I don't know about that. I see Fuecoco resembling a chili pepper rather than an apple. Even though chili peppers are used more in Latin America than in Spain, it still alludes to the strong Spanish influence, much like Copperajah alluded to the British influence over India. The chili pepper design also complements its Fire typing.
Pokémon Pokémon Scarlet and Pokémon Violet General Discussion
- Thread starter Snek
- Start date
Oh wow yeah now that you point it out, I see the chili pepper shape. I saw the face color and the red body and the vaguely apple-cross-section-esque face shape and immediately thought of apples. And with fuego meaning fire, it makes a lot of sense it's referring to a pepper.
How?
VanitasFan26
I'm just a ghost.
People said the same thing about Pokemon Legends Arceus of how the graphics looked bad, but when it came out it was actually really good. Although I am concerned that they revealed this Scarlet and Violet too soon, because I thought they would save it for like next year or 2024.
Halloqueen
Senior Member
I really love the look of Sprigatito. Grass is my favorite type, so I'm glad it looks nice.
I like Quaxly second best because birds are my favorite types of animals, though I agree that it does feel a bit similar to Ducklett.
Fuecoco isn't really on my wavelength but I don't dislike it. It's okay.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they all evolve into. I do agree with the other members who have said they do kind of look like fanmade designs, but I like them well enough anyhow.
Feels weird to have these two games release so soon after Legends Arceus (as well as Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, granted those were handled by a different company), but I'm down.
Considering how different Legends Arceus is compared to mainline, I feel like Scarlet and Violet will do what I wanted Legends Arceus to do and show me whether I want to stick with the series despite my normal playstyle (making themed teams with any Pokémon from any generation if I felt like it) being thrown out the window by Dexit. Looking forward to their release.
Might not be an apple or overlapping with the Applin line; I saw a tweet speculating based on the coloration and name that Fuecoco might be based on a cocoa bean.
Could also be something like a pepper or something else entirely. I'd quite like cocoa bean or pepper, but we'll just have to see.
I like Quaxly second best because birds are my favorite types of animals, though I agree that it does feel a bit similar to Ducklett.
Fuecoco isn't really on my wavelength but I don't dislike it. It's okay.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they all evolve into. I do agree with the other members who have said they do kind of look like fanmade designs, but I like them well enough anyhow.
Feels weird to have these two games release so soon after Legends Arceus (as well as Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, granted those were handled by a different company), but I'm down.
Considering how different Legends Arceus is compared to mainline, I feel like Scarlet and Violet will do what I wanted Legends Arceus to do and show me whether I want to stick with the series despite my normal playstyle (making themed teams with any Pokémon from any generation if I felt like it) being thrown out the window by Dexit. Looking forward to their release.
Might not be an apple or overlapping with the Applin line; I saw a tweet speculating based on the coloration and name that Fuecoco might be based on a cocoa bean.
Could also be something like a pepper or something else entirely. I'd quite like cocoa bean or pepper, but we'll just have to see.
nightglow
Little can stop the sun and moon from thier dance.
Why not both? lol
That is yum btw.
There is also a thing called an apple pepper. I thought I would do a quick google to see if such a thing existed.
WHAT IS A SWEET APPLE PEPPER?
CACAO!! oh my gosh that makes a lot of sense too, thanks for pointing it out. I guess Fuecoco could be like a spicy chocolate then. Hoping the chonky look gets more spicy and sophisticated
I love chili in my dark chocolate... 
What I meant was that the series would no longer be a staple of Nintendo. It would lose profitability over time because not as many games would be released every year or two years. If only one generation released every console, we'd be seeing like, I don't know, one set of new games every 6-10 years, which would kill the series. And I don't mean kill as in automatically kill. It would be a slow, painful death leaving only the merch, cards, and other stuff behind.
I definitely don't think it should be 1-2 years like it has been either. Three to four seems ideal and like enough time for them to churn out a quality game. If they can't even do that with these new games, then they've probably just lost their edge.
