How can I put this? The game you imagine and Game Freak's current strategy are not mutually exclusive. You are making multiple separate requests, not one singular request.

I'll try to explain better. The series already doesn't have to be annualized. Game Freak is already free to take more time between releases. They choose not to. They choose to annualize. So, you are asking them to make a full-fledged home console version that is completely unique from its handheld brother, AND to abandon their current strategy of yearly releases. Two separate requests. I point this out because there is absolutely no guarantee that fulfilling one of your requests would lead to the other being met as well. Far from it, they show no signs of abandoning their plan to milk each generation for all it's worth. Besides that, the enormous increase in development costs to make the game you describe coupled with less frequent releases is a bad combination for profits.

Likewise, a "massive open world" Pokemon RPG is more than possible on 3DS. All Game Freak would have to do is design a game with no artificial barriers between the cities, allowing the player to collect the badges in whatever order they please. Boom, massive and open. They could do this now but they choose not to. There is no guarantee that they would change their stance on this choice if they were persuaded to make a home console version, or to cease the annualization of the franchise, or both.

You have a very, very specific idea of how the Pokemon series should be handled, and while we agree on some matters I find your attitude distressingly confrontational.

That doesn't mean they aren't demanding. I buy it in droves too, yet look at me. Even Masuda knows people are demanding a console Pokemon game, as this is like the 5th time he's addresed this issue, and he literally said "we know what people want." There are complaints everywhere about this stuff. I'm not the only one who thinks the games are getting too easy (though I disagree with peoples reasons as to why), or that XY had too few new Pokemon, or that the story was terrible, etc. I'm not original in what I'm saying. I'm ecchoing a masses of voices saying similar things.

I guarantee you they're going to make a console Pokemon because if they don't do it, one of these hundreds of fan projects finally will. The fact that a fan game can make mainstream news because they're making a poor attempt at a game that everyone wants, yet you refuse to make, is flat out embarrasing.

I never said that. I said they could do that. I'm not asking them to. I've been very open that I like that Pokemon is annualized. I've never requested that the stop annualizing. I offered that as a suggestion for how they could accomplish this if they were to do a console release.

And no, a massive open world Pokemon is not possible on the 3DS. Your example doesn't describe a massive open world Pokemon game; it describes a none-linear one. Xenoblade Chronicles is massive and open world, yet still even more linear than every Pokemon game. You already know what people mean when they say that, so I don't know why you wasted your time with an example that you already know is not applicable.

I have a very common idea of how Pokemon should be handled. An idea that has been ecchoed by fans everywhere to the point that the series director has had to address these ideas on numerous occaisions. An idea that is, without a doubt, what sparked the creation of games like Pokemon Rumble, Pokepark 1+2, and most recently Pokken.

I appologize if the way I present these ideas comes off as "distressingly" confrontational, but when I feel like my favorite franchise is taking as many steps backwards as it is forwards, I do get distressed, and I do get confrontational.

"Massive open world" does not imply free camera control, literally the only difference involving the world between the latest iterations and the game you envision. Check wikipedia: "An open world is a level or game designed as a nonlinear, vast open area with many ways to reach an objective." Pokemon is currently too linear to meet this definition, but if you could battle the gym leaders in any order to reach the objective of the Pokemon League, it would indeed be a massive open world game.

If you like Pokemon being annualized then we agree on less than I thought.

Aonuma also had to address fans pestering him about Majora's Mask, despite it being among the least-popular console Zelda games. A vocal minority will do that. They will also convince themselves that they are not a minority at all.

I don't even understand why this is your favorite franchise. You don't seem to actually like anything about it.

"Massive open world," by my definition, does. I know what an open world is. I don't need wikipedia, and frankly if it's definition doesn't include Xenoblade, it's wrong.

There is a clear and distinct difference between Xenoblade's open world and Pokemon's open world. I want that difference gone. Xenoblade's is massive in real scale. Pokemon's is massive in implied scale. Same with Zelda 1 vs Zelda U. Zelda one is massive in its implied scale. Zelda U is massive in its real world scale. Pokemon is massive in it's implied scale. I want a Pokemon that's massive in it's real world scale. Call that whatever you wan't. I don't care. That's what I, and everyone else who has brought this up, wants.

The audience that wants a massive open world Pokemon is far larger and far louder than the fans asking for a MM remake. They aren't even comparable.

I'm not going to humor you. I don't need to defend my affection for Pokemon. You mistake focused criticism with broad dislike.

But as long as fans keep buying the games, what motivation does Nintendo have to up the production values and go all out?

The fact that there would be more fans to buy it.

Risky moves and big investments don't seem to be Nintendo's cup of tea these days, sadly.

Wikipedia's definition of an open world does include Xenoblade. As it says, the game does not have to be non-linear as a whole, it can have segmented non-linear bits which Xenoblade has in spades. I am not the person calling things whatever I want here.

You keep saying scale but all you mean is that you want the camera behind the player character rather than above them. That has nothing to do with the scale of the world.

It's not focused criticism. You have indicated multiple times that you believe many of Pokemon's design choices are inherently inferior to the alternatives -- you don't like turn-based battles, preferring real-time combat. You don't like random encounters, preferring visible encounters in the field. You don't like top-down perspectives, preferring behind-the-back perspectives. It's not even that you "prefer" these things, you group them directly into asking for a "better" game. You think that if you tell Game Freak you want Pokemon to be "better" they would understand that these are the things you want, but that's not the case. They are not better. They are different. In reality you are asking Game Freak to make a completely different game, not a better one. Furthermore, you assume that this would pay off big time -- it's exactly the same rhetoric we've been hearing from the MM fanbase for the past 3 years. Nintendo is stupid for not doing this, they'd make so much money, there are millions of us. No they weren't. No they won't. No there aren't. There are a few thousand of you congregating in the same areas of the internet, contributing to the echo chamber.

It wouldn't be humoring me. In light of all of these design choices you don't seem to like at all, I'm genuinely baffled as to why you have any attachment to this series.

Not really^ 

1. Thats if Youkai Watch is here to stay.... Well it looks like it XD (okay thats 1 point for you)

2. Its not as though Pokemon is going straight down because of the franchise. (decline)

3. Pokemon will always be pokemon, its not dropping, ORAS proved this :p

But i get wat you mean to an extent. They might need to change sone things, at least storywise as this gen has been doing many good things, especially for the competitive scene!!!