How would you improve a Pokemon game mechanic?

Recommended Videos

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
Goliath100 said:
And what ever you come up with, it's a very good chance (like 99%) that there's a fundamental difference between what singleplayer/multiplayer/ 100% completion means in that sentence, and in Pokemon's.
Let's see how right I was about this one.

Johnny Novgorod said:
...specific online multiplayer trophies that will prevent you from achieving 100% completion on trophy/achievement collection....
Are you seriously basing your argument on multiplayer exclusive achievements? An achievement is an optional win states, normally made for sake of challenge or exploration of the game mechanics. What? You want them to be easier? You want every achievements from single player to be available by the multiplayer (or the other way) despite that they are fundamentally different?

...Asssssin's Creed IV: Black Flag...
...Has Single Player and Multiplayer as strictly separate modes. Unlocks In one mode that require the other is bonus content (unless Ubisoft fuck it up). This is very much fundamentally different from how pokemon does it, where single- and multiplayer is not really separate entities.

frobalt said:
...games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash. Not the exact same situation
So you do understand that both those games don't work as examples because of fundamental differences. Then way do you bring them up?
If anything, you should find an example of a game that has a single player mode that can only be 100% completed through multiple instances of the game in a similar fashion to pokémon's trading system.
Why did you not try to do that? Is it because the best example destroy your argument? Because the best counterpoint to Pokemon I can come up with is World of Warcraft, a MMO.

Both are continuous (WoW being an MMORPG never truly ends, and Pokemon has a "post-game" and all pokemon can be transferred the next instalment) with unclear lines between what's single- and multiplayer (both games has preparations for multiplayer done in single player). But most importantly: Both has communication with other people as a gameplay mechanics. What you are asking for is the equivalent of a to see all the multiplayer content in a 100% single player WoW. It's ridiculous.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
That's easy, I'd have a team work on the menus that isn't comprised of monkeys that somehow manages to make one step backwards with every iteration of the game and would have actual standards for those like it's unacceptable to have 1 second black screen artificial load times for every single screen, it is unacceptable to have 200 different items in your "misc" bag displayed in text-only form in a menu you need to scroll through 1 at a time, it is unacceptable to have multiple distinctly different menu types for the same task and it is unacceptable to have whatever warcrime that trading menu of X/Y is.
Make a good, responsive menu that doesn't go out of its way to waste your fucking time.

Then, I'd question every single aspect of the game like do we really need to ask if you want to water berries followed by a 2 second animation every single time you want to water your berries?
Do we really need to bind basic operations such as renaming your pokemon and forgetting moves to npcs cluttered all over the world?
Do we really need HMs to work this way?
Do we really need to make ___ feature online only which means it'll be permanently unavailable 2 seconds after the next game is released?
Do we really need the player to run around in circles for 5 minutes each time they want to hatch an egg and do we really need eggs to be not removable by any other means?

If the answer is no (spoiler: it is) then slash that feature for an instant quality of life improvement.

Then I'd hire actual writers to write an actually compelling storyline instead of that "for childrens" thing that's going on because having a younger target audience does not excuse bad writing.

Basically, I want a team working on those games with the goal of "let's make the best game we can do" and not "let's follow these traditions".
 

Samael Barghest

New member
Mar 5, 2014
145
0
0
I want to be able to walk with my pokemon like in Heart Gold and Soul Silver.
I want the game to feel about more balance. In the Unova region, I felt like the three starters were useless.
I want to get ride of cities like Lumoise. I hated that city so much that I never go back that unless I'm forced to.
I want people to stop beating around the bush and just say these two pokemon shagged and laid an egg. Breeders know what I'm talking about. Everyone in game acts like eggs were just dropped off by the Easter Bunny and just happened to contain the pokemon you left in the daycare.
I want the ability to say no. I cannot tell you how many times a question has been asked but I couldn't progress with the game until I gave the answer they the asker wanted to hear. Then why the fuck is it a question in the first place if my will means nothing.
I want items to be on the game that they're used on. Hear me out on this. On Pokémon X, Houndoom can digi-volve to MegaHoundoom right? But the item is on Y. Maneletric is on Y and can digi-volve but the item is on X.
 