All of that is still not only highly unsubstantiated, but it is also completely without precedence. I can't emphasize enough that Pokémon is currently valued at around $92 billion. When Pokken Tournament was released on the Wii U, sales of the console rose by a staggering 151%. Obviously that wasn't enough to save the Wii U from being a financial failure, but it demonstrates the brand synergy Pokémon has that it can move even the most poorly managed consoles off the shelf with a non-canon spin-off game. They rather smugly referred to ORAS alone--the remakes of a previous generation game rather than the brand new mainline game released shortly beforehand--as the "Vita killer," implying that they expected to sell so many copies that it would make competition from Sony irrelevant. And they were right. And this isn't even going into supplementary material (anime, comics, spin-off games, TCG, etc.), which are likewise individually valued in the range of millions if not billions. This indicates two important things:
- That Gamefreak could release Pokémon-branded air and expect it to sell by the truckload.
- If Pokémon games did plummet even gradually as you suggest, it would probably be the largest overall loss of revenue in multimedia history and absolutely unprecedented.
Not to mention, even just comparing it to other intellectual properties, the ability to release a fully-featured, big budget title multiple times per console generation is something of rarity*, particularly among other Nintendo properties. The Mario series typically only releases one major 3D Mario game per generation, with the Galaxy games being the only exception (though there is debate as to whether or not Bowser's Fury counts, which being a short expansion of a re-release of a Wii U game, I personally don't). Yet, as of December 2021, Super Mario Odyssey is only a little bit behind Pokémon Sword and Shield, the highest grossing games in the series since 1999 in spite of dexit and public backlash. The length of time between 3D World and Odyssey was four years. But the length of time between Odyssey and Galaxy--a game that not only sold significantly better than 3D World but was released on a console that was actually successful at the time, thus making it a slightly more fair comparison--was 10 years. It's also debatable as to whether or not 3D Land counts as a mainline 3D platformer (as it was released on a portable system), but just in case, it also sold considerably better than 3D World, which leads me to one conclusion: The success of a Mario game is not inherently related to the span of time between the games, but much more closely related to how well the console on which it is released performs. Of course, there are other factors, including how Nintendo markets it--or in the case of the Wii U, how it doesn't--but the proximity between games seems to be only tangentially relevant.
For that matter, we're literally discussing this on an Animal Crossing forum, a series which famously only has one mainline game per generation but was able to outsell DOOM: Eternal in 2020 and was both the best selling game of the series by a landslide, but also one of the best selling games in its year of release, and it is still the second highest-grossing game on the Switch.
Which leads me to the ultimate conclusion to be gleamed from this: Selling multiple mainline games per console generation is a luxury afforded from Pokémon's pre-established success, not the other way around. Gamefreak rushes out game after to game because they sell well, not because they wouldn't sell well if they didn't.
I concede that, yes, they would see a decline in the rate of revenue if they decided to slow down releases dramatically. But even a fraction of that revenue would continue to solidify Pokémon as the single most profitable multimedia franchise in history. And there's no market indication that general audiences wouldn't buy the next big game in the series in droves, particularly if they're insistent on keeping an antiquated two-versions model. There is nothing that suggests that multiple generations per console is the load-bearing cog that's keeping the series afloat.
* With the exception of annual release games like sports titles and Call of Duty games, but I'm choosing to not degrade this discussion to applying the abhorrent business practices of Electronic Arts or Activision as viable long-term strategies.
But even if all that were true, I'm honestly kind of apathetic to it? I simply don't see the growth of revenue at the expense of the quality of the games to be something to applaud. If we were to apply this same train of thought to something like The Simpsons, a series whose longevity and subsequent waning quality has been the subject of ridicule for a longer duration of time than that of its heyday, one could easily make the argument that if the showrunners were to examine the weaknesses of the show and decide to focus on quality rather than quantity, it would ultimately lead to an enormous decline in viewership that could ultimately end up cancelling the show. That's largely debatable as well; The Simpsons is still a ratings darling, with millions of viewers every week in spite of its current state of mediocrity having become mainstream sentiment. But even if we entertain that it is true... oh well?
