• 69 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

The first few pokemon games came out during the peak of the 2D Nintendo era alongside super mario world, super metroid and a link to the past. Since then, all these great Nintendo franchises have been modernised and reimagined to run on more modern consoles. All except the Pokemon franchise of course. We all know Pokemon makes a shitton of money every time a new game comes out on handhelds and that's great. But why limit yourself with that?

It's like if apple stopped making anything but iterations of the iPod when they saw that thing was like growing money on trees. Instead of doing that they kept selling new iPods but took the basic concept and came up with the iPhone. Just like that, money was growing on trees and falling out of the sky at the same time.

So why have the attempts at a true console Pokemon been so half assed and unambitious? Why is the franchise that could be Nintendo's iPhone stuck with pokemon dx: gale of darkness, pokemon stadium, pokemon colosseum, hey you pikachu and other garbage? Why is the best pokemon game on consoles a on rails photo safari simulator? Why, in a time when they're struggling to sell their newest console to Nintendo fans and casual people, aren't they making an effort with a franchise that appeals greatly to both those groups?

#2 Edited by mems1224 (207 posts) -

Because its cheaper to pump out 2d handheld games instead of taking a risk on 3d ones.

Online
#3 Edited by believer258 (11775 posts) -

I have wondered about this myself every time a new Pokemon game comes out.

Online
#4 Posted by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

Because Game Freak and Nintendo know well enough that Pokemon is at its best as a portable franchise. The console spin-offs are good one-off adventures, but the acts of battling, raising, and trading Pokemon have become the success that hey are because of their portability.

@mems1224 said:

Because its cheaper to pump out 2d handheld games instead of taking a risk on 3d ones.

X/Y is 3D, dude.

Online
#5 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@mems1224 said:

Because its cheaper to pump out 2d handheld games instead of taking a risk on 3d ones.

Why not do both 3D on consoles and 2D on handhelds with great connectivity incentivising you to buy both? Why not take at least one, single, solid shot at a great console pokemon game?

#6 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2231 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

#7 Posted by mems1224 (207 posts) -

@hailinel: Not really. Its still basically the same pokemon game(a great pokemon game btw) just with more camera angles and animations. It wasn't the drastic change or real 3d like the change between LTTP and OoT.

Online
#8 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@hailinel:

Plus Pokemon is a very social game, and putting that game on a console would likely act as a barrier.

#9 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

Also, you can communicate and transfer data all the time, whenever you want with a handheld. That’s also a match with the Pokemon concept.

You mean like on a console conected with the internet?

He doesn't rule it out entirely, though, saying that “Maybe in the future, if we can think of a way to do something cool with that, then that’s the sort of environment we can work in,”. But right now, no plans are on the table.

See? That statement was made 3 years ago and I think it holds only if you think a simple turn based RPG is all Pokemon should ever be. Again, those are fine on handhelds but if you changed up the combat system a bit for the WiiU you would get a game everyone who has ever seen an episode of the pokemon TV show would kill to be able to play.

#10 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@hailinel:

Plus Pokemon is a very social game, and putting that game on a console would likely act as a barrier.

Only because Nintendo doesn't know what the internet is at this point

#11 Posted by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

@oscar__explosion said:

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

Also, you can communicate and transfer data all the time, whenever you want with a handheld. That’s also a match with the Pokemon concept.

You mean like on a console conected with the internet?

He doesn't rule it out entirely, though, saying that “Maybe in the future, if we can think of a way to do something cool with that, then that’s the sort of environment we can work in,”. But right now, no plans are on the table.

See? That statement was made 3 years ago and I think it holds only if you think a simple turn based RPG is all Pokemon should ever be. Again, those are fine on handhelds but if you changed up the combat system a bit for the WiiU you would get a game everyone who has ever seen an episode of the pokemon TV show would kill to be able to play.

Again, Pokemon is a very social game. It's a game that kids can play with friends at school, or on the bus, or at social gatherings. There's an element to its interaction that's lost if you force the player to sit in front of a TV screen for a facsimile of the experience that these games are known for.

Online
#12 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@pyrodactyl:

That wouldn't really change things, though. Internet doesn't inherently make things social. Case in point: almost any console shooter this generation.