SerithVC

New member
Dec 23, 2011
117
0
0
Have actual multiplayer kinda like borderlands (up to 4 players and the option to work together or against each other).
Have the option to play either the standard beat gyms e4 and champion or a team rocket type story.
Have more than one save file.
Be able to catch all the pokemon in ONE version and have different megas exclusive to each version.
Get rid of abilities (because personally i hate have my pokemon get paralyzed for attacking).
Have the option to have your pokemon follow you outside of the pokeball.
Have better character customization.
Have the option to have items like scarfs and ribbons and what not appear on the battle sprite of pokemon.
Have better interactions with your pokemon.
Maybe look into a Digimon World 1 or Digimon World Championship type of games while keeping to core gameplay of the pokemon battles.


Also POKEMON SNAP 2, POKEMON STADIUM WII U w/ mini games and a story mode that is more like actual pokemon games.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
Goliath100 said:
Goliath100 said:
And what ever you come up with, it's a very good chance (like 99%) that there's a fundamental difference between what singleplayer/multiplayer/ 100% completion means in that sentence, and in Pokemon's.
Let's see how right I was about this one.
Cockiness is a powerful agent to the uninitiated... but we ARE initiated, aren't we Goliath? Members of The Escapist!

Are you seriously basing your argument on multiplayer exclusive achievements?
No, there's a trophy in single player that requires multiplayer input. You complete single player challenges to get a trophy, but at least one of these challenges - the "social sharing" of random events like white whales and royal convoys - requires a multiplayer connection to unlock. To improve the odds of these random events you're supposed to befriend as many uPlay members as you can and game online indefinitely until they pop up.

It's a solitary example, but you did ask for an example, didn't you?

An achievement is an optional win states, normally made for sake of challenge or exploration of the game mechanics. What? You want them to be easier? You want every achievements from single player to be available by the multiplayer (or the other way) despite that they are fundamentally different?
No, I want single player trophies/achievements to be unlockable in single player.
I also want to be able to catch 'em all :p You don't have to be mad about it, it's not gonna happen anyway.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
It seems that some of you reeaally need to try your hands at the Pokemon metagame.
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
To be honest, I'm kind of surprised there aren't moves in existance based on other moves that already exist. No...I'm not talking like the elemental Hyper Beams or all the Swift/Feint Attack clones. More like...

TAUNT: This move forces target Pokémon to only use attacks. So...how about a move that only allows support moves?
FORESIGHT/MIRACLE EYE/GRAVITY: Since these moves remove type immunities (Normal/Fighting on Ghost, Psychic on Dark, and Ground on Flying respectively), how about ones that remove immunities for the other types as well? (Poison on Steel, Ghost on Normal, Dragon on Fairy, Electric on Ground)

Just an idea from the "These moves exist, so why don't these?" point of view.
 

frobalt

New member
Jan 2, 2012
347
0
0
Goliath100 said:
frobalt said:
...games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash. Not the exact same situation
So you do understand that both those games don't work as examples because of fundamental differences. Then way do you bring them up?
If anything, you should find an example of a game that has a single player mode that can only be 100% completed through multiple instances of the game in a similar fashion to pokémon's trading system.
Why did you not try to do that? Is it because the best example destroy your argument? Because the best counterpoint to Pokemon I can come up with is World of Warcraft, a MMO.

Both are continuous (WoW being an MMORPG never truly ends, and Pokemon has a "post-game" and all pokemon can be transferred the next instalment) with unclear lines between what's single- and multiplayer (both games has preparations for multiplayer done in single player). But most importantly: Both has communication with other people as a gameplay mechanics. What you are asking for is the equivalent of a to see all the multiplayer content in a 100% single player WoW. It's ridiculous.
This post is just ridiculous.

First of all, so everyone knows, Goliath100 felt the need to PM me saying:

Goliath100 said:
"I'm not referring to a particular game."

Don't care if you had a game in mind, you will still give a named example.
My response was:

Me said:
Will I? Who the hell do you think you are to issue demands like that?

If anything, you should find an example of a game that has a single player mode that can only be 100% completed through multiple instances of the game in a similar fashion to pokémon's trading system.

Can't imagine a lot of games do that.

If you're just going to keep saying 'Named example' without actually tackling the point, then there's no point talking to you.

