Pokemon X and Y

[Snownine]

I am excited for the 3D world, but I hope there are better pokemon designs this generation. I warmed up to V but I still feel it was the weakest batch of designs thus far. Man, gen V flew by! I did not think we would see gen six until 2014. Although I suppose it makes sense, they want one of their flagship franchises to finally join the current system.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I just wish they would make a full on Pokemon game for the Wii/WiiU. You can battle online and you'd be able to trade with people, make it a different kind of gorgeous and all sorts.

I don't do mobile gaming all that much because I prefer to game on my PC or consoles on a big TV. When I am out, I read or socialize, I try leave my gaming at home simply because I do enough of it as it is and I would love a Pokemon game for the home console, anyone else with me on that>

 

[verdant monkai]

I buy pretty much anything Pokemon so I will get this as well. I doubt there will be many new Pokemon apart from those starters and some extras 10-20 maybe? I for one would like another 150 of them.

but this is page 3 so no one cares anyway

 

[lazy villian]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

 

[acillies45]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

I disagree, it wouldn't break the game, it would change it considerably, but it would by no means 'break it' (Unless you consider change to be equivalent to breaking something). It would require a lot of revamping, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to convert the stats they have currently into things more like a fighting game's stats (I'm not suggesting turn it into a fighting game, but for instance: speed would be how fast you actually move instead of turn order and stuff like that) and make something different.

I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?

 

[theultimateend]

Are there actually any other new pokemon apart from the 3 starters and the two legendaries? Because that footage didn't show any other pokemon apart from them at all. Mind you, if they didn't introduce another 100 I'd be mighty pleased with that. I'm just wondering.

They always only show the starters first. But by rule of thumb: New Gen = New critters.

Edit: The footage also shows the new legendaries.

I see, well ... it should be alright I suppose. Can't say the water type starter looks appealing but I still feel optimistic about this one.

Frogbert will crush your team.

You just wait! >: (

 

[IamQ]

X and Y. Because that doesn't sound confusing at all.

Seriously, why X and Y? It sounds like placeholder names until they find out something good to call them.

 

[lazy villian]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

I disagree, it wouldn't break the game, it would change it considerably, but it would by no means 'break it' (Unless you consider change to be equivalent to breaking something). It would require a lot of revamping, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to convert the stats they have currently into things more like a fighting game's stats (I'm not suggesting turn it into a fighting game, but for instance: speed would be how fast you actually move instead of turn order and stuff like that) and make something different.

I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?

uh its an rpg rpgs have pretty much been the same for, well forever. you go thre for presentation and strategy
it would break the game, end of story

if they wanted to do a s pokemon fight spin off thing fine, but i play pokemon to play and rpg, you gotta realize when what you want doesn't gel whit what everyone wants

 

[dombo813]

well.. this looks awesome, but i heard somewhere that theyr only making 20 new pokemon, and already 11 are taken up by starters/legendaries...

on the starters, the grass and water could have been a LOT better made, and theyr sprites look very 2D. also, from their move apearances it also looks like their type and attack combinations are nothing new either, and im not optimistic about their evolutions, because nintendo have limited themselves by making the first stages too basic. the grass type now has to revolve around an originally limited species (beaver), water has to evolve into something frog-like, so it would have worked better starting it as a tadpole.

however, the fire type looks promising, as a dual fire/psychic pokemon that is easy to obtain and may evolve to have higher stats will be endlessly useful, and the sprite looks more 3D in general, although this could be biased, as i thought the same thing upon seeing the sprites for victini in comparison to other gen 5 pokemon. also, the fox has multiple types and i would much rather see a humanoid fox than a giant beaver or frogman. as nintendo tries to base their real-creature based pokemon as much as possible on their real-world counterparts, i can rightfully expect to see fennikin to be fast and agile, btu the grass should be about building, so probably increasing stats, most likely defense or health. the frog is a strange land and water creature, and its appearance is naturally repelling, so i expect that to have a combination of lowering opponent's stats with poison and status moves.

im also not pleased about the idea of the legendaries and in consequence, games, to be based on genders, as i find differentiating the genders in such a way to be sexist, as if dictating that your pokemon choice has to be based on your gender. however, i find this unlikely to be the case, because the stag and bird are both related to in poetry as symbols of grace and beauty, as are their respective colours.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

Watched it when it was live. I loved it. The starters are fine in my opinion. I'm just glad they're FINALLY Going onto 3ds. Because it should have happened when Black 2 and White 2 were released.

 

[dombo813]

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

i agree with a lot of this point, and nintendo definitely has the funding for it.

i dont think it should be completely moved to console though. i think an amazing 3D world combining all the regions into one massive adventure would be amazing, and have DLCs to add the new gens when they appear, and integrate a system to link with the handheld games too, but i also think keep it on handheld too. it has always been the only game series i have liked for DS (evident by not noticing when the counter of time played on save menu leapt from 52 hours after 3rd time beating champion to 1300ish hours), and without it, i would be very bored, as my life takes me on A LOT of travelling with nothing to do on the road.

i think a controllable battle situation would be very useful on maybe a computer or console based version, but there is a reason they never moved to it from turn by turn (apart from the actual concept of way easier to program). With each generation, the online features become more and more necessary, and from observing the trend of games also utilizing online in the same way, eventually the game will not even have a single player. Battling is a main part of this, and with the battling of people all over the world, a lag of up to several seconds can happen, and in a mode where you can control pokemon, servers would have a lot of trouble working out damage etc, because one person in england may dodge to the right and use hyper beam. on their display this hits a korean player in the face, however, the korean player has just dug underground, so on their screen, the english has just finished dodging. servers then compete as to which event happened, the hit or the dig, ending in a crash and a lot of complaints.

i do think the core mechanics could be given space to move and change, but with change comes hate. for example, my friend only started playing pokemon a couple of weeks ago, and he is still trying to perfect his style of game and strategy(mine is speed and power, but at the cost of low PP), whereas he just uses his highest levels. with a new combat system, all players would have to completely rethink their battle style, and i know i would hate that, because i would often come up against players who would dodge me down to low PP, meaning id have to change my strategy to high pp fast hit moves, as well as a lot of others too, meaning teams and battle styles would eventually become identical.

I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?

i believe this is two of many good reasons, although i do agree that i wish there was more difference in me using ice beam 15 times in a row and getting the same message and animation "glaceon used ice beam. its super effective!" and statistically, once every 30 times used, "its a critical hit!" and once every 40, "**wild pokemon** is frozen!".

 

[bojackx]

Wow, Gen 5 wasn't new for very long. I'm pretty sure the older generations lasted about 4 years each.

As always I'm excited for the new generation even if the starters look kind of poopy to me. It's about damn time they did something worthwhile on the 3DS, mine's been sat on my dresser gathering dust for months now.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Wow, Gen 5 wasn't new for very long. I'm pretty sure the older generations lasted about 4 years each.

As always I'm excited for the new generation even if the starters look kind of poopy to me. It's about damn time they did something worthwhile on the 3DS, mine's been sat on my dresser gathering dust for months now.

3 year gap between the first 2
3 year gap between the next 2
4 year gap then
and another 4 year gap

And when these games come out it will have been a 3 year gap. (In Japan!)

The pattern is that generations with remakes in them last a year longer. It just feels a bit early because normally it takes months for the games to be released outside of Japan but now it's simultaneous.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

The starters look way better than gen 4 and 5's. Still, We crossed a line in generation 4 with unnecessary new Pokemon. Can't we just have a game where you could catch every existing Pokemon in full 3d? Maybe just try for a new angle on he whole, "Gotta Catch 'em All" instead of just throwing new Pokemon at the problem.

 

[The White Hunter]

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

I suppose that the system could be boring but there's a hell of a lot of depth allowed by it being turn based and it functions as more of a strategy game once you start to get into the competitive side of it, it can be tense and very exciting, part of the problem with it being boring, at least in game, is that the games are pitifully easy these days. I can accept that it's an acquired taste though, maybe take a look into the competitive battling scene and you'll get why it's still turn based maybe. It really is one of the deepest experiences going in gaming once you dive into competitive battling and start raising your own monsters for perfection, I was a bit burnt out on the series myself after Gen 4 but Gen 5 provided some nice ways to ease up competitive breeding (such as making natures easier to pass down, making IV items easier to acquire and giving "hotspots\" for EV training) and that actually got me to breeding and raising my own creatures selectively to compete and breathed a lot more life into it for me.

The third person controlling the pokemon thing might be best kept to a spin-off while the main series maintains the classic gameplay and refines it further, but it could be interesting, there's definately room for both kinds of gameplay.
As for putting it on a console, why would they, it's their system moving franchise and has been since it debuted, it's also a great game to take on the move and I love to play it on long journeys on public transport or in bed when i just can't be bothered to focus on the TV or my PC.

Oh and I loathe and detest Shadow of the Colossus, it is to this date the only game I have EVER returned to the store.

 

[aeroblaster]

X and Y. Because that doesn't sound confusing at all.

Seriously, why X and Y? It sounds like placeholder names until they find out something good to call them.

How is X and Y confusing?

It's a pun on 3D, the X, Y, and Z axes.

 

[SgtMcgee23]

The names make sense, X,Y and then when the third one comes out it will be Z.

In math when graphing the Z axis, basically turns it into 3D.

 

[IamQ]

X and Y. Because that doesn't sound confusing at all.

Seriously, why X and Y? It sounds like placeholder names until they find out something good to call them.

How is X and Y confusing?

It's a pun on 3D, the X, Y, and Z axes.

Because when I think "Pokemon X and Y" it sounds too generic. It's like when you give a math question. "Billy has X apples, and needs Y more to reach Z". That's all I can think of.

It's like they begin naming them Pokemon Y and X, only meaning to use the letters are variables until they came up with names. Until one day the marketing department started poking them in the back and telling them to hurry up, so they just used X and Y as the real names, because they forgot about that entierly.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I'll just say what I said in the newsroom thread, which is:

I dont know. I think its cool its getting universal release, evens the field against those japanese bastards who got used to ruling the competitive battle scene with early releases. and gives less chance for spoilers towards the story and stuff. TO be honest I was kinda hoping for a 3rd gen remake, though I can see why they dont need to (since the other remakes were just to make pokemon from those games easier to get to the newer gens (through the pal park and stuff).

I'll probably start with the fire one. I like the design best. THough I cant wait for this to be out for a week, hell, a day, no, and hour, and youtube videos to pop up saying "What pokemon can do to make the next gen better," "Top ten dumbest new pokemon designs," "Why these games arent as good as the last ones, despite none of them being greatly fundamentally different story wise and and only the mechanics changing for the better (but of course I wont say that and I'll hide it behind some clever title so no one can say Im just nostalgic".

 

[vasiD]

My first thoughts about the trailer is that the new Pokemon look fucking stupid, but then I haven't really liked them since they got past 251.

My main thought is the same one I've had for well over a decade of Pokemon releases: Why in the actual fuck has this series not taken the logical step and made it's self into an MMO? I mean you don't actually have to change a fucking thing, the plot can be the same garbage it always has with NO changes, as it just makes sense other characters are wandering around fighting Gym leaders at the same time. Maybe the team rocket or whatever-the-fuck-they-call-it-now-to-pretend-they're-not-using-the-same-storyline-from-when-I-was-7 events would be instanced where it's only you, but having other players running around catching shit and fighting gym leaders would make that world feel so much less static and would require very little extra work.

That said I still won't be playing this game even if they did that, and am only speaking as a childhood fan of the series. If I want to get my JRPG on I'll do it in a Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.