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.

spemanig said:
VanceIX said:
An MMOish Pokemon is what you are making it sound like, and to that I say no thanks. Pokemon is perfect with the turn-based combat and strategy, and the contained worlds.


No it's not. Like I said, Destiny, Watch Dogs, Journey, The Division, and Dark Souls are all not MMOs. That is the kind of online shared world I am talking about.

Yeah, even worse. I don't want my Pokemon game to be online dependent. I'm still playing Pokemon Silver to this day, what happens when the server goes down on this shared world? Also, people coming in and out of my world randomly is a lot more immersion-breaking too.

Pokemon has always been a single-player franchise, if you want something different there are plenty of options. There is no need to gut Pokemon for that.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Around the Network
NintendoPie said:

Because your better does not equate to everyone's definition of better. I've read your OP and I do not like many of your ideas. That's not to say I don't think Nintendo should do something new with Pokémon, because they should. I didn't like X/Y and I've said it many times. I think largely they just need to up the difficulty, or at least give us a difficulty toggle before we start a new game. The regions could be expanded, but that's not necessary if the region is just designed well and the story is beefed up. (And yeah, I know you aren't really talking core here, but I am.)

Who would you want developing your dream Pokémon?


I think it would need to be a new studio altogether. I'd want someone who understands that the most important thing would be to balance the battle system and the Pokemon in a way that feels just as deep and just as fair and just as complex as the current one, while retaining core elements of it. I still want type to matter. I still want to be able to choose the moves my Pokemon can learn. I still want Pokemon to be a 6v6 game, and not a 1v1 game. I still want Pokemon to have IVs and EVs and natures and special abilities, no matter how those change to match the new hack and slash gameplay. Dark Siders proves that those things can work in a hack and slash game. I also want the world itself to be fun to traverse, as it is in the core series. A large part of that is the density of it all and how linear the routes truely are. That works well for Pokemon. Another part of that for this game would be making sure that mountable Pokemon feel natural and fun to control outside of combat. DMC always had an issue with platforming. This game shouldn't.

I don't know if there's a single game studio who can pull it off, but if I had to put a team together, they would include the team at Platinum and the team that does the Xenoblade games. I think that Platinums understanding of the hack and slash genre, as long and there are no QTEs, would work well if applied to the rules of Pokemon. I am hesitant to suggest Monolith because I think that the Zelda team makes more "Pokemon-like" open worlds, but I want them doing Zelda. I want people with experience making open worlds, but I want them to be well aware of how a specifically Pokemon open world should be. A series of towns and cities connected by relatively linear routes. Monolith would be very good at telling a grand, campy story with an excellent score though. I also think that there should be some lead designer with knowledge on fighting game balance. Maybe Sakurai?



VanceIX said:

Yeah, even worse. I don't want my Pokemon game to be online dependent. I'm still playing Pokemon Silver to this day, what happens when the server goes down on this shared world? Also, people coming in and out of my world randomly is a lot more immersion-breaking too.

Pokemon has always been a single-player franchise, if you want something different there are plenty of options. There is no need to gut Pokemon for that.


I never said it had to be online dependant. In half of those games, the online interactivity can be turned off. I don't see how seeing real trainers in a living breathing worldlike Pokemon would be immersion breaking.

I never said it wouldn't be a single player game. There is no "gutting" going on. Those are all signle player games. Only Destiny and the Division are always online.

I don't want something different. I want Pokemon, just with everything I described in the OP, which happens to be nothing you seem to think I want.



LordLichtenstein said:

1. An open-world Pokémon game, build around the same engine Ni-No-Kuni used, or perhaps an even better one. 

2. Release the game with the first 151 Pokémon.

3. Base it in the Kanto region (Red/Blue).

4. Don't use hack'n slash - use turn based combat. It has work for the series for many years.

5. Use expansions to open the world; add new regions, moves and Pokémon

6. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. Capture the beauty and feel of Pokémon.