However, in the case of games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash. Not the exact same situation, but shows that gamers generally don't like feeling forced to play multi-player.

P.S. If you want to make demands like that, have the balls to do it in the thread instead of only by PM.
Credit where credit's due: He seems to have at least listened to the last line of the message. Just a shame he decided to take it out of context.

My suggestion for improving pokémon games was essentially along the lines of: Make it possible to complete 100% without requiring other people or a second copy.

My argument for this was that no other game would be able to get away with what pokémon has in regards to requiring multiple copies and, as someone pointed out, attending specific events, just to get 100% completion.

Pokémon is a game about collecting creatures and filling an encyclopedia based on them. So, to complete a Pokémon game 100%, you have to catch 'em all (They should make that the catch phrase or something).

Goliath's only argument against this is 'Give a named example'. Hell, he felt so strongly about this that he decided to PM me demanding that I provide a named example.

My response was to challenge him to find a game that requires multi-player to 100% complete a single player aspect.

I then went on to provide examples of games that forced multi-player which pissed a lot of people off. This is the part he took out of context - Notice the sentence is "However, in the case of games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash."
Goliath misquoted this to make out like I was comparing Sim City and Titanfall to Pokémon, when in actual fact my point is that gamers hate being forced in to multi-player.

Now that the readers of this thread are up-to-date with the information, let's tackle the post:

First of all, Goliath, you questioned why I brought up those 2 games as they are fundamentally different to Pokémon and then went and directly compared it to World of Warcraft. Let me just say, that takes guts, that really does.

In no way are Pokémon and World of Warcraft comparable. Sure, they're both RPGs, but they are so different you should be ashamed of yourself for even using that argument.

All I'm going to say on this one is that WoW is a multi-player focused game, so you'd expect to need other players to progress as much as possible. Pokémon is a single player game that has a couple (Trading and battling) of multi-player aspects as extra features. This completely invalidates your argument, and if you can't see why then try re-reading it.

I'm going to reiterate what I said in the PM: Find another game that requires multi-player aspects to complete 100% that didn't get any backlash at all and is also a popular game. Just to make it easier for you, I'm not going to class achievements as required to 100% complete a game, as achievements are more like a meta game.

AntiChri5 has provided a useful named example for me, which I have quoted below. Maybe now you'll stop demanding I name a game. (If you come out with 'But you didn't name that game someone else did' then there's no point trying to have a rational argument with you)

AntiChri5 said:
It's already happened. Mass Effect 3 required that you play the multiplayer in order to get one of the endings for singlelayer. MASSIVE hate backlash. They ended up having to undo it in a patch.
I can't help but wonder though: Why are you defending pokémon so rabidly? Do you really think it's a good game design decision to require multi-player like this?
Or did you once catch all the pokémon and hate the idea of it being made easier for people in future?

I mean, it's a terrible game design choice making it near impossible for the vast majority of people to finish the pokédex legitimately with just 1 copy of the game.

I mean, it's bad enough that Nintendo get away with making 3 versions of the same game with slight variations each generation, but it's becoming worse all the time as you require more of the games to be able to complete the pokédex each time; These days you require past generations to get a lot of pokémon to the most recent generation.

How many game franchises are there out there that not only require access (Whether through buying yourself or using another person) to another version of it in order to 100% complete a single player aspect? That's not rhetorical, I want you to find out, since you're defending pokémon for doing it: How many other games do it?

Not only that, but how many other games require previous versions to 100% complete the current version? Once again this is a serious question.
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
I will come back to the rest of your comment later, I wanna do this point by point, and I'll be building on this one instead of having tons of unnecessary once.
Let's do the petty things first:
1:
frobalt said:
Why are you defending pokémon so rabidly?
I'm not. If I seems defensive it would be because about this line:
... have the balls to do it in the thread instead of only by PM.?
Just as you know, I pm for clarification, not because I'm not gonna take the fight.

2:
In no way are Pokémon and World of Warcraft comparable. Sure, they're both RPGs, but they are [totally] different....
I would ask why you think that, but I think I know why. Because you are thinking in big terms. "Single Player", "Multi Player", "Turn Based Combat", "Real Time Combat", broad descriptive terms that doesn't takle fundamentals. What's weird it that I have already countered this: There is a next to nonexistent line between Single Player and MultiPlayer in both games. What do you want? An example?

