becuase its an rpg which is a role playing game which means that the story should play a huge role in the game but the story (if u can call it that) is just plain terrible.Ketsuban said:
Ketsuban said:
Pokemon needs to stop being afraid of innovation.
- Thread starter immortalfrieza
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i 100% agree with this. i get pissed off when i have to give my epic pokemon the shitty hms just so i can progress to the next area.Death_Korps_Kommissar said:
I went into this thread intending to criticize you for expecting innovation in Pokemon given that it's a series built upon catering to completionists and no one else, but your suggestions would actually make a Pokemon game I'd like to play, and not just for nostalgia's sake.
it wouldn't ruin it and wont upset fans. most people are hating on people that want pokemon to change but if it ever does happen (highly doubt it will) you guys who are hating now are gonna be like OMFG THIS IS THE BEST POKEMON GAME EVAR!!! obviously the stuff suggested in this thread will have to be tweaked a bit but if it was implemented in the slightest way than i would be playing pokemon more than i do.StealthMonkey43 said:
immortalfrieza said:
Once again, you've taken what I've said completely out of context, I never said that they need to change completely but they DO need to CHANGE! They just need to sit down and put a little thought and effort into doing it in ways that would NOT alienate their fanbase or their target demographic yet reach players of any age. It's possible and it's been done plenty of times beforeSikratua said:
Innovation does NOT just occur solely because things aren't working out so well anymore (though I will concide that is the most frequent reason) there's artistic integrity, fun with the process of creation, the desire to tell a good story and entertain people, the desire to have a good legacy, the pride of a well constructed and effective product, etc. The other reasons besides that you have your back against a wall are endless. A good example would be some ancient Japanese swordsmiths would make a 10 or so average quality swords to sell to the army in a month during wartime, but they would also take weeks, months, or even years just making a single exceptional blade to sell to an equally exceptional warrior or otherwise important person. Why would they do this when they would just continue making average swords? It's because of reasons OTHER than that their neck or their country's neck is on the line.
immortalfrieza said:
The point? You want to know my point? Okay, but maybe I should scream it because it should have been incredibly obvious by now: GAMES THAT APPEAL TO CHILDREN DO NOT NEED TO BE CHILDISH!!!!!!! JUST LIKE GAMES THAT APPEAL TO ADULTS DON'T NEED TO HAVE MATURE CONTENT!!!!!!!Sikratua said:
I gave those examples because they were some of the best games of my childhood and back when I was a child there were hardly any examples of anything BUT turn-based combat in RPGs, it wasn't really until the Tales series and Kingdom Hearts came out that Action RPGs started to become commonplace, and I was in my teens by then so I don't really count them. I also gave them because they all 6 games had very deep and moving plots that were easily understandable and exciting combat, even thought I was only 5 with oldest of them, and that they're games that are STILL great and that I would pick up and play now even if I never had before.
You don't have to powerlevel anything at all, just be smart.immortalfrieza said:
You see that someone beat an entire team of level 75 pokemon with 6 level ones.
Granted it wouldn't work in anything besides the game, but that is what you are talking about.
Any RPG suffers the same flaw of leveling, though there are an increasing amount that allow you to adjust your level.
Stopped reading there. First off, you clearly aren't looking for innovation. You're just looking for change. And Pokémon doesn't need to change. You just need to go find a different game to play because Pokémon isn't for you anymore. You remind me of all the Dead Rising 2 whiners who wrote long winded rants about how they could make the game better by getting rid of the timer elements. Yeah, and then they could change the game's name because it wouldn't be Dead Rising anymore. And that's the same thing they can do to Pokémon if they did all this stuff you're talking about to it, because it wouldn't be Pokémon anymore. And as one of the MILLIONS of fans who happen to like this series pretty much exactly the way it is now, I'm damn glad Nintendo and GameFreak are unlikely to read this thread and even less likely to actually do any of the things you have suggested here.immortalfrieza said:
Go find another RPG to play and leave Pokémon alone.