#13 Posted by EuanDewar (4873 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

Also, you can communicate and transfer data all the time, whenever you want with a handheld. That’s also a match with the Pokemon concept.

You mean like on a console conected with the internet?

He doesn't rule it out entirely, though, saying that “Maybe in the future, if we can think of a way to do something cool with that, then that’s the sort of environment we can work in,”. But right now, no plans are on the table.

See? That statement was made 3 years ago and I think it holds only if you think a simple turn based RPG is all Pokemon should ever be. Again, those are fine on handhelds but if you changed up the combat system a bit for the WiiU you would get a game everyone who has ever seen an episode of the pokemon TV show would kill to be able to play.

Again, Pokemon is a very social game. It's a game that kids can play with friends at school, or on the bus, or at social gatherings. There's an element to its interaction that's lost if you force the player to sit in front of a TV screen for a facsimile of the experience that these games are known for.

I get what you're saying but I was 8 when Pokemon Colosseum came out on the Gamecube and me and my mates who played it loved that game. Just the fact that I was playing Pokemon on a home console and a big TV thrilled the shit out of me. I think it is absolutely still worth it to make another console Pokemon game. Both for the fans and for Nintendo.

#14 Posted by Generic_username (599 posts) -

Pokemon Colosseum was terrible.

I love playing Pokemon on my handheld. I think it's the perfect place for the main series to stay.

Also, I agree that the best Pokemon spin-off game is Pokemon Snap. Why aren't they making a new Pokemon Snap for Wii U? That's a better question.

#15 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

Also, you can communicate and transfer data all the time, whenever you want with a handheld. That’s also a match with the Pokemon concept.

You mean like on a console conected with the internet?

He doesn't rule it out entirely, though, saying that “Maybe in the future, if we can think of a way to do something cool with that, then that’s the sort of environment we can work in,”. But right now, no plans are on the table.

See? That statement was made 3 years ago and I think it holds only if you think a simple turn based RPG is all Pokemon should ever be. Again, those are fine on handhelds but if you changed up the combat system a bit for the WiiU you would get a game everyone who has ever seen an episode of the pokemon TV show would kill to be able to play.

Again, Pokemon is a very social game. It's a game that kids can play with friends at school, or on the bus, or at social gatherings. There's an element to its interaction that's lost if you force the player to sit in front of a TV screen for a facsimile of the experience that these games are known for.

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

#16 Posted by ChrisHarris (275 posts) -

What Nintendo really needs to do is buy CastAR, wirelessly integrate it with the Wii U's video streaming capabilities, and make an augmented reality Pokemon tabletop battle game. That would blow kids' minds.

#17 Posted by Zeik (2340 posts) -

Because it wouldn't sell half as well as on the handhelds and I can pretty guarantee that it wouldn't be this huge paradigm shift you think it would be.

When it comes to a game like Pokemon there's very little a console can provide the game that a modern handheld can't, beyond just increased graphic fidelity. We're talking about a turn-based RPG here, not a fast paced action game. Just about any major change you could make that would require a console would turn it into a game that is no longer Pokemon, which is not what I want to see.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made about how Pokemon needs to change and evolve, and many of those arguments are valid, but the types of changes that would truly make a meaningful difference do not require the WiiU.

#18 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1558 posts) -

I agree that the idea of a full console Pokemon game is very appealing, but I don't think it's going to happen. I think there actually was a Pokemon 64 of the nature you're describing, but it ended up getting cancelled, or announced and never really developed.

Now that the Wii U is in such a precarious position, I really can't imagine Nintendo gambling with their cash cow. The 3DS is an order of magnitude more popular than the Wii U, and it's the system the Pokemon audience is most likely to have.

#19 Posted by SomberOwl (649 posts) -

This is the million dollar Nintendo question. People have been wondering this for a while.

Maybe we'll finally see one now that Nintendo is merging there console and handheld divisions.

In my opinion if they do actually decide to do a full on proper console Pokemon game they should reboot the franchise with all new Pokemon. There is just to many now and it has gotten pretty dumb. Reboot it with a different story than the dumb legendary Pokemon stuff and have a solid 200 or so Pokemon with good designs that don't seem like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas.

#20 Edited by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@pyrodactyl: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84122/gamefreak-doesnt-want-home-console-pokemon-series-is-portable/

Also, you can communicate and transfer data all the time, whenever you want with a handheld. That’s also a match with the Pokemon concept.

