JWeinCom said:
When you have a franchise that is based on collecting virtual monsters, adding more virtual monsters seems like a natural direction to take the franchise in. I'm sure it makes it harder to make a real time game, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your argument.
There is no reason for a Pokemon {realtime} RPG to be {not} developed, except that they don't want to for whatever reason.
And I am giving you an aspect of that reason, they have different priorites with the franchise
Maybe it's more resource intensive, maybe they don't think they could do a good one. Maybe they have a failed prototype. Maybe they think things like Snap and Conquest are a more natural extension of the franchise.
You are just blindly speculating at this, furthermore Snap hasn't even had a sequel. To suggest that its a natural inclination just because they actually did it, is a fallacy. You can't claim that real-time rpg is not a natural inclination, ESPECIALLY when GameFreak has ALREADY made a 2 different pokemon game franchises using a real-time system.
Maybe they've just never had the inclination.
However, you have nothing to suggest that they avoid a realtime Pokemon game as a result of a desire to sell Pokemon.
And I'm not suggesting that. In the OP, I give the example of Pokemon Rumble "The player controls Pokémon as they battle other Pokémon in a series of linear dungeons and enclosed arenas. The game features real-time melee-based gameplay,". Here the priority remains consistent, a design which prioritize the selling of merchandise with a real time battle system. What I'm saying is if you took Pokemon X, and the only change you made was that all battles where single battles in real-time. Then that change would priortize the battling of pokemon, instead of the collecting of pokemon, which is not GameFreak's Aim.
Again you've given nothing really to support the idea that the purpose of the games and their changes is to sell merchandise.
There is an entire section dedicated to this in the OP.
If you just don't like the changes to the franchise, then that's your opinion, although I'm not sure why that would require a topic.
The entire introduction of the OP addresses this.
Edit: You keep making the analogy of Skylanders, but it's a different situation. Pokemon games (aside from Rumble) don't require any additional purchases to play the games to completion. You don't really explain the link between in game collection and selling merchandise.
That was never part of the analogy, I never mentioned the requirement of purchases, only that it encourage purchases. Not to mention I also give examples of this in the Anime, Movies, Cards, and Manga. Because this is not solely about the games, its about the entire franchise.
|