I hold a lot of high regard for Pokémon, in spite of my ever-growing list of frustrations with it. But at the end of the day, I'm playing these games because I expect a reasonable level of entertainment quality from them, not because I care about how they're succeeding as a brand. I would rather the games fizzle out in a respectful light than to continue trudging along as a cash cow milked until the well runs dry. But unfortunately for me, it seems like Nintendo has chosen the latter option.
I think this is the first time I don't hate any of the starters. Quaxly has grown on me considerably since the Pokèmon Day trailer. I'm really hoping that they reveal the second evos before release because I really need to know the direction they'll be going in. If Sprigatito goes bipedal you bet I'll be picking one of the other two.
Sheep Villager
Feel free to call me Sheep
Out of curiosity does anyone have any guesses for the legendaries? The past two generations the logos for the games have been tied to the cover legendaries.
The logo for Scarlet looks like a gem with a more intricate font while Violet has a very stiff, almost robotic font with some light flecks and a weird ridged texture.
Obviously you don't get much to go off of here, but I want to hear all your theories just for fun.
For me I'd guess a snake for Scarlet since the font is so curved and bits of it look like snake fangs. The fang like shapes seem very intentional since even the A has one for some reason. The gemstone pattern could even be scales. So... gem snake? They could also be bird talons but I'm personally too tired of avian legendaries to consider this.
Violet is more tricky. I'm not getting anything outside of very artificial vibes from it. It does remind me of fireflies due to the specks.
No clue how you would pair a snake and a firefly together but this is for fun anyway so I'm going with snake + firefly as my guesses.
The logo for Scarlet looks like a gem with a more intricate font while Violet has a very stiff, almost robotic font with some light flecks and a weird ridged texture.
Obviously you don't get much to go off of here, but I want to hear all your theories just for fun.
For me I'd guess a snake for Scarlet since the font is so curved and bits of it look like snake fangs. The fang like shapes seem very intentional since even the A has one for some reason. The gemstone pattern could even be scales. So... gem snake? They could also be bird talons but I'm personally too tired of avian legendaries to consider this.
Violet is more tricky. I'm not getting anything outside of very artificial vibes from it. It does remind me of fireflies due to the specks.
No clue how you would pair a snake and a firefly together but this is for fun anyway so I'm going with snake + firefly as my guesses.
I'll end up totally wrong but...Out of curiosity does anyone have any guesses for the legendaries? The past two generations the logos for the games have been tied to the cover legendaries.
The logo for Scarlet looks like a gem with a more intricate font while Violet has a very stiff, almost robotic font with some light flecks and a weird ridged texture.
Obviously you don't get much to go off of here, but I want to hear all your theories just for fun.
For me I'd guess a snake for Scarlet since the font is so curved and bits of it look like snake fangs. The fang like shapes seem very intentional since even the A has one for some reason. The gemstone pattern could even be scales. So... gem snake? They could also be bird talons but I'm personally too tired of avian legendaries to consider this.
Violet is more tricky. I'm not getting anything outside of very artificial vibes from it. It does remind me of fireflies due to the specks.
No clue how you would pair a snake and a firefly together but this is for fun anyway so I'm going with snake + firefly as my guesses.
If the theme of the boxarts is centered around the EM spectrum then...
The Scarlet legendary might be typed Fire/Dark
and the Violet legendary might be typed Psychic/Fairy
Both infrared and ultraviolet rays are radiation and both are invisible to the human eye, so the typings I guessed are centered around that. It won't look like there will be any new types so I'm guessing the typings purely based on the aesthetics of the logos.
Last edited:
Arceus is a lot of fun, but the graphics still do look pretty mediocre and the game was definitely rushed. With a few features missing like any type of multiplayer.
VanitasFan26
I'm just a ghost.
Thats the problem there, and Legends Arceus lacked Multiplayer since the only thing you could do was trade Pokemon and find players missing bags (I forgot what they were called) and that was pretty much it. I only hope Game Freak knows what they are doing, because after Legends Arceus was successful I am concerned if they are going back to the old formula that has been done to death.