You mean like on a console conected with the internet?

He doesn't rule it out entirely, though, saying that “Maybe in the future, if we can think of a way to do something cool with that, then that’s the sort of environment we can work in,”. But right now, no plans are on the table.

See? That statement was made 3 years ago and I think it holds only if you think a simple turn based RPG is all Pokemon should ever be. Again, those are fine on handhelds but if you changed up the combat system a bit for the WiiU you would get a game everyone who has ever seen an episode of the pokemon TV show would kill to be able to play.

Again, Pokemon is a very social game. It's a game that kids can play with friends at school, or on the bus, or at social gatherings. There's an element to its interaction that's lost if you force the player to sit in front of a TV screen for a facsimile of the experience that these games are known for.

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

Maybe, instead of throwing half-thought ideas out there as things Nintendo is dumb for not considering, you should spend more time considering them and honestly ask how such elements could actually be implemented into the game from a design standpoint. It's easy to say "Nintendo is fucking stupid for not doing X" when you don't even elaborate on how X would actually work or even take the time to consider if it would in fact work at all.

Online
#21 Edited by Zeik (2340 posts) -

@somberowl: They kind of did that with Black and White 1. 150 new Pokemon and all the old Pokemon were completely inaccessable until you beat the game. Some people liked that (I did), others did not.

I don't think they would gain anything by removing all the old Pokemon completely though. There are way too many people who play those games so they can continue using their old favorite Pokemon, and there will always be people who think the newer ones suck compared to the old ones. Pokemon is too big now to just pretend like everything before doesn't exist.

#22 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@zeik said:

Just about any major change you could make that would require a console would turn it into a game that is no longer Pokemon, which is not what I want to see.

This the kind of limiting belief that is killing the WiiU. No one is going to take away your handheld pokemon games and those will keep coming out with minor tweaks for a very long time. But why limit the franchise to that? Was mario 64 terrible because it was in 3D and had objectives other than get to the end of the level? Was Metroid prime terrible because it was a metroidvania FPS and not a metroidvania 2D action platformer?

The core elements of the Pokemon franchise for me are:

  • You catch Pokemons
  • They have elemental afinities that make them better or worst agains other pokemons
  • You train them, they get better, learn new abilities and evolve
  • You can battle or trade pokemons with other players

I can't think of a single reason why a pokemon game on console should be a turn based RPG. Why not an action RPG with direct controle over your pokemon in battle? Why not take advantage of the larger screen and superior power to provide an exciting and deep experience?

#23 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5371 posts) -

Because the world isn't fair. X/Y were the closest modernization we could honestly hope for. While it was pretty great, they could do so much more(I say not knowing anything about developing games). I know it's mainly a handheld franchise, but I'd love to see a more fully realized console version. I'm an absolute sucker for the Pokemon games, and that would be my nerdy dream.

Give me my Dragon Quest 8 of the Pokemon franchise please! All I need is one.

Much more realistically, I'd love to see a handheld Pokemon game that connects all the regions thus far into one giant game. I'd rather see them take a grand ambition in an area they're familiar with rather than try and adapt the series for a console.

#24 Edited by Zeik (2340 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: I actually don't like Mario64, and I kind of don't consider Metroid Prime games "true" Metroid games (although I do think they're generally fine games in their own right), but that's kind of neither here nor there.

If turning it into an action-RPG is the best reason you've got for putting it on consoles over handhelds then I completely stand by what I said. I don't want that and I don't think that's the kind of change the franchise needs to see. If they want to try out some kind of spin-off action-RPG on consoles then cool, but I do not want to see that be the future of the main franchise simply because it's different.

I really don't feel like you've thought this idea through all that much, beyond the implied notion that consoles are better than handhelds so being on a console would inherently make it better. I do not agree with that sentiment.

#25 Posted by PhilESkyline (774 posts) -

I would love to see Pokemon with Kinect features.

  • You say the name of the Pokemon and then "I choose you!" while throwing you hand forward
  • Once your Pokemon is out on the field you just say their name and the name of the attack

#26 Edited by SomberOwl (649 posts) -

@zeik said:

@somberowl: They kind of did that with Black and White 1. 150 new Pokemon and all the old Pokemon were completely inaccessable until you beat the game. Some people liked that (I did), others did not.