I don't even have to read the article to discredit you. Just read the url. Isn't JUST for kids. Meaning it is still for kids, but not just them. This is not the same thing as not being for kids. GTA is not for kids. Pokémon is not JUST for kids. A world of difference.Terminate421 said:
I must object, good sir. Here's competitive (meaning two real players, no AI) 1 VS 100 with the level 1's winning:GrimHeaper said:
Yes. 'Cause you totally know my taste in games.black_knight1337 said:
Let me make something abundantly clear to you:immortalfrieza said:
The main Pokemon series is NOT a story-driven series.
The audience that plays Pokemon for the story is in the minority. The vast majority play it for the collection aspect and the stat-driven battle aspect, as well as the player vs player competitive aspect.
Also, it stands to mention that Pokemon Black and White were one of the reasons this past March was the, wait for it:
Best March in Nintendo's history.
(EDIT: Just in case you want it, source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109285-3DS-and-Pokemon-Make-March-11-Nintendos-Best-Ever)
From a purely business and marketing view, this shows that they DON'T need to make any huge changes to the series. In fact, it would probably be detrimental. All they need to do is add Pokemon and make some minor, usually aesthetic changes, and the game STILL sells like gangbusters. So I ask you this very important question:
From a PURELY BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, why would you gamble losing money by changing a formula that is damn near GUARANTEED to work?
i aint claiming to know ppls taste in games i am simply saying this because it is true. other game series have gotten revamped and while there is some people that hate it most people find that it is way better than what it was.ZeroMachine said:
I've seen Magikarp sweep Legendaries.>.> Nachomjc0961 said:
And you need that sash for anything, the person I showed didn't use such a thing, but sturdy instead.
You said "you guys who are hating now are gonna be like "OMFG THIS IS THE BEST POKEMON GAME EVAR"".black_knight1337 said:
That means that yes, you are claiming to know my taste in games. You even said that there in your reply. "i am simply saying this because it is true."
Guess what? It's not. Yes, some revamps have ended up wildly successful (the transition to 3D Zelda) while others have been almost universally panned (more recent example, though I enjoyed it: Dragon Age 2).
But the fact of the matter is, you claimed that all of us that don't like the OP's ideas will change our minds if a game like this was released. That means you think you know more about us then we do.
Kindly choose your words more carefully next time if thats not what you wanted to imply.
Other posters have already called the OP out on pretty much all his points, but I do have one suggestion that could kind of make point number 7 work (so long as point number 8 is not implemented). Perhaps, instead of having only the grass, water and fire type starters available, or opening it up to any basic unevolved pokemon, you could have a specific starter pokemon of each type at level 5 to choose from, with your rival always picking a type that is good against yours. I could run down some choices for other types now:
Electric: Mareep, Elekid, Shinx
Bug: Caterpie, Weedle, Wurmple, Venipede
Flying: Starly, Pidgey, Pidove
Steel: Aron, Klink, Beldum
Ground: Sandile
Dragon: Dratini, Gible
Psychic: Gothita, Solosis
Ice: Vanillite, Spheal
Dark: Deino
Rock: Larvitar
And let's not forget Normal: Whismur, Lillipup
Those are pokemon that have the characteristics of the usual fire-water-grass starters:
1. They are the first of a three-stage evolution purely on the basis of level
2. They have a damage-dealing move at level 5
3. The typing they are listed under is their primary type, barring only Flying, but I made those particular pokemon exceptions, as most people know them as primarily Flying pokemon and they suit a primarily Flying role well.
Only Ghost, Poison and Fighting did not have at least one pokemon who could match these criteria, but there were pokemon that came close (Gastly, Zubat, Machop). Some of them probably aren't entirely ideal candidates (see the Bug types and Deino; evolution either too fast or too slow), but the point is that with some tweaks to existing pokemon it can be done without even expanding the roster. I think that would be really the only major change I could think of that would be really beneficial out of the list provided by the OP.
EDIT: Corrected for more accurate data (forgot about a few pokemon that evolve when traded).