Where's that serious clapping dude when you need him? Anyway. My thoughts exactly.

 

 

Many people forget that just because pokemon games still sell well, gamefreak has no reason to try anything serious/new. Well look at the sales of red/blue. Most of those people grew up and never returned to the franchise. Almost every single friend of mine used to play pokemon but they didn't care for the franchise after a while. Sure, it has a core audience, but it could "bes so much more". I bet millions would even buy a wiiu for a Nino Kuni  version of Pokemon. Myself included. If it fails, it can still be considered on eof the many spin-pffs that didn't do very well.



naruball said:
LordLichtenstein said:

1. An open-world Pokémon game, build around the same engine Ni-No-Kuni used, or perhaps an even better one. 

2. Release the game with the first 151 Pokémon.

3. Base it in the Kanto region (Red/Blue).

4. Don't use hack'n slash - use turn based combat. It has work for the series for many years.

5. Use expansions to open the world; add new regions, moves and Pokémon

6. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. Capture the beauty and feel of Pokémon.

Where's that serious clapping dude when you need him? Anyway. My thoughts exactly.

 

 

Many people forget that just because pokemon games still sell well, gamefreak has no reason to try anything serious/new. Well look at the sales of red/blue. Most of those people grew up and never returned to the franchise. Almost every single friend of mine used to play pokemon but they didn't care for the franchise after a while. Sure, it has a core audience, but it could "bes so much more". I bet millions would even buy a wiiu for a Nino Kuni  version of Pokemon. Myself included. If it fails, it can still be considered on eof the many spin-pffs that didn't do very well.

Finally someone who agrees with me :D





Around the Network

(THIS HERE) would be incredible if it was a Pokémon game, and the one following you was Pikachu instead of Drippy. 



spemanig said:
VanceIX said:

Yeah, even worse. I don't want my Pokemon game to be online dependent. I'm still playing Pokemon Silver to this day, what happens when the server goes down on this shared world? Also, people coming in and out of my world randomly is a lot more immersion-breaking too.

Pokemon has always been a single-player franchise, if you want something different there are plenty of options. There is no need to gut Pokemon for that.


I never said it had to be online dependant. In half of those games, the online interactivity can be turned off. I don't see how seeing real trainers in a living breathing worldlike Pokemon would be immersion breaking.

I never said it wouldn't be a single player game. There is no "gutting" going on. Those are all signle player games. Only Destiny and the Division are always online.

I don't want something different. I want Pokemon, just with everything I described in the OP, which happens to be nothing you seem to think I want.

Well, we both seem to disagree on the fundamental core of what Pokemon is and should be, so I'll leave this now.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

VanceIX said:

Well, we both seem to disagree on the fundamental core of what Pokemon is and should be, so I'll leave this now.


What is the fundamental core of Pokemon to you?



I wanna play this game:



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

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
 

Look, I actually know the costs that go into video game development, not budget which includes stuff like marketting, distribution, and server fees, asset creation is the most expensive of what goes into actually making the game.

Climbing mountains, sailing oceans, flying unmanned skies are all different ways of saying traverssing a map. It incoporates modelling of terrain, textures, creating physics and lighting effects etc. However, that is nothing compared to making hundreds of animations for thousands of models. There is a reason  COD has 100s of modelers at one time on it. Those modellers cost a lot of money.

Activision can do can do whatever they want with their money. Fighting games have thousands of animations with highly detailed models and we know DOA 5 made a profit with ~600K copies.

Pokemon doesn't need hundreds of animations for thousand of models because pokemons can learn only a 70-80 moves on average (most of them are NFE forms with a very limited movepool) and I think Game Freak is smart enought to not waste time and money trying to make a Mega Punch animation for Caterpie. Plus we don't need different animations for every buff move out there either.

Unless by that you're referring to the content needed to fill this new world of epic scale, but then you'd be pretty much agreeing with me.