-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
(Rumor) Gamefreak might be doing something similar to BOTW/Odyssey for next Pokemon..
- Thread starter Deleted member 1839
- Start date
- Status
I love that being "disruptive" could now be considered as the best way to improve sales. Another fantastic accomplishment we could thank BOTW for? How great that would be to see it becoming a common mantra and big western devs to follow suit. A man can dream, lol.
But in the case of Pokemon I just want to, at last, eventually, after all these years, play a damn game from this series on a console, you know, something I have never been able to do for the most idiotic reasons ever.
But in the case of Pokemon I just want to, at last, eventually, after all these years, play a damn game from this series on a console, you know, something I have never been able to do for the most idiotic reasons ever.
This is like saying that people are tired of Mario jumping in Platformers.
Yeah and the start of each generation is different and experimental, so in that regard there's nothing new.
Just have to look here for some of Sun & Moon's drastic uphevals: https://www.resetera.com/threads/po...c-changes-and-refinements-to-the-series.6909/
That's because the perspective from which that suggestion is made is so often a selfish one, backed by erroneous assumptions. I have suggested changes to Pokemon's combat system myself, but I would say that people who expect a shakeup that would supplant that combat system entirely don't quite get the point or appeal of the series to begin with. It's almost like they assume it isn't there, because it isn't there for them, and thus consider that adherence to what works and what's beloved to be some sort of failing. Some will suggest that the series would be better off if it adopted conventions that would fundamentally betray what the series is meant to be, with claims so counter-intuitive that they're often what's responsible for the riling you've noticed. No, I think Game Freak deserves a lot of flak for their handling of this series, but Pokemon's combat system is unshakable. It is excellent and serves as the foundation for a lasting phenomenon. It is the last thing that needs to be changed up about this series before a replacement of that system is even considered. There are so many ways to improve what Pokemon is without sacrificing that core. I even think they could get damn close to the kind of Pokemon game you want without resorting to that. The alternative is to request the death of a design with great appeal to generations of fans and new players for novelty's sake.
It's an idea that carries over from the tech industry as a whole. Disruptive is always better even when it isn't. People pushing for disruption even when it hurts people, makes their lives worse, or literally makes zero sense.
Not everything needs a drastic shakeup or giant reinvention. Zelda needed it simply because they were reaching the limits of their previous formula. Given GameFreak are still managing to innovate while remaining true to their original vision, they probably don't need a massive reinvention of the series. I mean, if you took Ultra Sun and showed it to a kid in the 90's who just finished Pokemon Red you'd completely melt their brains.
People acting like the series has never changed despite the fact it's changed a ton over the years.
Man people do are desperate to tell others that pokemon REALLY can't be changed.
Now the games can't be changed because little kids wouldn't understand? right, because pokemon, in it's current state, is super accesible to kids under 5 year old (it isn't).
Now, mario, that's a series where i would understand people saying "won''t anyone think about the kids".
(and, again, changing pokemon doesn't neccesarily mean changing the battle system).
Now the games can't be changed because little kids wouldn't understand? right, because pokemon, in it's current state, is super accesible to kids under 5 year old (it isn't).
Now, mario, that's a series where i would understand people saying "won''t anyone think about the kids".
(and, again, changing pokemon doesn't neccesarily mean changing the battle system).
The thing about Action RPG combat is that you would have to take control of the Pokemon. A big thing on this games is that you are the trainer and the Pokemons are their own beings, hence the whole ignoring what you chose when you have a over leveled mon that's not yours or the stuff about curing themselves from statuses when liking you enough. The current combat system is build on that assumption, you/the trainer shouting commands. Taking direct control of the pokemon is counter to this idea
Is this in reference to my posts, lol? because if so, that's not just a reductive take on my input, it's downright confounding.
I mean, looking at it, it's clearly a list of all the main platforming based Super Mario games, with no Mario Kart/Mario RPGs/Mario Party/etc in sight. That's what the mainline series is considered to be.
I would love some big changes. I can't get into Pokemon games because they all feel the same for me.
Currently if you don't want to PvP, the game is easy and just becomes boring after ~20 hours. I've tried X/Y and ORAS later and I felt the same thing. I think they could change the battle system a little bit. It should be turn-based of course, but I feel you can do something different - at least once.
But of course I guess fans would freak out if the battles weren't the same as always.
Currently if you don't want to PvP, the game is easy and just becomes boring after ~20 hours. I've tried X/Y and ORAS later and I felt the same thing. I think they could change the battle system a little bit. It should be turn-based of course, but I feel you can do something different - at least once.
But of course I guess fans would freak out if the battles weren't the same as always.
Anything can change about Pokemon. The Pokemon games as we know them are the torchbearers for a battle system that still holds up. There's no reason a more ambitious take on Pokemon can't exist as an alternative and design opportunity for the developers, as with 2D and 3D Mario - however, to replace the current system outright with that take would be a mistake. As a second series, it would be a boon.