I don't think they would gain anything by removing all the old Pokemon completely though. There are way too many people who play those games so they can continue using their old favorite Pokemon, and there will always be people who think the newer ones suck compared to the old ones. Pokemon is too big now to just pretend like everything before doesn't exist.

Your probably right about the franchise being to big to just ignore the established pokemon and story. I think this is a problem though. I just think it has gotten out of hand. Everything from the Pokemon designs, story, and game mechanics. It's gotten overly complicated.

I think I'm just bitter that some of my favourite childhood games have changed to the point where I no longer care. I just want them to go back to what made the first games so great. It will never happen but I can always dream. 700+ is just too many. I'm also super bitter about them changing the original Pokemon with stupid mega evolutions.

#27 Posted by crithon (3111 posts) -

The thing is, everyone keeps bringing up the past console pokemon games and it reminds me like the console Castlevania 3D games attempting to be Symphony of the Night. It's all about those developers who get overwhelmed and have no idea how to manage development when portable is something they are so used to. If Nintendo were to handle console Pokemon over to a more competent developer.... maybe maybe maybe it'd work..... because Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon has those really really really long narration bits, is why I'm skeptical.

#28 Posted by believer258 (11775 posts) -

@zeik said:

@pyrodactyl: I actually don't like Mario64, and I kind of don't consider Metroid Prime games "true" Metroid games (although I do think they're generally fine games in their own right)

Since this thread isn't really going anywhere, why don't you consider Metroid Prime a "true" Metroid game?

Online
#29 Edited by Zeik (2340 posts) -

@believer258: Samus has a certain level of agility and maneuverability in the 2D games that is completely lacking from the Prime games, which holds it back from feeling like a full Metroid experience to me. I don't necessarily fault Retro for that, because that would be very hard to pull off in a first person game, but it's still a big thing lost in that transition IMO.

When Other M was announced I was kind of hopeful it would be the best of both worlds, but that didn't quite happen.

#30 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -
@hailinel said:
@pyrodactyl said:

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

Maybe, instead of throwing half-thought ideas out there as things Nintendo is dumb for not considering, you should spend more time considering them and honestly ask how such elements could actually be implemented into the game from a design standpoint. It's easy to say "Nintendo is fucking stupid for not doing X" when you don't even elaborate on how X would actually work or even take the time to consider if it would in fact work at all.

I could write a full design doc on how I think great gameplay mechanics in a console pokemon game could be implemented to take advantage of the strengths of the franchise as well as the strenght of the platform. I won't waste my time with that because you seem to take pleasure in shooting down every single one of my points with a hand wave motion but no actual argument and don't have any actual interest in discussing anything.

#31 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@zeik said:

@pyrodactyl: I actually don't like Mario64, and I kind of don't consider Metroid Prime games "true" Metroid games (although I do think they're generally fine games in their own right), but that's kind of neither here nor there.

If turning it into an action-RPG is the best reason you've got for putting it on consoles over handhelds then I completely stand by what I said. I don't want that and I don't think that's the kind of change the franchise needs to see. If they want to try out some kind of spin-off action-RPG on consoles then cool, but I do not want to see that be the future of the main franchise simply because it's different.

You don't understand what I'm saying. There will always be handheld pokemon and it will probably keep making enough cash to be considered the futur of the main franchise forever. Why would it ever change? The console pokemon should at least be different to take advantage of the power of the system and because I don't really think a turn based RPG is going to sell the numbers nintendo needs it to sell in that environment.

#32 Posted by Zeik (2340 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: So you want them to continue to make full fledged, fully featured handheld games, while also making full fledged, fully featured console games that are also completely redesigned from the ground up? There's no way major sacrifices are not being made on something with that kind of development in mind.

#33 Posted by Hunter5024 (5600 posts) -

I bet they'll do it one day.

#34 Posted by believer258 (11775 posts) -

@zeik said:

@believer258: Samus has a certain level of agility and maneuverability in the 2D games that is completely lacking from the Prime games, which holds it back from feeling like a full Metroid experience to me. I don't necessarily fault Retro for that, because that would be very hard to pull off in a first person game, but it's still a big thing lost in that transition IMO.

