You're just not being realistic here. There are over 800 pokemon, and tons of moves for each. To program animations for all of those would take years, not to mention the cost of developing the world and coming up with a new combat system.

Any such ambitious project is bound to crash and burn, and will be riddled with bugs to boot.

Any way, you obviously won't be dissuaded, so I'll bow out here.

There's no reason why it's unrealistic. Of course it would take years to develop and of course it would cost a lot of money to develop. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be done with a polished and finished product, and it definitely doesn't mean that it would make back all the developement costs in spades. Nintendo games, as you know, don't get riddled with bugs. They test these things to a fault.

I'm not dissuaded because you're being unreasonable. It's bound to fail because why, exactly? Because it's a big undertaking? They'd plan around that. They'd hire a dev crew large enough to account for the many models and animations being made. Of course it's complicated. All ambitious and ground breaking projects are. There was no game like GTA 3, until GTA 3. There was no game like Shadow of the colosses until Shadow of the colosses. There was no game like Skyrim until Skyrim. There has been no game like No Man's Sky, yet they're doing it. The only limitations are in the mind. In a would of nearly infinite impossibilities, this doesn't even enter the neighborhood. Just because something like this hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done now.

I never said I wanted a Pokemon MMO. Destiny isn't an MMO. Watch Dogs isn't an MMO. Dark Souls isn't an MMO. Journey isn't an MMO. Just because a game allows for moments where the world is shared, doesn't mean that it's suddenly an MMO. I hate MMOs. People who talk about a Pokemon MMO are deluded. The game I described is still a strategic game. Hack and Slash games are strategic. So are fighting games. They are just more involved and frankly more fun than turn based games.

Hack and slash aren't strategic. In strategy, you have to think a lot. Only turn based games can give you enough time to think your choices. Pokemon isn't a reflex/action game and shouldn't be.

If you don't like turn based strategic Pokemon games, you don't like Pokemon, because that's all Pokemon is about. Choose another franchise if you like action games.

Hack and slash games absolutely are strategic. That's like saying fighting games aren't strategic.  Pokemon not "all about" being turn based. Pokemon is not even remotely about being turn based. I just happens to be turn based. That's like saying that Final Fantasy is "all about" being turn based. The only thing Pokemon is "all about" is training and battling Pokemon. the 12+ million people who bought Pokemon XY didn't buy them because its a great turn based franchise, they bought them because they like the idea of training and collecting Pokemon. Turn based battling has literally nothing to do with it for like 99% of the fanbase.

Turn based is what make the game strategic. Fighting games are not strategic games. The fact that you have a strategy and a gameplan does not make the game you play a strategic game.

Pokemon is about being turn based. That's what Pokemon is all about. That's the core of the game, its soul. I suggest you to choose another franchise rather than pushing for ruining one of the best strategic game.

That is a misconception.

The battle system of pokemon is intended to best represent the player giving commands to the pokemon for them to do battle. Watch the Anime, or read Pokemon Adventures (Which is the truest analog of how the game is supposed to be, seeing as how it directly comes from the games) If a pokemon cannot hear their player's commands's either verbally or telepathetically, they will not do anything.

The turn-based battle system was introduced because of the limitations of the gameboy. Its not the core, its just a representation. It has its strengths and its weaknesses just like real-time or any other battle system for that matter. The battle system is slower which allows for more thinking per move, but it fails to input for player accuracy, how much control they actually have on their pokemon, and is limited by stats. Stage effects like Sunshine or Stage Hazards like Stealth Rock are rudimentary in this limited scope.

A real-time battle system will be faster, and harder to animate, but allow more control over a pokemon, rather than having random chance determine everything. For instance, a pokemon cannot "dodge" or other wise react to another pokemon albiet in a very limited way in the turn based system. Stage effects and hazards will actually be more active as they would have a presence on the screen. It would also be closer to the way they actually battle in other forms of media.

