A key thing people seem to forget or not realize is that the Pokemon games until recently have been made on a relatively low budget. Putting out a HD MMO game regardless of its genre, with every known Pokemon would cost Nintendo more money then they probably would have budgeted for 2 back to back console Zelda releases.

I definitively agree that Pokemon can be so much more; for starters, not so mind-numbing boring. Your idea of hack n' slash is terrifying, though, since I tend to not like that genre; it would be far more desirable a solid RPG system. Only Pokemon game I've liked was Colosseum, and because it gave some sense of conspiracy and obscureness. Give more of that, and less remakes of previous games or new entries with your cookie-cutter plot and more more more pokemon to catch.

While your idea of adding more is enticing, I dislike the philosophy behind it. I don't want more, I want better. There's no need of 714+ characters and 500+ moves if with less you can achieve greater things.

You forgot to mention that the game needs to be rendered in 4k at 60 frames per second and include day 1 DLC that gives you early access to the exp. share and a higher probability of encountering shiny Pokémon. Not to mention later releases that give you access to that one island/mountain/cave/city that supposedly holds many rare Pokémon and items that cannot be found elsewhere.


Lots of wasted potential indeed.

I can't remember the last time a exclusive game with a low userbase of a console even made a profit. Look at Shemume. 

So basically change the combat system to the one of a niche genre and waste tons of money to turn up to eleven the non-gaming content in the game.

The race to catch them all has been going on for nearly 20 years, and for better or worse, the heart and soul of the Pokemon series persists in the new 3D remakes of the two Game Boy Advance classics, Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire. From the modern presentation to the new mega evolutions and side content, Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire are greater than their progenitors, but they're still very similar to every Pokemon game that's come before. I'm OK with that, because at the end of the day, dissertation writing service these are enjoyable games with a large number of cute combatants to capture and train, and near-infinite competitive multiplayer potential

Yeah, I didn't mean Elder Scrolls at all. It's hard to compare it to anything because there aren't really open world games that are like what I want this game's world to be like, but I know that it would fit under the open world definition. A large, connected world, linked by numerous linear routes and hub towns/cities. That's what I want. Not skyrim. Pokemon.

As for the combat, while I dislike the turn based gameplay, this theoretical game would be a spin off. It doesn't replace the core franchise. Just like how Pokemon Mystery dungeon was. I do think there is an arguement to be made for how a trainer controls his Pokemon and how it is implied that the link between the two is deeper and more involved than just an issue of commands. Even in Brawl, you play as the Pokemon trainer, but you control his Pokemon. I've always interpreted the relationship between a trainer and his Pokemon (in the games) to be similar to the relationship between a gamer and the player character. You as the player have a very direct control of what you control, the gamer through his controller, and the trainer through his Pokeball and the bond it forms between him and Pokemon. It's why it makes sense to me that wild Pokemon don't need behavieral training and just imediately obey their trainers, and also why traded Pokemon have such a hard time with new trainers without the appropriate proof of skill in the form of badges.

I don't mind what X and Y did, but I don't see why having players share a world in limited quantities is a bad thing. Having maybe four other trainers of similar skill share a route seems like a natural evolution of what Pokemon was originally trying to be.

I think a lot of people took issue with my use of the term hack and slash, so I'd like to elaborate a little. I want Pokemon to ba Hack and Slash in the same way that many people, not including myself, consider Super Smash Bros to be a fighting game. There is supreme depth there, but just as supreme accessability. Pokemon's current battle system offers a depth and complexity that I don't want to lose, but at the same time, I find turn based battling extremely boring, and if it weren't for Pokemon, I'd never play it.

And 714+ Pokemon and 500+ moves isn't adding more just to add more. You need 714+ Pokemon, because there are canonically 714+ Pokemon, and it would be a betreyal of the fanbase to make a game where some of those guys were ignored. That's just the bare minimum. The adding more is the voice acting, compitent story arc, etc.

Post-apocaliptic scenario. Kill half of those. The rest are enslaved and at the disposition of very few, who seemedly use them to subyugate what's little left of society. Arise an anti-hero main character who doesn't have the need to find a disctintion between good and evil.

Canonically, you can do everything you want. The above scenario would make me purchase a Pokemon game.

I think Ni No Kuni managed to pull off something very similar to what I envisioned to be the ultimate console pokemon