When Other M was announced I was kind of hopeful it would be the best of both worlds, but that didn't quite happen.

I have never thought about it like that. I do think there is some agility in the Prime games - you have a dash, you have a double jump, it's a first person game where jumping from one platform to another isn't infuriating. Still, I think they captured what makes Super Metroid so great pretty well - exploring an area, finding abilities and items, fighting bosses, great atmosphere and music, etc.

@hailinel said:
@pyrodactyl said:

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

Maybe, instead of throwing half-thought ideas out there as things Nintendo is dumb for not considering, you should spend more time considering them and honestly ask how such elements could actually be implemented into the game from a design standpoint. It's easy to say "Nintendo is fucking stupid for not doing X" when you don't even elaborate on how X would actually work or even take the time to consider if it would in fact work at all.

I could write a full design doc on how I think great gameplay mechanics in a console pokemon game could be implemented to take advantage of the strengths of the franchise as well as the strenght of the platform. I won't waste my time with that because you seem to take pleasure in shooting down every single one of my points with a hand wave motion but don't have any actual interest in discussing anything.

You mean the exact same hand wave motion that you dismiss everyone else's points with?

You could write a design doc, but even I could poke a billion holes in it, and any halfway experienced developer could find a billion more. You don't magically come up with the answers in a forum post that you thought about for all of five seconds, and you can't know how you're going to design a game with a document you spent half an hour writing.

Online
#35 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2666 posts) -

I might ask, Why isn't Nintendo doing a lot of things? There are obvious games or series that could use an new edition on their new console. There are new IPs they should be developing and should have started two years ago to come out now. There are changes in policy and management they need to address. There are so many changes Nintendo needs to make so that they don't need to change their vision.

I have to say that when the company's founding Yamauchi family is reportedly looking to sell its shares in the company that IS a warning sign. I must imagine when a Japanese founding family cashes-out of it OWN business they are not seeing things picking up steam. That would be like the Ford family selling all it stock, or Bill Gates dumping all his shares of Microsoft to buy Samsung stocks.

Nintendo could pull out of this, but they won't. I guarantee as a rock solid bet that in under ten years Nintendo will be gone. Not gone because of a lack or resources, talent or money; but gone because NOBODY knows what to do? Doubt & delay will kill them. Ego about who they 'were' and fear of what they have 'become' will kill them.

#36 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@zeik said:

@pyrodactyl: So you want them to continue to make full fledged, fully featured handheld games, while also making full fledged, fully featured console games that are also completely redesigned from the ground up? There's no way major sacrifices are not being made on something with that kind of development in mind.

Why? Just give the mandate for console development to another team or hire more people to work on it. They have billions cash in the bank just slowly dwindling by paying each year's operational deficit because they don't invest in stuff like this.

#37 Posted by Zeik (2340 posts) -

@zeik said:

@pyrodactyl: So you want them to continue to make full fledged, fully featured handheld games, while also making full fledged, fully featured console games that are also completely redesigned from the ground up? There's no way major sacrifices are not being made on something with that kind of development in mind.

Why? Just give the mandate for console development to another team or hire more people to work on it. I don't know what your point is.

Right, just hire more people, that totally doesn't cost a bunch of money or anything. And if they're giving it to another team then who? If it's not the Pokemon team working on a console Pokemon game then which team is the team that would make that work? Or is the handheld game the one that is going to get thrown to some random unknown team?

#38 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@hailinel said:
@pyrodactyl said:

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

Maybe, instead of throwing half-thought ideas out there as things Nintendo is dumb for not considering, you should spend more time considering them and honestly ask how such elements could actually be implemented into the game from a design standpoint. It's easy to say "Nintendo is fucking stupid for not doing X" when you don't even elaborate on how X would actually work or even take the time to consider if it would in fact work at all.

I could write a full design doc on how I think great gameplay mechanics in a console pokemon game could be implemented to take advantage of the strengths of the franchise as well as the strenght of the platform. I won't waste my time with that because you seem to take pleasure in shooting down every single one of my points with a hand wave motion but don't have any actual interest in discussing anything.

You mean the exact same hand wave motion that you dismiss everyone else's points with?

You could write a design doc, but even I could poke a billion holes in it, and any halfway experienced developer could find a billion more. You don't magically come up with the answers in a forum post that you thought about for all of five seconds, and you can't know how you're going to design a game with a document you spent half an hour writing.

