When people speak of Pokemon's jump to 3d, they usually refer to generation 5 making way to generation 6.
They speak of the first mainline titles to use 3d models for the trainers and pokemon, as opposed to 2d sprites, as well as offering an alternative to grid-based movement. Of the generation in which 2d sprite assets were relegated mostly to UI.
I find it disingenuous and kind of obtuse, when people argue that the generation 4 was the first "3d one".
Technically speaking, that is correct, generation 4 was the first one to utilize 3d assets, but that did not come with a shift in design philosophy.
The argument does not advance the conversation and is just there to be pedantic, just like all arguing of semantics.
Do people do that just to be annoying?
Do they actually believe that diamond and pearl would be entirely different games were their environments rendered in 2d?
Personally, I think even generation 6 carries with it some of the old route design philosophy, but it truly was a change in how game freak went about developing Pokemon titles.
What do you think?
>but that did not come with a shift in design philosophy
Neither did Gen 6. What's your point?
they're kalosperms trying to deflect to other games because they can't actually defend XY (on account of how shit it is)
case in point
>they're kalosperms trying to deflect to other games because they can't actually defend XY
Seems more like the other way around. Unovagays can't actually criticize XY because they can't find any legitimate flaws so they're desperate to try and lump XY into the "3D group" just so they can try and conflate the flaws of every other game with XY while leaving out their own game's problems.
>Designing pokemon knowing that they will be rendered in 3d
Previous games did this already. Why do you think Samurott is able to draw its swords or why Genesect is able to compact itself even though neither of these are shown anywhere in the Gen 5 games?
>Allowing for 360 movement also allows for opportunities in map design
The map design is functionally the same and XY still uses grid based movement.
>exemplified by the first Kalos gym
This isn't any different than shit like the Dragon gym in BW.
>dark cave where the camera gives you a 3rd person shooter-ish angle
This isn't any different than Tubeline Bridge in BW.
>Would you argue that a 3d overworld with grid-based movement constitutes a change in design philosophy?
You mean....the thing gen 4 and 5 have?
Trying too hard, 3Dgay.
>no argument
it's all so tiresome
>b-b-but-
moron. you will never get Z by the way
>inb4 “i-it’s perfect!”
moron.
Designing pokemon knowing that they will be rendered in 3d and able to be seen from all angles constitutes a change in design philosophy, at least when it comes to the pocket monsters themselves
Allowing for 360 movement also allows for opportunities in map design not seen elsewhere in the franchise, exemplified by the first Kalos gym, or things such as that one dark cave where the camera gives you a 3rd person shooter-ish angle
Even if, admittedly, most of Kalos is still entrenched in that old grid-based philosophy, please consider the rest of my points
They were designed to be merchandise friendly (3D toys) as far back as Gen 2
>do people do that just to be annoying?
You tell me anon. XY is the first true 3D mainline, if you see someone arguing otherwise they’re a disingenuous homosexual. Gens 1-5 still primarily use sprites, most notably and most importantly the Pokemon and human NPC’s.
>Gens 1-5 still primarily use sprites
dicksword post
>b-b-but-
Shut up homosexual. Fricking idiot moron.
Would you argue that a 3d overworld with grid-based movement constitutes a change in design philosophy?
Is a grid-based 3d overworld the majority of the "important" assets in a Pokemon game?
>3DSgay posting blatantly wrong homosexualry in an effort to pretend its shitty gimmick handheld didn’t mark the beginning of Pokémon’s downward slide into mediocrity
Sasuga…
>Why do you think Samurott is able to draw its swords or why Genesect is able to compact itself even though neither of these are shown anywhere in the Gen 5 games?
I believe those features, as well as golurk's "cannon mode" are there for things such as the anime, which does feature pokemon from multiple angles, but there is that, and then there is the work of actually modeling them.
However, you do bring a good point.
>The map design is functionally the same and XY still uses grid based movement
Agreed, I guess that really only changed with Sun and Moon, but i take that as X and Y being a transitional period, yaknow, their first game on a new, more powerful console
>This isn't any different than shit like the Dragon gym in BW.
>This isn't any different than Tubeline Bridge in BW.
I will have to disagree there, BW did start going for dynamic camera angles in some areas, but those felt scripted, and with 2d sprites representing the main character, do feel different to what X and Y did
There is a reason why people went crazy when they saw we could finally move diagonally
Again tho, i see where you're coming from
>You mean....the thing gen 4 and 5 have?
Yes, that is precisely what I'm talking about!
Which is why I'm asking the question, which you have not answered yet
>are there for things such as the anime
Which means they need to account for than two dimensions. Thanks for agreeing.
>BW did start going for dynamic camera angles in some areas, but those felt scripted
They're also scripted in XY. You can't dynamically change the camera until Sword and Shield.
>There is a reason why people went crazy when they saw we could finally move diagonally
But the design philosophy hasn't changed. BW already had maps that were designed as if the player could move diagonally. It just looked like shit.
>Yes, that is precisely what I'm talking about!
No, it isn't a change in design philosophy, there is no "change in design philosophy" in this entire franchise until PLA.
Thank you for sharing your points
I myself think there actually was a big swift to map design between gens 6 and 7, of which gen 6 only hinted at
Nonetheless, my main point is that when people refer to the switch from 2d to 3d, they are speaking of things such as the pokemon themselves, as well as the challenges that would come to a series that is now required higher fidelity graphics
People are tired of arguing semantics
why is gold walking into a tree