Do you actually care about graphics or do you just hate GF

Do you actually care about graphics or do you just hate GF

Attached: 1658328112193830.jpg (3190x1800, 2.91M)

I don't care about graphics as long as art direction is consistent

The shitty draw distance is more of an issue and breaks immersion.

I hope you're not implying any of those look good

>two pokemon fully covered in the shadow of a tree
>their backs are fully lit

Attached: 1631295063094.gif (476x480, 2.79M)

both

Pokémon graphics were never good but I don’t mind them most of the time.
The shaking grass and white outlines in caves in LA actually ruin immersion for me.

Honestly just this

This. I don't care much about graphics but Pokemon has a very inconsistent art direction that I dislike. It's like one of this Mario slapped in a hyper realistic unreal demos.

I normally don't care about graphics but there is a limit. SV looks fine enough, SWSH and LA were bland but okay, BDSP is the only time I've refused to buy a game based on the graphics (I decided not to buy it as soon as I saw the art style)

If a game is not fun then graphics are the only thing you can complain about
People say fun is subjective

/thread

Same here. BDSP looked like shit from that chibi style

>Do you actually care about graphics
No

I care more about mechanics, animations and soul than graphics. But having trees and textures out of n64 is a fucking insult. Its like we get the short end of the stick for all categories with this franchise.

Dont forget
>shitty animations (zacian/zamazenta awkwardly turning on it's axis)
>still no voice acting (Pier's awkward silent concert)
>lazy fade to black "cutscenes" in PLA

I do. But I don't neccessarily want Pokémon to become a game with highest resolution AAA game tier visuals. All I want are cohesive, beautiful visuals. Unironically the only Switch game that has nice visuals is LGPE. While I'm not a fan of the "faithful" blocky textures and grid pattern mapping, just like they did in ORAS, it does have a very pleasent artstyle and overall aesthetic.

I unironically play a lot of indie pixel art games without complaint. Graphics could be shit rest but the animations being garbage tier coupled with the trash art direction of the game make it hideous to look at and unappealing to play.
More immersive animations or things to do in the overworld could fix it up, but as always there is absolutely no chance they will put any amount of effort into it when they are already making money out of selling the game to moron coonsomers.

For years Pokemon fans have produced artwork to capture the fantasy of this universe. The core games are now in a position where they can bring some of that fantasy to life, but they're also lagging behind other similar games on the market. Its not so much that I'm a big graphics, but that Pokemon itself is trying to live up to this imaged ideal with its presentation. Legends clearly wants to capitalize on the success of Zelda, yet without looking nearly as good.

Attached: 1656094533299.jpg (1920x1009, 413.65K)

A bit of both. I care about graphics whem they use better graphics and animations as an excuse for cutting Pokémon out of the dex. Also I hate that Game Freak has become so lazy they won't even copy and paste data they already have.

Unique animations

I don't care about graphics as long as I like how the game looks. The Zelda games on switch dont look good graphics wise but I dont mind it because the art styles are great.

ironic considering BDSP is the best-looking 3D Pokemon game

I sincerely hope they never add voice acting.

>>still no voice acting
good. That shit's awful in Pokemon, both on people and on the pokemon.
And I especially don't want to hear Treehouse lines vocalized.

We at least need the Stadium announcer back