The last time I tried to put some ideas out there every critisism I got was based on the usual internet contrarian mentality or preconcieved notions about what a pokemon game should or shouldn't be. No points were made about the design though. I would be really curious to know if someone could take the exercise seriously instead of jumping on the usual internet hate train.

#39 Posted by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@hailinel said:
@pyrodactyl said:

I would be really curious to know the percentage of people who play the game the way you describe it. Besides, I bet they could come up with a bunch of mechanics to encourage couch coop or battles. You could bring your trainer to your friend's house using your WiiU pad or transfering via the cloud. There are millions of ways they could go about retaining what they deem to be core elements of the franchise while extending the gamplay concepts in a way only possible in a console environement. Seriously, all they're doing is limiting the potential of a great franchise with lame excuses.

Maybe, instead of throwing half-thought ideas out there as things Nintendo is dumb for not considering, you should spend more time considering them and honestly ask how such elements could actually be implemented into the game from a design standpoint. It's easy to say "Nintendo is fucking stupid for not doing X" when you don't even elaborate on how X would actually work or even take the time to consider if it would in fact work at all.

I could write a full design doc on how I think great gameplay mechanics in a console pokemon game could be implemented to take advantage of the strengths of the franchise as well as the strenght of the platform. I won't waste my time with that because you seem to take pleasure in shooting down every single one of my points with a hand wave motion but don't have any actual interest in discussing anything.

You mean the exact same hand wave motion that you dismiss everyone else's points with?

You could write a design doc, but even I could poke a billion holes in it, and any halfway experienced developer could find a billion more. You don't magically come up with the answers in a forum post that you thought about for all of five seconds, and you can't know how you're going to design a game with a document you spent half an hour writing.

The last time I tried to put some ideas out there every critisism I got was based on the usual internet contrarian mentality or preconcieved notions about what a pokemon game should or shouldn't be. No points were made about the design though. I would be really curious to know if someone could take the exercise seriously instead of jumping on the usual internet hate train.

Perhaps you should take the exercise seriously yourself before expecting someone to take it seriously for you. I have yet to see you put forth that level of effort, though.

Online
#40 Posted by MikkaQ (10278 posts) -

Give it some time, let them burn through their cash reserves and then we will see what happens.

#41 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

preconcieved notions about what a pokemon game should or shouldn't be.

Isn't that what you're doing right now? Also....

the usual internet contrarian mentality

I would be really curious to know if someone could take the exercise seriously instead of jumping on the usual internet hate train.

I'm experiencing an irony implosion right now.

#42 Edited by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@hailinel: right, I'm going to spend my time putting in words ideas and gameplay mechanics that could make a console version of pokemon somthing people want to play so you can shit on said ideas and mechanics without, at any point, letting it cross your mind that you might agree with something I say. No thanks.

#43 Edited by Zeik (2340 posts) -

I'm always open for a legitimate discussion on these kinds of topics, but more often than not they devolve because someone loves their idea so much that they can't accept that not everyone else thinks it's the best idea ever. Usually because it's just some vague idea with very little detail backing up why it's so great.

#44 Posted by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

@hailinel: right, I'm going to spend my time putting in words ideas and gameplay mechanics that could make a console version of pokemon somthing people want to play so you can shit on said ideas and mechanics without, at any point, letting it cross your mind that you might agree with something I say. No thanks.

You couldn't possibly know that because you have yet to put in anything even resembling that level of effort into a design idea to present to anyone here. The reason I'm responding to you the I way I am is because the arguments you've put forth so far are devoid of thought. I've put more effort into terrible sketches of terrible Mega Man stages and bosses I had ideas for when I was eight.

Online
#45 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

the usual internet contrarian mentality

I would be really curious to know if someone could take the exercise seriously instead of jumping on the usual internet hate train.

I'm experiencing an irony implosion right now.

Seriously? If you don't agree with the fact that people just like to disagree with each other on the internet and shit on other people's ideas THAT would be the defintion of irony.

@pyrodactyl said:

preconcieved notions about what a pokemon game should or shouldn't be.

Isn't that what you're doing right now? Also....

I'm for the brothening of the definition of what a pokemon game should be. I have my own ideas, sure, but I would welcome the ideas of actual real designers if they ever decide to stop limiting themselves.

