Why do you think Pokemon hasn't made a successful transition into 3D?
- Thread starter Zing
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe have the legendary pokemon as boss battles like a WoW Raid rather than having them as catchable pokemontomtom94 said:
erm, so there's this new thing called WI-FI/PSN/XboxLive, perhaps you should try itNickCaligo42 said:
OT
pokemon is just one of those games that you NEED to have on a handheld, in fact, aside from the Final fantasy games, I can't think of a single JRPG (with multiplayer) (i'm counting pokemon as a jrpg yes, so shoot me) on a console that hasn't also got a handheld version.
mainly because they take so much time and effort, it is just better to be able to play it anytime anywhere, rather than just at home, when you're at home.
3d takes forever to make and expensive. just look at pixar and stuff, takes 4 years to make a sequel for a movie.Zing said:
Theory: Nintendo are so used to using the same game ideas, in the same way, for roughly the same audience and the same brand of platform (their own) that they have a morbid fear to trying anything remotely new in case it works really well and they suddenly have something else to work on besides Mario seventy gajillion and five.
Just a guess of course, but they might just think the whole 'pokemon' thing works better in 2D and they risk loosing existing Pokemon fans with a change to 3D.
(Still think the first theory is closer to the truth =P)
Just a guess of course, but they might just think the whole 'pokemon' thing works better in 2D and they risk loosing existing Pokemon fans with a change to 3D.
(Still think the first theory is closer to the truth =P)
Because it was built in overhead 2d. Why do you think Legend of Zelda didn't go succesful into 3d until it changed the whole formula around?
Actually, imo, part of the goodness that was pokemon snap was that it was linear, and the secrets and everything were designed for that. Put that in a free environment, and it messes it up. Imo. edit: as an example, take when you have to push a pokemon into fire to make it evolve, if you add free roaming, it would be easy and way to simple.chishandfips said:
OT: I actually would like a non turn-based, 3D pokemon game. I would also like nintendo to stop redoing the exact same game over and over agian. Neither are gonna happen.
Amnestic said:
Pfft. Don't you get smarmy with me. I was on Xbox Live when your mothers were still wiping your noses. But let's not talk about what I was doing yesterday and get back on the subject at hand, shall we?AdamG3691 said:erm, so there's this new thing called WI-FI/PSN/XboxLive, perhaps you should try it
See? I can be a jerk to strangers online too. Everybody can. In the future you'd do well to bear in mind that it isn't anything special and doesn't make your argument any stronger. That said I apologize for that ungainly way of pointing it out but felt it was necessary. Now then.
I am of the school that believes multiplayer just isn't as good, by any stretch of the imagination, if you can't play it with friends who're actually there. Plus, being able to travel with the game that happens to be about traveling and taxonomy is very satisfying, even if a lot of people probably don't actually do it a whole lot. It's...
What's that word? That one I usually abhor using.
Immersive.
Running into Pokemon trainers in the game is supposed to have some parallelism with challenging your friends at school--and that IS the demographic they're targeting with these games. If you confine it to the console you ditch that satisfaction entirely, and as slight and insignificant as that change may seem and as appealing as it may sound to walk around Kanto or Hoenn or wherever in full 3D in exchange, that novelty isn't as strong and I can guarantee it'd be the most short-lived Pokemon game ever. It also doesn't help Pokemon's case that its game world is pretty generic, merely being a reflection of our own modern world, and there just isn't a lot for Nintendo to add by bringing it to 3D.
Making games in 3D--especially nowadays--is expensive. Making 3D assets as opposed to sprites, speaking from my own experience as a 3D artist, is easier and a lot more satisfying--especially in the animation process--but also involves a ton of extra steps and is generally a lot more time-consuming. What's more programming in 3D, even to make something as simple as a JRPG, is ten times harder than programming in 2D--and you know Nintendo isn't using the Unreal Engine or anything like that to cut corners on this sort of thing. They're Nintendo. They make their own modeling tools for crap's sake. But I digress.factualsquirrel said:
There's some genres that're served better by being in 3D and some that aren't, but the bottom line is that Nintendo would really need a strong incentive to make a fully-realized 3D Pokemon game. Saying "make it realtime instead" sounds really nice and all, but have you ever stopped to ask yourself exactly what the game would play like, what the mechanics and rules would be and whatnot? Thinking of all the games that Pokemon could be in 3D is to ask what games that Pokemon isn't in 2D and trying to figure out which one is best. It really does raise a staggering number of questions. It'd be a big risk factor that would bear a ton of prototyping to get the gameplay right and, more to the point, more AI programming and animation than would be economically feasible. Over 400 different characters with unique AIs and pathing systems, customized animations for every attack they've got, and everything? Granting that that's the maximum amount of polish they could possibly add and that they could lose one or two of these features and tweak existing AIs between relatively similar Pokemon to cut corners, it's still a ludicrous amount of work to go through.
I would play a 3d version of Pokemon.
But it would have to be like a remake of Blue version. Because dem new ones make my oldtimer head esplode
But it would have to be like a remake of Blue version. Because dem new ones make my oldtimer head esplode
Pokemon on a 3D stage would work fantastically if Nintendo had a better online gaming system to work with, and if they fixed those LONG AS HELL actions from Pokemon Stadium etc.
An MMO- or even, just a normal 3D pokemon game, in the vein of the originals, and a 'Battle Tower' style Online Lobby where you could trade/battle would be fantastic.
An MMO- or even, just a normal 3D pokemon game, in the vein of the originals, and a 'Battle Tower' style Online Lobby where you could trade/battle would be fantastic.
It's probably because Nintendo (and whatever company developed colosseum and XD) hadn't put much effort into making a good pokemon 3D game. Stadium was just a few challenges, extras and minigames. Snap was an interesting concept which i felt worked well at the time and Colosseum... well that was just shit. I've heard XD was worse though.
Oh yes and there was pokemon ranch which was amazing wasn't it? (no it wasn't)
Oh yes and there was pokemon ranch which was amazing wasn't it? (no it wasn't)
ha i know, thats why i said "avoidable", i just want to be able to dodge them if timed correctly, i like they are there its just the annoyance of when i need to run quick to the town or go past they are ALWAYS THERE AND LOOKING STRAIGHT, i mean jeez..dont they eat or go home?poncho14 said:But if you avoided all the trainers your pokemon wouldn't level quick enough for the next gym imo, so thats why I like the trainersgmaverick019 said: