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

Forums - Nintendo - Let's "make" a homeconsole Pokemon

 

How should the battles work?

Live action, controlling ... 35 39.77%
 
Turn based, but a bit mor... 53 60.23%
 
Total:88
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 22 June 2014
burninmylight said:
I'm just wondering how a Roselia vs. Wailord battle would play out in a real-time battle sequence. I don't know if there is a programmer in the world who can make that look fluid.

When I saw Wailord's actual size I really spent some time dwelling on how they could accurately represent Wailord in even a collesium type setting.

It would probably be something like this.

Or limited to first 150, omit the extreme sized pokemon, or just modify their size for the game it doesn't need to be realistic for pokemon honestly.



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

Around the Network
Teeqoz on 22 June 2014
the_dengle said:
The core gameplay doesn't need to change. There isn't a single thing wrong with turn-based battles.

You're approaching this from entirely the wrong angle. The game you want is not in any way shape or form a Pokemon game. You don't want to play Pokemon. Fine, don't play Pokemon. But don't pretend you want a Pokemon game while describing something that is not a Pokemon game, and still worse, don't pretend Game Freak is lazy or incompetent for not making Pokemon into something it's not.

Your train of thought is horrendous. "Pokemon should be on home consoles" > "Skyrim is a home console RPG" > "Pokemon should play like Skyrim"

Could you imagine if I said Mario should have online multiplayer, therefore it should play like Call of Duty? That's the sort of logic I read in this thread.

Who said it should play like Skyrim?



Teeqoz on 22 June 2014
the_dengle said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Pardon me but I doubt you are being Sincere. This is not a laughing matter. The pokemon series is good, great even, but this franchise has have very little innovation out of the first coming games.

The mainline pokemon series is the least innovative series on the planet. Not to mention the turnbased battle system of the mainline pokemon is elementary and isn't representative of the Manga or Anime.

Why does it need to innovate? Every generation we get an entirely new region, new Pokemon, new moves and abilities, new mechanics, and more. Tons of new content. What's more, Pokemon is the only RPG series that comes to mind with a competitive scene that rivals the sort you see with fighting games, and each generation dramatically shakes up the metagame. I never see people saying Street Fighter doesn't innovate enough?

Also the anime sucks. It has always sucked. If there's a problem it's that the anime isn't representative of the games, not the other way around.

Why does people complain about COD not being innovative? Every game we get a new story, new maps, new weapons, new perks. Tons of new content there as well. This just goes to show that a lot of people are hypocrites.



Teeqoz on 22 June 2014
the_dengle said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

You don't seem to get it.

I don't care about the mainline games. I'm talking about the spin off games. If you weren't already aware they already have deviated from the formula. Pokemon Ranger, Poke Park, Pokemon Rumble, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, those are all official franchise that have deviated hugely from the formula. Compared to those an ABS with the 4 moves mapped to 4 buttons is basically nothing.

The pokemon games are clearly not defined by their battle system, to say Pokemon without turnbased battle system is the same as saying that Super Mario 64 isn't a mario game because the mario games precceding it were 2D platformers.

I never said GameFreak was Lazy or incompetent, I said they are greedy and afraid of change, they consistently make as little change as possible and then remake their old games in the new engines. The Different versions of Pokemon used to actually mean something, now its just a new legendary with a different colored box.

I never mentioned Skyrim at all and if you actually played Skyrim, you would know that the battle system in Skyrim is completely different than what I described.

Its hilarious that you mention COD when this series is basically the COD of handhelds basically unchanged for 17 years. 

Why is Pokemon with ABS now Skyrim? is Mario with Cars now Gran Turismo? Is Metroid in 3D now Halo?

Your whole post is filled with worthless assumptions about what I want and what I'm describing:

I never said I didn't like Turn Based Battle systems, my favorite Mario Series is Paper Mario and I literally made a thread about how COL was a great game barely 3 days ago.

