@ArchoNils2: USUM were both great pokemon games.

So hyped for this game. It's a shame I have to wait for the mail to come tomorrow :(

@Mogan: Actually I think going back to the Sands of Time formula WOULD feel new and different in this day and age.

@dirthurts: I LOVED that game! It had 2 things working against it: 1) PoP 2008 kinda killed the franchise name and 2) The movie was baaaaaaaad

@R4gn4r0k: Ugh I hope they NEVER make PoP open world.

@devilpiyush: Ugh. I mean Pop 2008 was a fine game but it was not a very gog PoP at all. Visuals didn't fit a franchise known for cutting edge (1, 2, Sands of Time and Warrior Within were all considered graphical masterpieces at the time). Difficult platforming was completely MIA. It's a classic case of 08 being a fine game but not a fine entry into it's franchise.

@johnjcruz: You literally have no understanding of framerate at all.

@lonesamurai1: I fear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how framerate works in 3D applications. It's not a matter of more power. Computers from the 90s are capable of getting 60 FPS. It's a decision made by the software developer, not the hardware maker. A software developer has a decision to make: Do they increase the graphical quality of the game at the expense of FPS or do they go for high FPS at the cost of top level graphics? This is a problem that will always exist as a developer will always have to choose between better graphics and better framerate.

@DAOWAce: For one the era you speak of has never existed. Consoles have always been closed systems. 2) 60+ or bust will ALWAYS be a legit debate. More power doesn't mean a higher framerate. It means more processing power. What a developer DOES with that power is up to them. They can go for super graphics and a lower framerate or they can reduce the graphics a go for higher framerate. Also $3,000+ PCs can only barely run modern games at 4K at a steady 60 FPS.

@skyhighgam3r: What do you have?