In WoW, you can gather ore, this is mostly done solo. What can you do with that ore? A lot, like selling it, make stuff to sell, make stuff to disenchant so you can get materials to sell. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of single player activities in WoW is done for a mutliplayer reason, or need multiplayer to complete single player goals. Pokemon do the same thing. You IV breed in Single player to play multiplayer. You trade to complete the dex.

"But, but...WoW is multiplayer and Pokemon is Single Player."

How much is WoW really multiplayer? When do it become a true multiplayer game?PvP doesn't open up before lvl 10 and dungeons at 15. Before the level cap, it's a more of single player game with multiplayer features (unless you are powergrinding) than a true multiplayer game. Before you go all, "But Pokemon is single player...", for some people the multiplayer is the point of the game, and it doesn't start before the post-game.

And before you say something about Call of Duty (or Battlefield): CoD has a clear line between what is Single Player and what is Multiplayer. Unless you have anything else beyond "but one is single player and one is multiplayer....", my comparison between WoW and Pokemon are completely valid.
 

CyberSinner

New member
Apr 21, 2014
70
0
0
Probably the minority here. I have only played Blue and Silver. Then I tried a current generation one Black before Pokemon X. My favorite has to be Pokemon X for one simple reason, 20 years and we finally get trainer customization.

What I want to improve in the next Pokemon game is the customization. It doesn't need to be detailed, but during the intro scene when the professor ask

"Hey you a boy or a girl"

Then you choose your look, give us some simple and easy extra options

-Eye shape, I really dislike the cute bubbly eyed sprites. Give us some of the older players some options to make a 10 year old look 14. Anyway eye options

-Hair style and color

That's it. That's all I ask, simple, straight customization, nothing fancy.

But maybe, allow us to choose a Pokemon class? Like Psychic, Rising Star, etc. That would be coolio too, not necessary. I am more interested in at least making my trainer look more like I want them to look.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
...
? Have a fifth unchangeable basic attack[footnote]tackle/scratch etc..[/footnote] with infinite use.
reason - I don't like how pokemon forget basic moves and this makes the rest of the pp using moves seem more special. This move could upgrade either when the pokemon evolves or when they reach a certain level if the pokemon has no evolutions.
...
I'm pretty sure this go es against rpg code and formula. having any move thats unlimited breaks combat, especially when you consider the basic moves are ones like tackle (a 50 pwr move), scratch (a 40 pwr) , Peck (a 40 Pwr move), quick attack (a 40 pwr move with priority), double kick (a 30 base on each, so essentially a 60 pwr), bubble (a 40 pwr move that lowers speed), absorb (a 20 pwr move that restores health), leech life (same), and T-shock (a 40 pwr move with chance to paralyze), poison sting (a 15 pwr with chance to poison) , among others I may have missed. And tahts all without a stab (an automatic 1.5 boost), and without it being SE (another 2.0 boost). and then you either want it to increase in power (and still be unlimited) once or twice? thats way too much.

You'd either have to scale them back to all be 15 pwr moves with a limited (albeit comparatively high [say 20-30]) and not increase or have a max cap of something like 30 pwr (in the case of two hit moves like double kick make it 15 and not increase at all, or have to have them at some suicidally low pwr like 5 or 10). You need to nerf them (de power and take away abilities) as well as keep the limit.

My personal opinion on what they should change:

give you more option pools for pokemon to pick from (things like the nido twins, an eevee, poochyena, low power pokemon that are on par with starters (though not sure how this would work for your rival to pick an advantage over you).

Make HMs either deletable or just TMs that have the added ability (like rock smash is). They can still be given to you as part of in game dialogue, so that if you want to keep people form moving forward too fast you can still keep their pace. taht was its easier than dragging someone along with cut till you reach the move deleter and in the case of nuzlockers you can delete pokemon and not have to worry about the game saying no.

