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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Should Pokemon Evolve Into An Action RPG

 

Should Pokemon Evolve Into An Action RPG

Pokemon Let's Yes 12 16.22%
 
Pokemon Let's No 62 83.78%
 
Total:74
Lonely_Dolphin on 25 September 2018

They Mystery Dungeon series is about the closest thing you'll get to a Pokemon ARPG, and even that's still technically turn based haha. Instead of hoping Pokemon changes into the game you want, just find another series that fulfils your needs.



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 25 September 2018
Lonely_Dolphin said:
They Mystery Dungeon series is about the closest thing you'll get to a Pokemon ARPG, and even that's still technically turn based haha. Instead of hoping Pokemon changes into the game you want, just find another series that fulfils your needs.

But I don't want it to be an ARPG. 



V-r0cK on 25 September 2018
mZuzek said:
V-r0cK said:

I have nothing against the battle system and it is great as it is.  But who's to say it can't be better if nobody's actually trying something different?

It's not about it being better or worse, it's about it being what it is. The turn-based style just fits with Pokémon, and makes the franchise what it is. Just because God of War reinvented itself into an entirely different game doesn't mean everyone should try it, especially because let's be real, oldschool God of War was shallow as fuck.

Clearly you're content with not wanting it to change and that's fine.

Well between God of War and Pokemon im sure Pokemon takes the cake as the game that's most shallow as fuck.   They've been using the same basic formula for decades.  But that style just fits right? lol

 



MasonADC on 25 September 2018
V-r0cK said:
mZuzek said:

It's also that people do not want change, because the battle system is great as it is and it works perfectly well for Pokémon's essential concept. There are many other areas the franchise could (and should innovate) in, in fact it's in desperate need of it, but unfortunately the people behind it aren't very trustworthy.

I have nothing against the battle system and it is great as it is.  But who's to say it can't be better if nobody's actually trying something different?

It's a lot harder to experiment on the battle system in Pokemon when each game builds upon the last in terms of Pokemon. Make one change and balance might be thrown off. 



ResilientFighter on 25 September 2018

HELL NO!



Around the Network
Kalkano on 25 September 2018

I don't even play Pokemon games, but it always bothers me when people refer to stuff like this as "evolution". How exactly is changing genres, "evolution"? Would you call it "evolution", if Elder Scrolls or The Witcher changed to Turn-Based?



Currently Replaying: Baten Kaitos

AngryLittleAlchemist on 25 September 2018
Kalkano said:
I don't even play Pokemon games, but it always bothers me when people refer to stuff like this as "evolution". How exactly is changing genres, "evolution"? Would you call it "evolution", if Elder Scrolls or The Witcher changed to Turn-Based?

It's a Pokemon pun bro .... "evolve". 

Although I guess you could call any change in a series an "evolution" even though that wouldn't make much sense with the literal definition of evolve 



Baddman on 25 September 2018

Hell no



derpysquirtle64 on 25 September 2018

I prefer turn-based RPGs over action so I hope this won't happen.



 

TheBraveGallade on 25 September 2018

The reason I said one version should be classic and the other action is simply because, as much as I want a radicaly new actionrpg Pokemon, I don't want the traditional system to go away either.
Pokemon already has always made 2 versions, why not make it so that it's actually WORTH BUYING BOTH?