I never said I don't play Pokemon, the only one I bought was Ruby, not because I didn't like pokemon, my issue with the series started way before that, but simply because I never got a handheld device after the GBASP.

I never called GameFreak Lazy or Incomptent, I called them greedy, and that is evident in its marketting and how they handle pokemon.

READ THE FUCKING TITLE, there is your answer on the discussion of whether or not I want a homeconsole pokemon

I never mentioned Skyrim, which is completely unlike anything I described.

Pick one. Does Game Freak fail to innovate within the series or have they deviated from the core concept in the spin-off games?

There are WAY more differences between X and Y than there were between Red and Blue or Gold and Silver.

The point is that there are a lot of different Pokemon games, and just because they haven't made a game that matches your imaginary dream game doesn't mean Game Freak is afraid to take risks. It means they don't want to make that game. And I don't particularly want them to, since it sounds nothing at all like a Pokemon game.

Gamefreak didn't make any of the spinoff titles.

There is still hardly much difference between the previous pokemon games compared to the next ones.

The point is that there has never been a big budget homeconsole pokemon. And also, judging by the poll there is also a lot of people that would like it to have a ABS, instead of being turn based.



highwayuni on 22 June 2014

I think the core gameplay is fine. As the saying goes, if it's not broken then don't fix it.

But I would love to see the game play out like Ni No Kuni. That was my favourite game last generation.



Around the Network
Aerys on 22 June 2014

À mix between à real pokemon 3D + real 3d battle where you control the pokemon would make me buy à console

But They are too afraid of making such ambitious pokemon sadly, whereas most of fans dream about this perfect pokemon



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

the_dengle on 22 June 2014

Stop quoting me I am trying to ignore this train wreck of a thread



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 22 June 2014
the_dengle said:
Stop quoting me I am trying to ignore this train wreck of a thread

But we appreciate you're suggestions

Please tell us what pokemon should be.



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 22 June 2014
mZuzek said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Please tell us what pokemon should be.


Pokémon X and Y is where it's at.
Nearly perfect Pokémon games with everything you'd expect from the franchise.
That's what it should be.

Might as well make it a yearly series, Starting from Pokemon A and B with the special C edition that launches in the summer, that should be good for another decade. 

I can't even tell the difference between Pokemon X and Pokemon Black, I've been playing 3D since the N64, so I'm not really going to notice that they finally did it last year.



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 22 June 2014
mZuzek said:
If you can't tell the difference you're either blind or just haven't gone back to actually playing Black after X.

Also, saying the names are evidence of Game Freak running out of ideas is total bs.
They're called X and Y for a reason, and it makes a lot of sense. It's actually far more creative than colors.
I mean, they have limited amounts of colors, or are you willing to see the next generation being Pokémon Turquoise and Magenta?

Look, we could go into a timless debate how pokemon has changed drastically or hasn't, but I really don't care about the mainline series, the changes I beleive are merely superficial and are indicative of the paradox of gamers wanting innovation and familiarity at the same time, but that is besides the point and off topic. This thread is about the discussion of a home console pokemon which is by defintion a spinoff since the mainline series are on the handhelds. So when given a chance to be creative with a fictionary budget, to see people simply wanting a clone of the handheld games is not only a waste but its also a clear misunderstanding of the pokemon franchise.

Which is why I asked the earlier user what he believed Pokemon, at least the gaming franchise, was.

To say that pokemon is just a turn based battle system with a whole bunch of creatures that use elements is not only immature, but completely missing the point of what pokemon is. The battle system means nothing, the meta is replacable, the only thing important is the pokemon and the trainer, hence the concept of training pokemon, that is what the entire game is about. The battle system is just a representation of the pokemon training on a limited platform for kids. 

When I hear about tripple battles in Pokemon, I'm like First Final Fantasy had 4 v 4 with more than 4 moves why should I be impressed?

But again this isn't the place to the discuss that and I apologize, on that. While I disagree with your opinion, I'm not the kind of jerk who attack those who have differing opinions.

Good Day Sir.



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