(this is more for the pokebank) let you be able ot hold items from gen 6. I get why they dont do it from older gens, but new gens could make it so if it comes from gen six you can keep it. its frustrating to trade with someone to get a mega stone in your game and not transfer it to the bank if you want to restart your game so you lose it either way. I dont see the harm in stockpiling them, since you can only use one per battle in game and two in meta.

and I dont know how they could do this, but some way to streamline the GTS. I can't stand going on there looking for something basic like a magby and everyone wanting a mewtwo, or an arceus, or a genesect, and all that stuff. Its just wasting time. Im sure theres people out there who are willing to make that trade and its all about a supply and demand, but somewhere this has to stop because its just counterproductive.

EDIT:
SaneAmongInsane said:
This is soley because I'm an adult playing a kids game, but I'd like a more realistic and maybe more adult story.

I mean I'm sick of every evil organization, oh I beat this thug in a pokemon battle! He's now going to let my preteen girl avatar skip right past him while he does nothing!

Like I understand, lets monster fight and all but even if I kick their asses they shouldn't let me just run roughshod over them. Pull out a gun or grab me like a terrorist in real life.

And lets give the player character a voice ala The Fallout Games. A reputation.

Lets have some side quests, maybe ones that answer some of the dark questions about Pokemon, like where the humans get their meat?

Lastly, the game needs to use more cutscenes. The few that they had were neat in XY, they need to put more in to the next one. It made the world seem more deep.
You understand that this is a game for kids right? like, 10 year old kids who don't need be exposed to the idea that an older man is going to grab them and rape them because tehy can physically overpower them just because they got beat in a battle? Or that they're not going ot be grabbed and held against their will and stuff and threaten them with a gun? I mean, lets say we use that scenario, how do you get out of that that isnt ridiculous without someone being killed in a brutal way (which looking at most pokemon if you get burned alive by a charizard thats probably the most merciful since the other way would be to be mauled to death by a rat). Because by that logic, why doesnt the enemy leaders just use their high powered pokemon and straight up murder the protagonist while they fight a grunt? why doesnt an older trainer just come up after you beat them and just curb stomp your pokemons skull straight in (assuming they're small enough) and say "haha fuck you *****, now we're even".

This is what I dont get about older people who play pokemon and want it to grow up with them. Why? Why should it? I dont say GTA needs to dumb down to ten years levels just because some play it. its primary market is and always will be kids. Children are watching the tv shows, buying the plush toys, the little plastic ones, the battery operated things all of that. Children are buying that en mass, not grown adults.

... besides, I think its pretty obvious kids know humans are killing pokemon like miltank, grumpig, and mareep for meat. If you ever lived on a farm or know that meat comes from sstuff like cows and such then you put two and two together and just assume you mass breed them for production. That doesn't mean the game has to take you through the slaughterhouse facility.
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
Well, first of all, you're absolutely wrong about them "not changing the formula". Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Conquest, Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Trozei and older titles like Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Colosseum and Pokemon Stadium all radically change the Pokemon formula. You've literally just chosen to outright ignore them and claim that they never attempt anything new.

Hell, your idea to let players choose from an extensive list is the feature of the Mystery dungeon games. The player's Pokemon character is determined by a personality quiz at the beginning of the game, and the possible starting Pokemon list is quite large.

And there's a reason that grass/water/fire are the only types available at the start of the game. It's because Pokemon is a game franchise aimed at children, and the type triangle is the easiest one for children to comprehend and understand.
I learned my lesson on those half assed spin off games when i was a kid. They tend to be unimpressive. I am talking about the main games, you know, the ones that actually count.

So have a default of three starters, Fire, Water and Grass, but let us go off menu and pick our own starter. Idiots can have their simple choice handed to them while people who give more of a shit or have a preference can pick what they want. And don't underestimate kids, they can be pretty sharp with this shit.
 

Roguebubble

New member
Feb 26, 2012
42
0
0
More character customization and creation options
Get rid of gyms and elite four being based on a type and have them based on themes or strategies
Get rid of HMs
A more intelligent story or one where the side characters have some depth to them
More side quests
Multiple save files
Walking with pokemon
The 3 starters being randomized from a pool of 18
NPCs to recognize your achievements of becoming champion
You meeting your ingame dad
 

The Random Critic

New member
Jul 2, 2011
112
0
0
AntiChri5 said:
Well, first of all, you're absolutely wrong about them "not changing the formula". Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Conquest, Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Trozei and older titles like Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Colosseum and Pokemon Stadium all radically change the Pokemon formula. You've literally just chosen to outright ignore them and claim that they never attempt anything new.

