You know, sometimes less is more.
Just because there’s more “stuff” in a game like Violet doesn’t mean it adds to the overall experiences. Sometimes it detracts from it. A lot of times it detracts from it.
This is of course all subjective and if you enjoy that additional mechanics, it’s good you have them. There are of course others out there who would disagree with you and appreciate a more “core” experience in a Pokemon game.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
They can keep everything you’ve mentioned except terastallizing, a rideable legendary, and probably a good amount of your “and so on.” I’m pretty sure Pokemon games have had an open world since the beginning, but maybe some people have different ideas of what constitutes an open world.
dustyData@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I’d say Pokémon is one of the franchises to which the transition to 3D added nothing of value to the experience. Every 3D Pokémon has been ugly as sin.
FRYD@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I definitely think the quality on the 3D models could be better, but I think the move to 3D has made the game more immersive and things like the size variations are charming details that makes “your” pokémon feel more unique. I was mainly questioning whether a product like that would actually sell well enough to be worth the effort, not making any statement of which is superior.
Elevator7009@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
Huge preferrer of 2D here, will admit the size variations made possible with 3D is a point in their favor for me.