#46 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:
@video_game_king said:

the usual internet contrarian mentality

I would be really curious to know if someone could take the exercise seriously instead of jumping on the usual internet hate train.

I'm experiencing an irony implosion right now.

Seriously? If you don't agree with the fact that people just like to disagree with each other on the internet and shit on other people's ideas THAT would be the defintion of irony.

Kind of? I'm more concerned with how you're participating in the very thing you're criticizing. The high levels of aggression in this thread certainly don't help.

#47 Posted by pyrodactyl (1962 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@hailinel: right, I'm going to spend my time putting in words ideas and gameplay mechanics that could make a console version of pokemon somthing people want to play so you can shit on said ideas and mechanics without, at any point, letting it cross your mind that you might agree with something I say. No thanks.

You couldn't possibly know that because you have yet to put in anything even resembling that level of effort into a design idea to present to anyone here. The reason I'm responding to you the I way I am is because the arguments you've put forth so far are devoid of thought. I've put more effort into terrible sketches of terrible Mega Man stages and bosses I had ideas for when I was eight.

As I said before:

To me the core elements of the Pokemon franchise are:

  • You catch Pokemons
  • They have elemental afinities that make them better or worst agains other pokemons
  • You train them, they get better, learn new abilities and evolve
  • You can battle or trade pokemons with other players

You could add:

  • The game fosters social interactions
  • It's easy to pick up and play (no steep learning curve)

Now if you can't imagine a game that takes those elements to make a compelling experience on console I don't know what to tell you.

My personal idea of what that game could be is an action RPG with direct controle over your pokemon in battle. That kind of game would take advantage of the larger screen and superior power to provide the exciting action people expect on a modern console as well as a deep, tatical pokemon experience.

I don't care if they don't end up going with that. It's just the premise that pokemon can only be done on handhelds that I don't buy at all.

#48 Posted by Hailinel (24279 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@hailinel: right, I'm going to spend my time putting in words ideas and gameplay mechanics that could make a console version of pokemon somthing people want to play so you can shit on said ideas and mechanics without, at any point, letting it cross your mind that you might agree with something I say. No thanks.

You couldn't possibly know that because you have yet to put in anything even resembling that level of effort into a design idea to present to anyone here. The reason I'm responding to you the I way I am is because the arguments you've put forth so far are devoid of thought. I've put more effort into terrible sketches of terrible Mega Man stages and bosses I had ideas for when I was eight.

As I said before:

To me the core elements of the Pokemon franchise are:

  • You catch Pokemons
  • They have elemental afinities that make them better or worst agains other pokemons
  • You train them, they get better, learn new abilities and evolve
  • You can battle or trade pokemons with other players

You could add:

  • The game fosters social interactions
  • It's easy to pick up and play (no steep learning curve)

Now if you can't imagine a game that takes those elements to make a compelling experience on console I don't know what to tell you.

My personal idea of what that game could be is an action RPG with direct controle over your pokemon in battle. That kind of game would take advantage of the larger screen and superior power to provide the exciting action people expect on a modern console as well as a deep, tatical pokemon experience.

I don't care if they don't end up going with that. It's just the premise that pokemon can only be done on handhelds that I don't buy at all.

There is a difference between imagining a game with each of those elements, and the actual coherent design of a game that includes all of those features plus whatever other features you elect to include. What you are offering is not a design concept in any sense. It's giving people bullet points and then asking them to fill in the blanks themselves without any sort of guidance in regards to what it is you personally are looking for.

Online
#49 Posted by Doskias (304 posts) -

I would love to see Pokemon with Kinect features.

  • You say the name of the Pokemon and then "I choose you!" while throwing you hand forward
  • Once your Pokemon is out on the field you just say their name and the name of the attack

You know, when the features of the DS were first outlined, one of my first thoughts about its potential functionality was that the microphone could be used to issue commands to pokemon. I'm baffled that this hasn't been implemented yet.

#50 Posted by Animasta (14667 posts) -

The idea of this is much better than what it would actually be though. By introducing more complexity it would turn off kids, and if they're just gonna keep the same thing but make it 3d and nice looking... why bother? Battles alone would be a nightmare, if they're at all controllable beyond picking attacks.