A title is that: a title. People don't buy Mario Kart for its amazing platforming sequences, and that doesn't deter the game from having Mario on the title.

Death is an integral part of life. You can have a favourite character and such character can be killed in a subsequent entry on a franchise. Why do you demand this not to be just another turn based, top down, handheld Pokemon game, but then are so afraid of going to these lenghts I propose of?

A lot of people would purchase such game. You not entertaining the idea doesn't mean it has to be rejected. As I said, it worked in Advance Wars, and even if it pissed off people, no one complained about all the original characters from the series being killed.

I think that Game Freak should take a break from Pokemon, brainstorm a few ideas and create something huge in a few years because the games are becoming a little repetitive and I don't like how theres a new game coming out every year. There's so much that they could do with Pokemon, I personally would want something like Gold and Silver where you could travel to a previous region, but they keep giving us what we already know.

The battles are way too slow-paced, the game is ridiculously easy and the story is virtually the same in every game.

I'm starting to lose my interest in pokemon. I don't know why Nintendo does not develop a tougher and perhaps more fast-paced pokemon game. Most of the fans of this franchise are adults, people like me who group up playing them since pokemon red. Is it so hard to ask for a harder difficulty, where trainers and (especially) gym leaders aren't mindless drones for the most part.

I know the real challenge of pokemon comes from battling other players but I'm not a hardcore player like that. I don't care about stats, or best attribute or any other, especially since the game does not require much attention or focus to beat.

Get to it Nintendo, the kids will buy pokemon regardless, just make it more challenging and more engaging for gen 7. And make me that chair pokemon I've always wanted.

Also, I don't like how sloppy their recent engines were. Gen 4 was terrible (PtHGSS improved it but it still sucked overall), Gen 5 was amazing, but Gen 6 sucked ass again.

Poor BadirPie

No, a title isn't just a title. Your first point doesn't even work. People buy Mario Kart because it's a Mario Kart racer. If the next installment suddenly had only planes for "more dynamic races," it would piss people off. Death is not an integral part of Pokemon, and mass extinction, which is what you were really talking about, is neither an integral part of Pokemon, or life.

The "lengths" you propose make absolutely no sense in Pokemon. It's like saying that Zelda should be a military FPS, or the next metroid should focus on, I dunno, swordfighting. The reason spin offs like Hyrule Warriors work is because they keep the spirit of the franchise in tact. A Pokemon game with no Pokemon doesn't do that.

No one would Purchase that game. Advance Wars is a franchise built around warfare. That's why it works there. Pokemon is a franchise built around Pokemon. That's why killing off half of them wouldn't work here.

BadirPie? :P

Actually, I bet those huge losses could be covered by a mainline normal handheld pokemon game releasing at the same time.

If the next installment suddenly had only planes for "more dynamic races" and it's called Mario: Let's go Fly Together, no one would be pissed. Heck, people would go and purchase it. Death is an integral part of life. Pokemon developer once planned to have pokemon dying, only to switch it to "faint" because he was afraid kids could associate losing with death. We're beyond that point nowadays, time to make an step forward.

The lenghts I propose are simply changes. You don't find sense in them because, again, you don't entertain the idea. But that doesn't extrapolate to real results. You claim that it is absurd as saying Zelda should be a military FPS, but people can find as equally absurd as depriving Pokémon from its RPG structure and make combat a real time hack and slash, almost Devil May Cry-meets-Legend of Zelda-like affair. Why do you think yours have substance and mine doesn't? Heck, I would even be respecting the original source even better than your idea by keeping the traditional RPG structure. You're the one propossing something as Zelda being military FPS.

It's not "Pokemon with no Pokemon". It's a Pokemon game. It has Pokemons. You can "catch them all". The ones surviving. That dark twist would be a welcome adition. It would be an interesting and daring move from the franchise, and I assure, it would sell units, based on the name alone. Call it "Pokemon Dark Days" or whatever you want.

Advance Wars was built around warfare; but trust me: the games were very happy-go-lucky. That completely changed in Days of Ruin, and I reiterate: no one complained about the change. It sold almost the same as the other entries.

So much more?

I don't think. Pokemon is a strategic game and the current product is near perfect. It has a nice, colorful, friendly , fun envelopp over its deeply strategic cores.

People talking about MMO are deluded. Pokemon concept wouldn't work in MMO or in any other kind of games.