Electric: Mareep, Elekid, Shinx
Bug: Caterpie, Weedle, Wurmple, Venipede
Flying: Starly, Pidgey, Pidove
Steel: Aron, Klink, Beldum
Ground: Sandile
Dragon: Dratini, Gible
Psychic: Gothita, Solosis
Ice: Vanillite, Spheal
Dark: Deino
Rock: Larvitar
And let's not forget Normal: Whismur, Lillipup
Those are pokemon that have the characteristics of the usual fire-water-grass starters:
1. They are the first of a three-stage evolution purely on the basis of level
2. They have a damage-dealing move at level 5
3. The typing they are listed under is their primary type, barring only Flying, but I made those particular pokemon exceptions, as most people know them as primarily Flying pokemon and they suit a primarily Flying role well.
Only Ghost, Poison and Fighting did not have at least one pokemon who could match these criteria, but there were pokemon that came close (Gastly, Zubat, Machop). Some of them probably aren't entirely ideal candidates (see the Bug types and Deino; evolution either too fast or too slow), but the point is that with some tweaks to existing pokemon it can be done without even expanding the roster. I think that would be really the only major change I could think of that would be really beneficial out of the list provided by the OP.
EDIT: Corrected for more accurate data (forgot about a few pokemon that evolve when traded).
I want Pokemon to be less tedious and more engaging, in other words, better, I want it to be just as worth playing now that I'm older as it was when I first picked it up. I want Pokemon games to be interesting enough that I'm playing it practically for entire existence of the francise, is that too much to ask? (BTW, the answer to that question is NO.)Crazie_Guy said:
Also, you should note that most of the changes I am suggesting are refering to the main game itself, not person to person competitive battling. Competitive battling is fine as it is, the problem is that the single-player game seems to be just be for solely competitive battling, with pretty ineffective stuff padded around it to make this less obvious. I want them to either make Pokemon single-player mode worthwhile or just show it for what it really is, just a pool to catch Pokemon to play competitive battling with. Oh, and the single player mode is less than effective at teaching anyone how to beat human opponents because of how ridiculously easy it is to exploit the system of it.
Dude, have you even played a Pokemon game? O.O
The story of the main game is literally only a small portion of the game, it's there to restrict you so you can't go anywhere you want, unless you'll be facing level 50's with a level 5 starter Pokemon...Seriously go back and play a Pokemon game, The story is there just so you can get a bit more EXP for your Pokemon and to add a challenge...that is it. The story should not be taken seriously (my opinion)
I can't disagree with your second point, but seriously what else could they do? And if you are not Hooked to Pokemon when you play it, your doing it wrong, it's the most addictive game in existence.
The battles are fine and have been since Red and Blue (even though in that generation some of the moves were STUPIDLY annoying or over powered.) Unless they created a game for the 360/PS3 we will only see turn based combat because that is the best kind of combat for that game, controlling a Pokemon and pressing Y, X, A and B for each move would just be confusing. Plus dude, if all your Pokemon got the same EXP it removes the challenge of the game, there is EXP. Share and the Lucky Egg, use them.
Pokemon battles are hardly repetitive with the amount of moves that have been implemented into the game, i take it your the guy who has 4 Attacking moves consisting of the strongest moves available to that Pokemon and no Status moves (Such as Swords Dance and Stealth Rock), Use status Moves a lot more, you will see a huge difference in how you play the game.
If you had to knock out a Pokemon to catch it, Pokemon like Mewtwo and Giratina would be stupidly easy to catch along with any other Pokemon. With your 7th point i agree, but it won't happen (at least not in this Gen)
Evolution should not be forced, I don;t evolve many of Pokemon (Buizel and Quilava for example) simply because i prefer them forms to the others (yes i know Typholsion is good, i just prefer Quilava) and for the 9th post, they release 2 games first, we all know this, then if there any minor problems, they are rectified in the 3rd game (any animations or move pool's for Pokemon) then there is a remake (sometimes) so more Pokemon are accessible to the player, that is formula, Better than COD's anyway.
I suggest try playing the games again, and using different styles, and not to take the story seriously...
Btw sorry for the rant... :$
The story of the main game is literally only a small portion of the game, it's there to restrict you so you can't go anywhere you want, unless you'll be facing level 50's with a level 5 starter Pokemon...Seriously go back and play a Pokemon game, The story is there just so you can get a bit more EXP for your Pokemon and to add a challenge...that is it. The story should not be taken seriously (my opinion)
I can't disagree with your second point, but seriously what else could they do? And if you are not Hooked to Pokemon when you play it, your doing it wrong, it's the most addictive game in existence.
