORAS are. It's basically just a remaster.

In my mind, none of the locations you mention here even come close to the massive caverns or evil team bases or the like found in the first seven generations. Even SM/USUM's dungeons were lacking IMO, but nowhere near to the degree that SWSH and SV's are.
 
BorealRookidee said:
BDSP is barely even a remake, at least not in the same way games like HGSS or ORAS are. It's basically just a remaster.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the difference doesn't really matter in this case. In both remakes and remasters most of the dungeon designs are just lifted from the original.

BorealRookidee said:
In my mind, none of the locations you mention here even come close to the massive caverns or evil team bases or the like found in the first seven generations. Even SM/USUM's dungeons were lacking IMO, but nowhere near to the degree that SWSH and SV's are.
Click to expand...

Ehh, I agree that most of SM's (pretty much everything except Vast Poni Canyon) and base SwSh's were bad, but I feel like that's about where they've bottomed out and CT and SV had some better ones. They haven't quite reached the highs of some of the older dungeon designs (especially 3rd and 4th gen and a few in 5th gen too, that was peak dungeon design IMO), but they feel serviceable enough that they don't insult my intelligence.
 
GF fused the dungeons and the overworld slowly over time, with SS being the ultimate example of this.

Now with SV's open world, I think ZA will begin as a pseudo immersive-sim and then Gen X goes full Hitman with the level design.
 
BorealRookidee said:
I agree that the loss of dungeons is one of the biggest losses (perhaps the single greatest loss, honestly) of the last two Pokemon generations. I hope they come back in the future.
Click to expand...
What’s weird is despite that, Gen 8 made the Escape Rope a key item but the areas that used it were all linear meaning that it’s mostly pointless outside maybe the beginning forest area. I don’t think it even worked in the DLC areas.
 
Honestly I'd consider them all remakes but BDSP the one that's closest to a remaster since it is functionally just identical to the original DS games with improved graphics (I know there are some differences but I am aware one of the biggest complaints people have about BDSP is that it's basically 1:1 in terms of gameplay to the OG games) and that is basically what a video game remaster is.

(Of course there is also the big elephant in the room of: no one can frigging actually define remake vs remaster is in regards to video games lol)
 
hmmm, for some reason i was under the impression that a new version of an old game that made heavy changes was a remaster while a very close 1:1 would be a remake
thank you for informing me though
 
Despite the flaws of Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon's Battle Agency making it infeasible to play without being online, the Battle Agency was great when it could be played. It would have even been perfect had it not been very reliant on people connecting online. Maybe Festival Fans being given Pokémon to match the level of yours would've been the perfect solution.

This facility was like the Battle Factory from Emerald and Gen 4 except in my opinion, more fun, rewarding, and engaging, since you never had to reset your progress from the very beginning when you lost, battles were still quite difficult a lot of the time, and games were a lot less influenced by RNG tactics. They had Pokémon with Z-Crystals from Grade 0 onwards, Mega Evolution from Grade 20 onwards, and legendaries from Grade 40 onwards. When you lost, you'd still be facing teams of the facility's most powerful Pokémon if you've made it far enough, but getting through the facility was still a very long journey. Because of how progression in the Battle Agency worked, speedrunners would've probably blown through the entire Emerald Battle Frontier faster than they would just this Battle Agency, but I found it more fun than the Battle Frontier regardless.

Another thing I liked about this facility was how it had different weather/terrain effects going on each day to spice the game up. This gave the facility different environments to express on its own and made it more encouraging to use all types of Pokémon than aside just fishing for the most broken ones in standardized play.

Would love for this battle facility to return without the reliance to online connectivity.
 
guzmania said:
hmmm, for some reason i was under the impression that a new version of an old game that made heavy changes was a remaster while a very close 1:1 would be a remake
thank you for informing me though
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that there's no agreed upon definition for what constitutes a "remake" or "remaster", the terms have been used interchangeably to describe different games with different levels of change to the point where the lines are blurry. However, one thing I've frequently (if not universally) seen on the remake vs. remaster debate is that remasters tend to mostly or even fully consist of purely graphical changes. And sometimes not even that significant ones, one common view I've seen is that a remaster just takes the original assets and touches them up, usually just creating higher resolution textures for the game's models but otherwise leaving them as is, whereas a game that completely rebuilds the assets from scratch, even if it does look largely similar, is a "remake" in their eyes. So most people do see a remake as being above a remaster when it comes to the scale of change over the original.

As far as BDSP goes, I don't think the "remaster" label entirely fits it, especially if you go by the above definition. By that definition, a "remaster" would probably be something closer to an HD 2D game, it would still be sprite based but it would probably use higher resolution sprites than the originals in the same artstyle. That's not what BDSP seems to have done, that looks more like they just built the 3D models from the ground up in an artstyle that greatly resembles the original 2D sprites. So by that definition, it's a "remake". But regardless, I do think most can agree that it's at least remaster-feeling in that it looks and plays almost exactly the same.
 
I will never agree with people who think Gen 2 is objectively worse than Gen 1. Aside from all the staple features introduced that are still around to this day, it basically improved on Gen 1 in every aspect. The weird level curve and the fact that many Johto Pokemon are in Kanto doesn't make it worse than Gen 1. I say this as someone who's playing Pokemon Yellow right now (thanks to the Delta emulator on iOS) and is enjoying the experience. I do plan on playing Pokemon Crystal afterwards and I know that I'll enjoy that more than Pokemon Yellow because of how much will be improved between the games.
 
Pokemon has always been so much more than it's videogames financially. Specifically in Merch and the card game. These make most of the money. And they always had.

It's unfair to blame the card games for stagnation of the games as the cards were and still are the main cash cow
 
Sheep40 said:
Pokemon has always been so much more than it's videogames financially. Specifically in Merch and the card game. These make most of the money. And they always had.

It's unfair to blame the card games for stagnation of the games as the cards were and still are the main cash cow
Click to expand...
It's primarily on Gamefreak. They've been pushing out game after game in short periods of time in order to build more profit and focus more on games they're prioritizing over Pokémon. They consider Pokémon to be a masterpiece, and are constantly trying to make something "greater" than Pokémon because they don't want to be known as just a Pokémon company.
 
Reader mode
Back
Top Bottom