The linear and hand-holding nature of the games should be changed. I think that Game Freak over-reaches in their attempts at ensuring that an already accessible design is playable by everyone. I think the mainline series itself could stand for some more complexity and freedom where the world design is concerned.
Last edited:
Exploration (open-world), meaningful side quests, and a decent post game is what I expect from a series revamp. The turn-based gameplay is fine and has always been so it shouldn't change too much. If Gamefreak could work with more employees, specifically ones with open-world and RPG experience, that would be great.
I think you'd be surprised how much it's changed since then. This is basically saying you haven't played since Silver/Gold.
Nah
It was Joe who suggested (some pages ago) that kids under 5 are a significant portion of the userbase, which can handle pokemon in it's current state, but wouldn't otherwise
Anyone who says they want want the battle system to change, doesnt understand the intricacies of the battle system and how it is ingrained into the DNA of the game.
The part that Game Freak can be ambitious with and have certainly been conservative with is the overworld design and the exploration involved with that. You could also make an argument that Pokemon have felt detached from the overworld, but you can see they are making improvements with that since X and Y. Interactions with Pokemon outside of battle will go a long way to making it feel 'real'.
What Game Freak absolutely need to to do is stop taking away quality of life features that improve the experience and justify it by labelling them as 'regional quirks'. Way too much fucking tinkering going on with that dev team and no one seems to know when they've got a good thing going.
The part that Game Freak can be ambitious with and have certainly been conservative with is the overworld design and the exploration involved with that. You could also make an argument that Pokemon have felt detached from the overworld, but you can see they are making improvements with that since X and Y. Interactions with Pokemon outside of battle will go a long way to making it feel 'real'.
What Game Freak absolutely need to to do is stop taking away quality of life features that improve the experience and justify it by labelling them as 'regional quirks'. Way too much fucking tinkering going on with that dev team and no one seems to know when they've got a good thing going.
Last edited:
But why can't the mainline series "evolve" and be more ambitious, whithout changing the battle system.
Edit:
Just saw your edit
It can, and should. That's my expectation and I won't buy future games that don't meet that expectation. I haven't really made that clear but that is where I stand. I posted this on NeoGAF a long time ago:
I think that Pokemon can be made into something special while still retaining everything that gives it its appeal to its current audience today.
That's a lot different from saying:
I agree. It seems GF's way of "evolving" the series was to add more cutscenes and longer dialogue which is evident in S/M though it seems they are learning from how shortened the time it took to get your starter in Ultra S/M in comparison to S/M which took damn near forever.
In any case, I think Pokemon, as a series, would benefit greatly from having an open world if done properly, of course. Give us some proper side quests, too.
The game still feels like it's from the 90s. How do you have an RPG that is so sluggish?
Open pokemon menu to look at pokemon, greeted with short white screen while loading, when you back out you get a 3 second black screen, good forbid you have to do multiple things in the menus of an RPG it's hard to do without getting bored and sleepy quite frankly. Everything in the game is tedious, from breeding to planting berries, and feels like a low budget game.
Wild pokemon encounter!
Meeedly meeedly meeedly meeedly....transition still fading....black screen while loading...pokemon intro animations...same exact locked camera perspective as Red/Blue until it decides to start moving on it's own. And you have to go through this 30 second process exactly the same way for each of the thousands of battles you'll take part of. Even if you just want to run. Even as a kid I hated this. And don't bother doing a z-move, you will be transported to "Generic Canyon" with WordArt 98™ font displaying the name of the move while your character awkwardly darts through the landscape without moving a single body part and flattens your opponent into a Wile E Coyote piece of paper.
They need ZERO loading times between menus and even starting battles. I firmly believe this would improve the feeling of gameplay more than almost any other suggestions. Instead of having this loading screen with animations they should have a very quick transition, like for example the screen just tears up like paper and you're already in the middle of battle. Also what was the point of having such beautiful background art that matches all the areas you're actually in in sun/moon just to ruin it by having z moves done in a generic background?
Open pokemon menu to look at pokemon, greeted with short white screen while loading, when you back out you get a 3 second black screen, good forbid you have to do multiple things in the menus of an RPG it's hard to do without getting bored and sleepy quite frankly. Everything in the game is tedious, from breeding to planting berries, and feels like a low budget game.
Wild pokemon encounter!
Meeedly meeedly meeedly meeedly....transition still fading....black screen while loading...pokemon intro animations...same exact locked camera perspective as Red/Blue until it decides to start moving on it's own. And you have to go through this 30 second process exactly the same way for each of the thousands of battles you'll take part of. Even if you just want to run. Even as a kid I hated this. And don't bother doing a z-move, you will be transported to "Generic Canyon" with WordArt 98™ font displaying the name of the move while your character awkwardly darts through the landscape without moving a single body part and flattens your opponent into a Wile E Coyote piece of paper.
They need ZERO loading times between menus and even starting battles. I firmly believe this would improve the feeling of gameplay more than almost any other suggestions. Instead of having this loading screen with animations they should have a very quick transition, like for example the screen just tears up like paper and you're already in the middle of battle. Also what was the point of having such beautiful background art that matches all the areas you're actually in in sun/moon just to ruin it by having z moves done in a generic background?