The battles are fine and have been since Red and Blue (even though in that generation some of the moves were STUPIDLY annoying or over powered.) Unless they created a game for the 360/PS3 we will only see turn based combat because that is the best kind of combat for that game, controlling a Pokemon and pressing Y, X, A and B for each move would just be confusing. Plus dude, if all your Pokemon got the same EXP it removes the challenge of the game, there is EXP. Share and the Lucky Egg, use them.
Pokemon battles are hardly repetitive with the amount of moves that have been implemented into the game, i take it your the guy who has 4 Attacking moves consisting of the strongest moves available to that Pokemon and no Status moves (Such as Swords Dance and Stealth Rock), Use status Moves a lot more, you will see a huge difference in how you play the game.
If you had to knock out a Pokemon to catch it, Pokemon like Mewtwo and Giratina would be stupidly easy to catch along with any other Pokemon. With your 7th point i agree, but it won't happen (at least not in this Gen)
Evolution should not be forced, I don;t evolve many of Pokemon (Buizel and Quilava for example) simply because i prefer them forms to the others (yes i know Typholsion is good, i just prefer Quilava) and for the 9th post, they release 2 games first, we all know this, then if there any minor problems, they are rectified in the 3rd game (any animations or move pool's for Pokemon) then there is a remake (sometimes) so more Pokemon are accessible to the player, that is formula, Better than COD's anyway.
I suggest try playing the games again, and using different styles, and not to take the story seriously...
Btw sorry for the rant... :$
I can second this.arc1991 said:
I'm 22 now. I started playing Pokemon twelve years ago. I took a break. Between Gold version and HeartGold, I only played on emulators, and barely at that. Once I actually properly got ahold of a new version (the remake of my favorite), I enjoyed it MORE than I did before.
Still do.
So... I should dumb myself down and try to force myself to go into the games without expectations? WHAT KIND OF REAL GAMER IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD DO THAT!?!?! Being a gamer means that you've played many, many games in your life, and it means that you will always be craving for something new and better, no matter how good it gets, same old, same old will only hold your attention for so long. THAT is what drives the video game industry to improve itself, if it weren't for that all we'd ever have is Pong, the video game industry would never have gone anywhere and died out, and Pokemon wouldn't even exist to begin with. In fact, this need for something new and better is what drove mankind mankind to begin with.arc1991 said:
DO. NOT. DEFINE. US. EVER.immortalfrieza said:
Maybe that's what being a gamer makes YOU, but some of us LIKE having things stay the same and stay simple with some things.
I want to see massive changes to Halo in the future.
I DO NOT WANT MASSIVE CHANGES IN POKEMON'S FUTURE.
NOT WANTING CHANGE IN ONE FUCKING SERIES DOES NOT MAKE ME LESS OF A GAMER.
So don't you EVER try and define us. EVER.
Now, are you going to answer the question I originally posed you earlier in the thread, or are you going to ignore it?
People have done this exact thing for ages...With COD, Halo, Need For Speed and many other huge titles, Pokemon is not the only game. And i never said you should force yourself to go into the game, i simply said EITHER go into it with an empty head OR skip a Gen.immortalfrieza said:
Plus...
"Being a gamer means that you've played many, many games in your life, and it means that you will always be craving for something new and better, no matter how good it gets, same old, same old will only hold your attention for so long. THAT is what drives the video game industry to improve itself"
Wrong, Being a gamer does not mean you have played loads of games, no way. It doesn't matter if you have played 10, or 100, if you play games you can class yourself as a gamer, but really only you can make that choice.
It does not mean you will also crave something better, hence loads of players are still playing COD4 and Halo 3...
Video games do improve, no matter how small, but Pokemon is made in such way, one small change to the mechanics will GREATLY change how it is played (Just like the Special and Physical swap in Gen4), changing the battle system and how to catch Pokemon may seem like small changes, but they would GREATLY change it.