| Khuutra said: I think if they want to make a truly great Pokemon game they need to focus on what drew people to it in the first place: catching and trading monsters. The real question is how to make that formula feel fresh again. |
I think that with a little thought it's fairly clear how they can almost instantly make the formula feel fresh again: completely refresh the Pokemon roster. That way, ever encounter feels new and unexpected, instead of having a diluted maybe 1 out of every 4 encounters with new Pokemon. From a practical standpoint that's one of the best decisions they could make, but from a realistic view they won't ever do it. They're far too afraid to eliminate the existing Pokemon that people may still like, and that don't require extra creative effort. This has led to every generation piling on new Pokemon and retaining all the old, creating the complexity that most likely shifted their focus to the metagame, since the strategic depth was naturally accumulating with their actions, so that was a place where they could actually improve things.
What we are seeing then, if what I said above is true (which it might not be, since this is pure speculation), is not so much rehashing of old formulas as it is dumping new content onto an existing system and not removing anything so that the complexity accumulates. Even this could have made the series better if not for the return to 8 badges that limited the single player with the same limitations that were imposed on the much simpler Red/Blue. Maybe this is what is causing all the complexity and newness to settle in the multiplayer, well out of reach of the vast majority of players - with the multiplayer so difficult to balance, they could not focus as much of their creative efforts on the single palyer.
Keep in mind this is just a thought experiment I do when I examine games and sales trends. I like to understand both the reasons a game might not sell as well as it could have, and the reasons developers made the decisions they did.
