In my opinion, given that existed 150+ pokemons, they used an algoritm to randomize shjny pokemons, then checked most of them, and if they did not liked them, they changed their designs, by either randomizing it agan ornby hand. That's why shiny follow different rules
The algorithym theory was never about the existence of an algorithym, it was about the multiple patterns and rules and that there wasn't anyone thinking about the best shiny possible for hours like there is today
In lockstins vid he reiterated many times that it's not definative proof of algo but defs patterns happening. This vid was mainly targeted at those who ran with the idea as fact.
Oh yeah cause they absolutely thought about maushold's shiny for hours Also I've seen many, MANY people thinking the shinies were literally made by a computer so idk what you're trying to say here
@@mertensiam3384 Do you know what an algorithm is? An algorithm is a set of rules that can be followed by a computer. The old shinies weren't thought one by one, they has a patterm, a group of rules that they followed, an algorythm. Also, an algorithm couldn't make the new shinies thanks to how textures work, maushold's shiny looks like that because it is inspired by mouse toy houses that were very popular in Japan, with the shiny looking even similiar to the mouse toys
Very well made video. Even the video that you referenced from the dude with the goatee (lockstin), had like a million channel followers and millions of views and yours has a few thousand and imo its very well done and better/easier to follow/understand
Ah, this explains what the question was for over at /r/PokemonROMhacks. It's a good video, with more credence than Lockstien's. It could perhaps get to the point faster, if the point is to debunk Lockstein's "there is an algorithm is Gen II" then it takes 10 minutes to get there. One minor correction: it doesn't get more complicated in Gens IV and V, they also use 16 colors (or 15 ignoring the transparent one) with a bitdepth of 15 bits per color (i.e. highcolor). Lockstein's bit about Diglett is also weird since he is talking about the Gen III palette at the same time. I honestly don't know what he is trying to say, but it isn't unambiguously that Diglett's shiny is algorithmically generated because the nose and the dirt is the same color. Rather, he seems to be making an argument about how Diglett's colors were carried over to Gen III, that because the dirt isn't blue in Gen III there *is* some amount of developer meddling. It doesn't make much sense though, because an algorithm could see the difference between Diglett's nose and dirt in Gen III, because there the nose is red and the dirt is beige. I personally do believe that all the shinies were hand-made, because it's simply easier that way than having a complicated algorithm that you still have to tweak afterwards. Changing up palettes in a drawing tool meant for palettized images (like GraphicsGale; though obviously GameFreak devs used some other tool, GG being too new) is super fast relative to drawing the image. But the Diglett bit is nonsensical.
Glad you enjoyed the vid! Yea I regret taking so long to get to the point, its because I spent so long looking for color harmony rules that I felt I needed to add it in there to kinda tell the whole story of both sides of the argument. I only found out about the debug room the last week of research. But I will try to make it alot faster in Part 2. And also thanks for the correction. I just assumed they got more complex in gen 4-5 but Ill defiantly keep that in mind next vid. & yea the diglett point was very strange. Thanks again for all the help in regards to the gen 3 sprites!
