| the_dengle said: Pretty sure you've mentioned real-time combat before in some of your previous threads on the subject. But, you may substitute enemies in the field for it if you wish (although it is not applicable to Fire Emblem). Bravely Default also has an interconnected open world. And I don't see why EO couldn't. It's not about the resolution or pixel density, it's about how things have to be very close to be easily visible. An enemy off in the distance that takes up several inches on your television suddenly becomes a millimeter tall on your handheld. And that's on the XL, just imagine the regular model. My response is the same as it always is. "I would prefer if game X was more like such and such" -- okay. "The only excuse for these developers not to follow my vision is their laziness and incompetence" -- you lost me. Again. You are essentially arguing that because Pokemon sells well, its developers have an obligation to make it a different game. That top-down, random-battle RPGs don't deserve to sell well, and therefore any such game that does sell well must abandon those design choices. It's complete nonsense. Like saying Tetris sells too well to stay the way it is so it needs to become more like Pushmo. All this says nothing about how I feel about the way GameFreak handles the Pokemon series. I don't feel like buying their games every year so I don't. I would rather Pokemon games released less often, with more time and energy spent on each installment. In fact, I much prefer Xenoblade to Pokemon, but that doesn't mean I want Pokemon to become more like Xenoblade for no reason other than because it can. |
I did mention a real time combat system in other threads where I very clearly specified that it would be for a spin off game. Here, I'm very clearly talking about the main games. Not the same subject at all. And again, none of them are connected in the way that Pokemon's worlds consistantly are.
It absolutely is about the resolution and pixel density and resolution. You're obviously much closer to a handheld than you are from a television. It's the pixel density and resolution that makes those things harder to see on the 3DS that is much closer to your face.
Gamefreak absolutely does have an obligation to make it a bigger and better game, because they have the means to do it. They have access to the funds, and once the hardware comes out, they will have access to the hardware in the form factor they want. It's not nonsense. Tetris can't be more than Tetris. That's not an accurate comparison. Tetris can't be bigger than it already is. It's concept can't be expanded. And Tetris isn't asking $40 for what it offers. End if it ever does, you can bet money it won't sell anywhere near what Pokemon does. It's absolutely incompitence and lazyness. It's not making it a different game. It's making it a bigger and better game. Final Fantasy had the obligation to make bigger and better games because they had the money and hardware to do so, and now we're getting Final Fantasy XV. Then Final Fantasy fucks it up, they get shit on because they had the money and the opportunity to do better. If Nintendo came out with a top down Zelda for Wii U, they'd get shit on, because they have the money and hardware to do more. Now we're getting Zelda U. Pokemon doesn't get a free pass.
And I never said that Pokemon should be more like Xenoblade. Pokemon should be more like what a 2015 open world JRPG with ready access to a AAA budget is like, because it can be, and because it would be an infinitely better game because of it. They have the money to make a better game, so they should use it. They'll have the have the hardware to make a better game, so they damn well better use it. When Bravely Default or Entrian Oddyssey sell like the Pokemon games do, and we both know they never will because of the types of games they are, then I'll hold them to that same higher pedistal.
