A discussion on pokemon gaming difficulty

追放されたバカ
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
790
going to be rather brief because i feel like this can be a thing that's open to interpretation. here are some talking points o:

1. should pokemon games become more difficult, despite the argument that they're mainly targeted towards children?
2. if you were in charge of development, how would you implement a "difficulty mode"? would it be similar to b2w2, or different?
3. do you think self-induced difficulty challenges are enough (for example, nuzlockes, monotype challenges, etc)? how far would you go?

by all means, don't limit yourself to these questions in particular, but the broader question as to how everyone feels about difficulty i'm rather curious about!
1. yes (can make modes: Beginner, Chalenge and Master, with adjuction to level of oponents pokemon and inbuild strategies)

-create better and more challenging pokemon with abilities , formes, moves... like Ditto, Mimykyu, Zoroark, Shedinja, Eiscue, Wishiwashi, Komala, megas, Gigantamax

- make right proportiona between activation of moves effects and accuracy, because weak base power moves and low accuracy moves should have higher effect activation rates:
  • not enough moves that induce target the confusion status(hammer moves, petal blizzard) and not enough abilities(some could get addition like Tinded Lens, Rock Head, Insomania, Telepathy and others) and moves that could break confusion status(outbreak, trash, petal dance if they cause confusion to user they should protect from confusion status during the time they are used or free the user if the user was under confusion early on) ... we got misty terrain to block confusion but not not enough moves with it actually to use... and not enough old abilities with addition to block it like Own Tempo...
  • confusion power 50 and only 10% chance of activating confuse state? come on Bite has 30% chance to flinch... I know confusion can hurt the target but at least give 20% to a psychic type move taking dark are immune to it...
  • The chance of a confused Pokémon to hurt itself is now 33% why not make: 77% it has chance to attack??? Why not make 20% of that 77% like with obiedience use a other move then it was called to used and maybe other 20% cause recoil damage when using it's move??? to make confusion more different then in the past
  • not enough moves and pokemon with forms that would work while beeing in sleep status
  • not enough moves causing infautation
  • acid armor should free from freeze, some other moves should get additions
  • pokemon that change forms and types when getting burned, paralyzed, frozen during battle and not getting the bad effect

-weathers like rain, sun and tailwind should have a 20% chance to happen everytime and everywhere in every battle outside of buildings or in buildings with open ceelings. (each would chave a chance to happen, hail and thunderstorm(rain+electric terrain) , mist (misty terrain and rainy weather) could be included too with lower chance of happening via location)

- terrains that activate via rune stones near battle fields when a move of the type of terrain is used

They should not overwrite the used weather by moves or abilities, but could change after the used previous auto weather

2. It would work the way that Beginner would be without anything only pokedex and quidence, getting informed about additions and everything generaly from the start for all kids and beginners,

Chalenge would make that all the oponents pokemon is matched with the level of your team or your strongest pokemon, they would have the same level always as your team(average level of all pokemon in team) and their strongest pokemon would always be on the level as your strongest pokemon

Master -the same level adjustment system but with regulation you could regulate +3, +5, +8 to the level of all your oponents in game

Master would get a extra hinderence that the level of your pokemon can fall down to its evolution level or base level(20) if the pokemon is to long in the storage.

Master and Chalenge mode would have more problems with Obedience if their pokemon has a problematic nature, low happines or you would lose to much with it or it would win to easy and fast battles, level to fast up... could be related to amount of badges, proportion of wins to lost battles or be accidental with strongest pokemon... or based on experience...