Hell, your idea to let players choose from an extensive list is the feature of the Mystery dungeon games. The player's Pokemon character is determined by a personality quiz at the beginning of the game, and the possible starting Pokemon list is quite large.

And there's a reason that grass/water/fire are the only types available at the start of the game. It's because Pokemon is a game franchise aimed at children, and the type triangle is the easiest one for children to comprehend and understand.
I learned my lesson on those half assed spin off games when i was a kid. They tend to be unimpressive. I am talking about the main games, you know, the ones that actually count.

So have a default of three starters, Fire, Water and Grass, but let us go off menu and pick our own starter. Idiots can have their simple choice handed to them while people who give more of a shit or have a preference can pick what they want. And don't underestimate kids, they can be pretty sharp with this shit.
I agree with this, though they're sure to be some kind of limit with this stuff

I also wouldn't mind choosing your own starting towns too, it can be included in an extra mode after you beat the game. (similar to black and white 2)

I also wouldn't mind the option to choose your side, it doesn't have to be the main story though. Could be just on side

I also wouldn't mind some randomly generated trainer, and they should definitly re-include the rematch system in one of their older games. (firered was it?)

As for the story/lore(?), I feel that keeping it nice and cuddy is fine and all. Since this is for kids, but still, wouldn't mind an occasional scale of darkness. (leader of team plasma, Tao duo)
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HMs and IVs need to die in a fire as do all event Pokemon. I'm ok with having to trade things to people like Magmar but having to go to a certain place at a certain time, etc just to finish the Pokedex is out of order. That and stop having so many legendaries they aren't special anymore when there are 10+ in 1 gen alone.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
Okay... After giving it much thought, I think we can all agree that even if we are given the change to manually catch every, single Pokemon available [at the time] in just one, single game... The fact that you could get better moves, better looking, and even better versions in general of almost every available Pokemon [at the time] if you did decide to communicate/trade/battle with other Trainers/Players around the world! This will satisfy those that just want to "catch them all" regardless of wanting better versions of said Pokemon, but also allow more unique customization options with your Pokemon's looks and/or movesets given how social you're willing to be in the long run!!

DO I WIN THE INTERNET NOW?!
...
...
...
No? ...Okay, then...
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
AntiChri5 said:
Well, first of all, you're absolutely wrong about them "not changing the formula". Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Conquest, Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Trozei and older titles like Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Colosseum and Pokemon Stadium all radically change the Pokemon formula. You've literally just chosen to outright ignore them and claim that they never attempt anything new.

Hell, your idea to let players choose from an extensive list is the feature of the Mystery dungeon games. The player's Pokemon character is determined by a personality quiz at the beginning of the game, and the possible starting Pokemon list is quite large.

And there's a reason that grass/water/fire are the only types available at the start of the game. It's because Pokemon is a game franchise aimed at children, and the type triangle is the easiest one for children to comprehend and understand.
I learned my lesson on those half assed spin off games when i was a kid. They tend to be unimpressive. I am talking about the main games, you know, the ones that actually count.

So have a default of three starters, Fire, Water and Grass, but let us go off menu and pick our own starter. Idiots can have their simple choice handed to them while people who give more of a shit or have a preference can pick what they want. And don't underestimate kids, they can be pretty sharp with this shit.
Oh armchair CEO's, will you ever stop me from facepalming myself? No? Ok then...

First off, it's becoming increasingly clear that you haven't been playing Pokemon for a long while, as you seem to have a high opinion on the starter Pokemon, as if they are required to be in your party permenantly. Here's a tip: if people don't like their starter, they use a different Pokemon. What truly would be the purpose of having more than three starters? They have more options to begin with? Well, seeing how I could catch a Fire, Electric, Water, Bug, Grass, Normal, Psychic, and Flying type Pokemon before the first gym, I'm rolling in choices. This isn't even getting into the high EV pokemon you can catch before the second gym. You're right, smart kids are smart. They just go catch the pokemon they want rather than demand it be given to them when they start the game.