Last edited:
So like BotW then? That would be cool.
Odyssey being included in the comparison is weird to me though. That game isn't "disruptive" like BotW at all, it doesn't revolutionize anything or even evolve the Mario series in any significant way. It's just a great modern take on the SM64 formula with an added mechanic, like Sunshine before it (although Odyssey is obviously a more successful attempt).
Odyssey being included in the comparison is weird to me though. That game isn't "disruptive" like BotW at all, it doesn't revolutionize anything or even evolve the Mario series in any significant way. It's just a great modern take on the SM64 formula with an added mechanic, like Sunshine before it (although Odyssey is obviously a more successful attempt).
Mainline Mario games are platformers developed internally by Nintendo.
Yoshi's Island doesn't count due to Nintendo treating it as a different franchise like the Wario Land games. "Super Mario World 2" was something made up by the American localization.
I hope the battle system resembles nothing like Pokken. That would keep me away from the game.
Turned based action with more options would be preferred.
Turned based action with more options would be preferred.
Obviously it doesn't need to look like that, but something more openworld Pokémon would be a sight to see.
I love this:
"This is my personal model for console Pokemon - something restrained mechanically relative to these MMO fever dreams but which would give the impression of a grand adventure ala my memories of the cartoon and my nostalgia for the old Pokemon culture, which through watercolor art, down to earth style, and a hefty dose of mystique, helped to conjure an image of a whole 'nother world, tangible and packed with new places and creatures to discover. Scale, interaction, freedom, from a close up, behind the back, third person perspective;"
I'd love to hear stories about a mansion with ghosts and then finding and interacting with gengar there (not with a random encounter or with gengar casually standing in the middle of a room, obviously).
What about pokemon trainer encounters?
I agree with you on almost all points in your quote. League Level is something to consider but you could also "gate" stuff through levels, which makes it softer gating if you are a veteran and know the Pokemon.
Now you add more MMO mechanics into what you wrote, you encounter other players and can challenge them through dialog, stronger Pokemon roam the world, abilities get learned through story or other events to keep them special while not binding them to Pokemon (hell, make the abilities like Cut into tools you acquire), you could even add regional bonus effects (fire regions weaken ice, ice regions weaken fire, etc. ). You would only get stopped with your progress through the level of your Pokemon and the tools you might need to acquire.
And please make it stable and technical sound. =x
They could lay traps and force you into a fight, they could hide comically with a colored sheet at a rock wall, they could chase you on a bike or whatever. Lots of ways to make the encounters fun while also keeping you on your toes in the world.
Hell, you enter a dark and gloomy forest, wander through the bushes and trees. The dark atmosphere gets you into the mood when you see a woodsman walking along a path, holding his axe, he looks a bit gruffy so you aren't sure, will he be nice and help you or, as you are playing Pokemon, will he challenge you to a fight. You can either avoid him or approach him.
I mostly agree: it's important to keep the key elements that make such games truly unique but for me BOTW has proved that revamping totally a series while keeping its main appeals and mechanics can really do wonders. I consider video games as pieces of art, such as music, movies and so on, and changes and innovation in that regard should always be fundamental to judge how great they are. So that's a way of thinking I would love to see for any gaming series ever because it was beautifully done in Zelda but that's of course certainly extremely difficult to do so well, as a result very risky and could easily end as a disaster if you lose in the process these unique aspects that can't be found on any other game. And it's certain that that risk is much bigger for a great and very creative concept-wise series like Pokemon. But honestly I don't think Zelda got more stale before BOTW than Pokemon is now, each new Zelda games also added constantly new elements just not as drastic as the ones in BOTW.
Of course the question is to ask what makes Pokemon truly great and then consider if possible changes can improve on that or on the contrary will play against it, but these are questions than most devs should asked themselves much more often if anything rather than just reusing the same formulas over and over again. It has to be done tastefully but that is what talent is really about.
You write a lot, but you don't seem to read much.
I said that it wouldn't need to be an arpg. In fact, I don't like arpgs and always prefer classic ones. There is some games like ES (and now) LoZ but usually I'd rather play some isometric goodness.
Leveling has nothing to do with arpgs. You can progress without levels in a crpg. In fact, in the Pokemon's case, I think that maturing your pokemon and teaching them new skills would be better than gaining some arbitrary game-y numbers.
Everyone understands that if you learn stuff and grow older and bigger, it means more skills and more power.
Even food could be a part of it, stuff your pokemon full of good, fortifying food and it would be stronger for a while. They could even make chubby pokemons if you overfeed and then they's be slower.
There would still be tons of stats and whatnot, combat could stay just the same, just progressing would be different.
I hate levels, they are the most boring way of progress and one would have thought that players had outgrown it already...
I haven't seen an improvement in the quality of discussion and there even seems to be a strange off topic arguement about what a mainline Mario game is? If you want to continue to discuss the future of Pokemon then I suggest visiting one of our other Pokemon threads such as the Community OT but this thread has run its course.
- Status