By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Pokemon can be so much more.

Spade on 27 November 2014

Ni No Kuni to me came very close. Although the mosters themselves were extremely forgettable. That's why I'd love a Level 5/GameFreak collab. Would be something really special.



https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png

Around the Network
sc94597 on 27 November 2014

What is the incentive to do that? Pokemon games sell great how they are, people love them how they are, and they won't cost nearly as much.



NintendoPie on 27 November 2014

God no, that would only soil Pokémon further. I agree some critical things need to change, but one of them is not the genre. An MMO would be horrendous. Game Freak must increase the difficulty and try a little harder with story, but no, no, no to what you've listed.

I know it's your opinion and I recognize that you do have a great fondness and passion for this, but I just can't.



StarOcean on 27 November 2014

Yeah, no... MMO/ removal of turn based gameplay will turn me away from the series for good. Plus I don't really care much for Nintendo home consoles (I buy Nintendo handhelds and then own either PS/XB and then buy the N console much later down the line). I know a lot of people with the same mindset too -true, the sample I have may be a minority but you seem to overestimate the appeal of completely changing the genre of the series. If a big budget Pokemon game is to be made on consoles I want it to accurately reflect the main series, not to be some spin off.



the_dengle on 27 November 2014

I'm tired of hearing about this bizarre wet dream eater. This idea is a complete wash rotom.

I don't care about this non-game but I've said that before. Eleven times as a matter of fact.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 27 November 2014
mZuzek said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
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.

The way you put it it's almost like the actual games don't do this already.


Name one example.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 27 November 2014
spemanig said:
mZuzek said:

Well you made it sound like you meant Elder Scrolls kind of open world. To be honest I want it to have the exploration feel that current Pokémon games have, but with a much more open world in nature, instead of just being a lot of doorways disguised as routes. Some invisible walls in X/Y in particular were atrocious, I don't ever want that again.

As for the combat, I think it should always remain turn-based. That's the core essence of Pokémon's gameplay and if it was removed it would not only completely break from the franchise's gameplay identity but also from its conceptual identity since you would no longer be playing as the trainer and instead would be directly controlling the monsters themselves. And that's something I don't like.

What I want from an ideal Pokémon game is a 3D 3rd person adventure much in the same way as the actual existing games are, but with a more vast world, more freedom, and above everything way, WAY more immersion. I want it to feel like the true Pokémon world and not a representation of it. I want to see my Pokémon evolve in the actual environment I'm in, I want the transition from exploration to battling to be seamless and realistic, I want maps to be integrated in a way that makes proper sense, I want to be able to interact with my Pokémon in several ways (god riding them was such a wasted opportunity in X/Y) and I want the battles themselves to feel real instead of just having them staring at each other for half a minute before unleashing waves of random animations at each other.

I always thought a good way to make the battles feel realistic while still keeping the turn-based system would be having a slow-motion moment for you to issue a command. The action would happen in cinematic cut-scenes and after each move for that turn was made, it would slow down and give you a timer (like 20 seconds) to decide what you'd do in the next turn. Essentially keep the current system but make it more believable.

As for online, I like it the way it is in X/Y. Improve it and make it feel a little bit more intuitive and connected and it'll be perfect.


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.

See what I mean? Open World Pokemon suddenly = Elder Scrolls



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 27 November 2014
Player2 said:

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.

As though pokemon spinoffs do not exist...



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 27 November 2014
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
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.

Why does any suggestions to a 17 year old series all of a sudden mean that it has to encoporate all the trappings of current gen games?



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 27 November 2014
mZuzek said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Name one example.

Just about every event Pokémon and location ever?


That's a bizarre comparison. Events and DLC are two different things.