Furthermore, by ignoring the side games, you just lose a bunch of credibility. You sound more like someone demanding that the game changes to fit your specific needs rather than a consumer base that is willing to buy these games yearly. The side games are there for people who want something different in their games. They change up the genre and styles of Pokemon. They give Pokemon darker tales for your enjoyment. The market is there, but you want to ignore them because the main ones "actually count."
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
xaszatm said:
AntiChri5 said:
Well, first of all, you're absolutely wrong about them "not changing the formula". Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Conquest, Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Trozei and older titles like Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Colosseum and Pokemon Stadium all radically change the Pokemon formula. You've literally just chosen to outright ignore them and claim that they never attempt anything new.

Hell, your idea to let players choose from an extensive list is the feature of the Mystery dungeon games. The player's Pokemon character is determined by a personality quiz at the beginning of the game, and the possible starting Pokemon list is quite large.

And there's a reason that grass/water/fire are the only types available at the start of the game. It's because Pokemon is a game franchise aimed at children, and the type triangle is the easiest one for children to comprehend and understand.
I learned my lesson on those half assed spin off games when i was a kid. They tend to be unimpressive. I am talking about the main games, you know, the ones that actually count.

So have a default of three starters, Fire, Water and Grass, but let us go off menu and pick our own starter. Idiots can have their simple choice handed to them while people who give more of a shit or have a preference can pick what they want. And don't underestimate kids, they can be pretty sharp with this shit.
Oh armchair CEO's, will you ever stop me from facepalming myself? No? Ok then...

First off, it's becoming increasingly clear that you haven't been playing Pokemon for a long while, as you seem to have a high opinion on the starter Pokemon, as if they are required to be in your party permenantly. Here's a tip: if people don't like their starter, they use a different Pokemon. What truly would be the purpose of having more than three starters? They have more options to begin with? Well, seeing how I could catch a Fire, Electric, Water, Bug, Grass, Normal, Psychic, and Flying type Pokemon before the first gym, I'm rolling in choices. This isn't even getting into the high EV pokemon you can catch before the second gym. You're right, smart kids are smart. They just go catch the pokemon they want rather than demand it be given to them when they start the game.

Furthermore, by ignoring the side games, you just lose a bunch of credibility. You sound more like someone demanding that the game changes to fit your specific needs rather than a consumer base that is willing to buy these games yearly. The side games are there for people who want something different in their games. They change up the genre and styles of Pokemon. They give Pokemon darker tales for your enjoyment. The market is there, but you want to ignore them because the main ones "actually count."
Oh people who make assumptions in internet debates, will you ever stop making me facepalm. No? Ok then.

I first played pokemon all the way back when it first came out, with Red and Blue. Hey, maybe the reason i want the core series to change is because i have been playing them so fucking long?

For me, pokemon has always been about making friends with cool little monsters and having them fight. As i said in an earlier post, your starter should be a beloved partner throughout your entire adventure. Not some temporary tool you use to get the pokemon you are actually interested in and discard. There are serious restrictions on what pokemon you can catch, especially at the start, so it isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Seriously, what do we lose by opening up starter selection?

The side games are exactly that, side games. Every massive franchise gets second rate spinoffs and pokemon is no exception. The difference with pokemon is that some people seem to think that that makes it okay for the problems in the core series to go unadressed. I don't WANT something radically different. I don't want an entirely new formula. I just want a little variety. I want the formula to be tweaked and followed a little less slavishly.

Man, how dare i offer my opinions on how the Pokemon games should change on a thread about how the pokemon games should change.
 

StormDragonZ

New member
Dec 6, 2013
89
0
0
This is more of a personal opinion than game mechanic change, but I have always wanted to see Gym Leaders be more rule forced when fighting them. Let's say the Gym Leader uses Electric types and has three of them around Level 30-33. You could go in with six Pokemon and win just on having more available.

Now make that Gym Leader tell you that you can only use three Pokemon in their battle, making you have to choose, adding some difficulty. Sure, you could use overpowered ones, but minor restriction could boost one's strategic mind. (Team Amount Restriction)

Other ideas could be:

- Ice type Leader says you can't use any Pokemon of the Rock type. (Type Restriction)
- Any type Leader says you can't use any HM moves (Move Restriction)
- Any type Leader says you can battle 1-on-1 with 3 Pokemon total, or 2-on-2 with 4 Pokemon total. (Battle Style Choice)

Also, I am someone who actually likes that they let you choose the Elite Four order in later games instead of a set order.