They are called satchels
Now that we have a true open world they may not go back to the old formula. The only thing they really need to fix is the IV system (replace it with the grit system) and carrying over the Linking Cord and turn the other trade evo items into consumbles. Legends Arceus was really fun for me for those reasons. Since breeding will likely return I hope they fix the system as well.
Honestly, these are the first Pokemon games in a good while that I've not felt have looked underwhelming from the trailers. Despite the fact I've enjoyed every main release from the series (except Sun/Moon. I hate those), Pokemon games since at least X/Y have felt undercooked from the trailers and not up to their full potential when I actually play them.
I'm actually looking forward to a Pokemon game release for once in a long time whereas usually I've been picking them up because I've nothing else to play at the time and end up enjoying them despite their faults.
For me I'm hoping they do go back to the old formula to at least some degree. Take what worked with PLA and apply it to the "main" games.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the 8 gyms > evil team > elite 4 formula (especially if they got some decent writers to do it for once...). For me it was just the gameplay was wearing thin enough that another retelling of the same story couldn't hold it up anymore. Pretty much 25 years with no real massive alterations to a fairly simple battle system and gameplay loop. About all they had done is continuously make the games easier and more pandering to the point where Sun/Moon just had absolutely no respect for the players intelligence.
I'm especially hoping for more regular optional/random trainer battles as PLA really falls flat in that regard for me. Most of the battles being wild Pokemon you can simply choose their counter before battle even starts takes away so much difficulty and pushed the game into the realm of monotonous for me. The few trainer battles that were there we're particularly impressive either, especially those who send out multiple Pokemon at once where only 1 isn't a guaranteed one shot kill.
Saying that, seamlessly catching Pokemon and entering battles with them is an absolute must to carry over from PLA. The open world aspect too, it's far better than that "thing" they tried with Sw/Sh. Having the 'requests' would also be a smooth move as Pokemon has always been extremely linear with no real reason to stray from the beaten path. Sure, I don't think the rewards for doing most of the requests were worth actually doing most of them, but having some side quests to wander off with is something Pokemon really needed.
I'm actually looking forward to a Pokemon game release for once in a long time whereas usually I've been picking them up because I've nothing else to play at the time and end up enjoying them despite their faults.
For me I'm hoping they do go back to the old formula to at least some degree. Take what worked with PLA and apply it to the "main" games.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the 8 gyms > evil team > elite 4 formula (especially if they got some decent writers to do it for once...). For me it was just the gameplay was wearing thin enough that another retelling of the same story couldn't hold it up anymore. Pretty much 25 years with no real massive alterations to a fairly simple battle system and gameplay loop. About all they had done is continuously make the games easier and more pandering to the point where Sun/Moon just had absolutely no respect for the players intelligence.
I'm especially hoping for more regular optional/random trainer battles as PLA really falls flat in that regard for me. Most of the battles being wild Pokemon you can simply choose their counter before battle even starts takes away so much difficulty and pushed the game into the realm of monotonous for me. The few trainer battles that were there we're particularly impressive either, especially those who send out multiple Pokemon at once where only 1 isn't a guaranteed one shot kill.
Saying that, seamlessly catching Pokemon and entering battles with them is an absolute must to carry over from PLA. The open world aspect too, it's far better than that "thing" they tried with Sw/Sh. Having the 'requests' would also be a smooth move as Pokemon has always been extremely linear with no real reason to stray from the beaten path. Sure, I don't think the rewards for doing most of the requests were worth actually doing most of them, but having some side quests to wander off with is something Pokemon really needed.
CylieDanny
OK, it's giving Jealousy
Just thought Id drop this here.
VanitasFan26
I'm just a ghost.
I will have to agree with you on that because they did do a great story in the past with Black/White and at the time it was really great. Sun/Moon while it too had a great story the problem with it was that the tutorial was so long like you couldn't even skip the cutscenes because you were forced to watch it. Sword and Shield made it worse because it forced to keep going along with the story and didn't let you do things you wanted to do independently. I hope Scarlet and Violet take most of the good things from Legends Arcues and Black/White and at least make it more interesting.