Furthermore on the topic of strategy. Strategy is a high level plan that allows one to win. It is all encopassing and is made outside of battle. When you decide what pokemon to use, how you are going to use them, and in what order, that is strategy. Battle system is irrelevant concerning it. Tactics are the moment by moment plans. However, the battle system only affects the speed and complexity of said tactics. A turn based battle system can be slower, but really it only depends on how the game is structured. For instance, 3rd Birthday, a game I've been playing recently is a 3rd person japanese TPS, that game is really hard. So hard in fact, that I spend hours meticioulsy carrying out actions to beat each level. While the actions themselves are fast, the tactics I employed where very long and the strategy was to go slow and steady.

Pokemon Spinoffs have had completely different battle systems from the main line series. So the defense turn based would not be core is actually pointless, because these suggestions are only applicable to a spinoff. For instance, Pokemon Snap is not a turn-based game, its not part of the main franchise and does not use the "core" battle system yet it exists. Why wouldn't a another pokemon with a real-time battle system exist? Key word is another because they already exist. Why wouldn't a spinoff do better if it was more rpg in nature like the mainline, even if it had a different battle system?

Seriously, the only valid opposition is that the scale might cost Nintendo and Game Freak more than a spinoff usually does. Everything else is just irrational fear. And even in the former case, you have no idea how it might turn out. 

Truth be told, if you think the best part of pokemon is solely the turn based aspect of it, then why are you even playing pokemon? You aren't a fan of it, you are a fan of turn based systems, and you can literally remove all the pokemon elements and with the same turn based system and be just as happy. 

Personally, I play pokemon in spite of its battle system. Because as far as battle systems go it is turn based battle system for babies. It is no where near as complex as Persona and Final Fantasy and no where as fun or engaging as Paper Mario or Child of Light. I breeze though the battle system because its easy, only when its against a real person is it more challenging but that is true about everything. Since I love everything else about pokemon, I play it, at least to me the battle system, the way it is now is just basic.

I have a hard time believing Pokemon fans find a turn based battle system the only thing they like about the franchise.

That's not true. Pokemon mainline games are the only measurement of how Pokemon should be played. The anime is in no way a true representation of what Pokemon is. Of course the Anime won't use a turn based system since it's an anime and it is made to watch or read, not to play.

I said Pokemon Adventures, the manga, which is completely different from the Anime. For instance, Ash is Red in Adventures.

Control "over your pokemon" is an illusion since your are the trainer, not the Pokemon, and the only input you can have is determining the attack, use a object or switch.  The anime  is pathetic in that regard, like if screaming dodge would make the Pokemon avoid an attack or elsewhere he would just be sitting and doing nothing. 

And you know this because? Pokemon are given commands which they follow, how is "dodge" any less of a command then "tackle"

Spin offs are uninteresting for me and a lot of other Pokemon fans, and that's why they sell much less. I liked Snap, but it is a photography game, not a training and batttling game.

I don't care if spin off exist with real time battle, as long as the main games stay as they are.

Exactly, nobody ever EVER suggests this be a change to the mainline series. That is entirely way to much risk. Those suggesting the change say, try it, if it doesn't work then don't bother with a sequel. If it does then try it again. This is the mentality behind every pokemon spinoff.

Also, Pokemon storyline are very easy, but not because of their turn battle system, that's a choice to make them easy. That's when you battle other players, friends or random player than you understand how deep and strategic Pokemon is, much deeper than any main  FF game.

The deepnees and strategicness of pokemon takes place outside of the turns. It is only difficult when you face another player with there own strategy vs another AI. In that regard, pokemon wouldn't be any less strategic if the battle system was different. Most of the stats would perform the same, EV/IVs would perform the same. 

In this thread I discuss why pokemon is structured the way it is http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=189404&page=1 and one piece of evidence I over look is that the simplicity of the battle system makes it easy to pick up and hard to master. Which makes it more marketable.