We FINALLY know who RUINED Pokemon Games

Who Is Responsible for the Declining Quality of Pokémon Games?

The video investigates who is responsible for the declining quality of modern Pokémon games. Its conclusion is that there is no single culprit: Game Freak has real shortcomings, but the wider Pokémon corporate structure helps sustain the conditions behind them.

The Companies Behind Pokémon

• Game Freak develops the main-series games and creates their Pokémon, regions, characters, and mechanics.
• Creatures Inc. maintains the Pokémon CG Studio, which creates and supplies Pokémon models for games, cards, and other projects.
• Nintendo co-publishes and distributes the games. However, Game Freak is an external developer, not one of Nintendo’s internal studios. Nintendo’s Mario Club provides quality assurance, but the video says that is not the same as taking over development.
• The Pokémon Company coordinates the brand, including licensing, marketing, merchandise, events, and many non-console products.

Game Freak’s Pressures and Decisions

The video notes that Game Freak is relatively small for a franchise of Pokémon’s scale, relies heavily on contractors, and has been criticized for low budgets, outdated tools, and games that appear rushed. It also argues that the familiar three-year generation cycle—and the related stream of franchise releases—leaves little time for polishing.

However, the schedule may not simply be imposed on Game Freak. The video says release plans are likely agreed upon collectively, and that Game Freak’s management may have a significant role in committing to them. It also highlights the studio’s preference for small teams and its work on non-Pokémon “Gear Project” games. Some claims about Game Freak’s priorities rely on translated interviews, however, and should be treated carefully.

The video also criticizes Game Freak’s handling of Dexit, the removal of some Pokémon from Sword and Shield. Game Freak said the models had to be remade, but the video cites evidence that Creatures designed them as long-term assets and that the models in the games matched older ones. Why Game Freak made the decision—and its explanation for it—remains unclear.

Creatures, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company

Creatures’ detailed, reusable models were intended to serve many products, but the video argues that they contributed to slowdowns on the 3DS when many Pokémon appeared at once. It also notes that Game Freak approves the models used in its games.

Nintendo’s limited involvement is explained by the corporate boundary between its internal studios and external partners such as Game Freak. Meanwhile, The Pokémon Company coordinates the many products tied to a game’s release. That coordination can make delays difficult, even if the company is not directly ordering Game Freak to meet a deadline.

The Deeper Cause: Pokémon’s Corporate Structure

The video traces the current arrangement back to the original games. Game Freak ran into financial trouble during development, and Creatures—formed by Tsunekazu Ishihara after Ape Inc. was disbanded—helped keep the project alive. Nintendo and Creatures are described as having helped the game reach release, after which the companies’ shared involvement became the basis for Pokémon’s ownership structure.

The video argues that joint ownership and shared profits make replacing Game Freak or changing the established division of responsibilities difficult. It cites Japan’s joint-copyright rules as another obstacle to unilateral changes. Because all the companies benefit from the broader brand—including its highly lucrative merchandise business—they have strong incentives to preserve a system that continues to generate major returns, even when game quality draws criticism.

Verdict

Game Freak’s management bears responsibility for decisions involving staffing, tools, outsourcing, and schedules. But the video’s central argument is that the larger Pokémon corporate apparatus is the deeper problem. Shared ownership, coordinated releases, and reliable profits help keep the status quo in place and make blame easy to diffuse.

The video also notes that consumers’ continued purchases matter, though it leaves that topic for another discussion. It views the longer gap before Winds and Waves as a possible opportunity for improvement, while cautioning that the cited leak does not establish that quality was the reason for the delay.

People and Sources Featured

• Satoshi Tajiri and Tsunekazu Ishihara, in the account of Pokémon’s early development
• Junichi Masuda, on deadlines and team size
• Kota Furushima, in an interview about Game Freak’s approach to game design and graphics
• Ken Sugimori and his art team
• IGN, CG World magazine, and OpenWork
• An unnamed Pokémon Company COO, as identified in the subtitles
• Article 65 of Japanese copyright law
• The Tera Leak, referenced in the discussion of the Winds and Waves delay