Chalenge and Master: each side uses the same amount of pokemon to battle.

imagine a battle frontier brain or trainer using a legendary suddently without?

pokemon league like in anime that you advance with trainers that you met during the game via accidental choice





_________________________________________________
3. self-induced are good but could be proposed in game? I would make double battles, tripple battles, contests with battle motives, how far?
I would make a chalange that you can choose manually in game to block or cause this to happen when starting the game:
- each pokemon in your team can only use 2 or 3 moves...
- turn limits , that each battle between your pokemon and target only lasts 3 turns and the winner is the one with most hp or that took out most pokemon
- battle limit of 5, 10 or 15 turns depending on amount of pokemon
-each trainer uses the same amount of pokmemon, that means you cant use more pokemon then gym leader
- the not switch out of battle rule, that a switch is counted as a lost pokemon

4. all levels would have trainers and gym leaders that use berries, items , abilities and moves in combos (maybe medium and master even that more then rookie, also the pokemon used by gym leaders could evolve during or after lost matches, use mega evolutions, dynamax and use switching moves, entry hazards and more strategies)

_______________________

I as a kid liked to learn and read, the kids can always ask older ones how to play better, also kids grow... having harder battles means commin back to it.... with a good pokedex and enough ingame information its better...

The medium and master levels would be cool to change hp bars into smaller ones, and to see more pokemon then numbers and data flying around, like in the lower part on the screen to not take away the sight from the visual effects.
 
Last edited:
running on a loop
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,881
Reaction score
685
should pokemon games become more difficult, despite the argument that they're mainly targeted towards children?
I think so, yes. Lately, they've felt like more of a breeze, which isn't too exciting.

if you were in charge of development, how would you implement a "difficulty mode"? would it be similar to b2w2, or different?
Most games I see with difficulty modes let you choose at the beginning, so I'd probably go that route. Have an Easy, Normal, and Hard mode and let players choose from there with the default being Normal.

do you think self-induced difficulty challenges are enough (for example, nuzlockes, monotype challenges, etc)? how far would you go?
I think it's enough for now, but I think later on down the road, it'd be worth it to either incorporate those into the game itself or just allowing players to have a difficulty mode selected at the beginning. A mix of the two would honestly be nice.
 
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
790
should pokemon games become more difficult, despite the argument that they're mainly targeted towards children?
I think so, yes. Lately, they've felt like more of a breeze, which isn't too exciting.

if you were in charge of development, how would you implement a "difficulty mode"? would it be similar to b2w2, or different?
Most games I see with difficulty modes let you choose at the beginning, so I'd probably go that route. Have an Easy, Normal, and Hard mode and let players choose from there with the default being Normal.

do you think self-induced difficulty challenges are enough (for example, nuzlockes, monotype challenges, etc)? how far would you go?
I think it's enough for now, but I think later on down the road, it'd be worth it to either incorporate those into the game itself or just allowing players to have a difficulty mode selected at the beginning. A mix of the two would honestly be nice.
kids... there are also teen and adult players of all kinds of games right now...
 
Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
290
Reaction score
33
I don't have too much of a problem with the way things are now, because I don't play video games for the challenge. In fact, I have a constantly-busy brain, so video games are actually an opportunity for me to take a break and operate on autopilot for a while. That said, I wouldn't mind a Hard Mode option for players to choose if they'd like some extra challenge. It's important to keep the target audience of Pokemon in mind, so I don't think the ordinary game needs to be that difficult. Although I know that many games run the whole gamut from Very Easy/Beginner to Very Hard/Nightmare, I think that might be a tad ambitious for a Pokemon game, especially since there's always the metagame and battle facilities to think about.

I don't know what GF was thinking with the way things were done in B2W2, but they took a risk, and I can appreciate that, even if it didn't work out. I think that, in the future, a choice between Normal/Regular Mode and Hard/Challenge Mode would be enough customization.

I don't do Nuzlocke or monotype challenges, but I do like to restart my game and start with a new team; I go in regional Pokedex order (except for Gens I-IV and its remakes, where I go in National Pokedex order), so I do often end up with two, or even three, Pokemon of the same type. I also end up using "weak" or common Pokemon a lot, lol. That's enough of a challenge for me. It gives the game a lot of replay value, too! But I know other people feel differently, and I don't fault them for it.
 
running on a loop
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,881
Reaction score
685
kids... there are also teen and adult players of all kinds of games right now...
Indeed there are. By offering an Easy, Normal, and Hard difficulty, it gives new players and even the younger ones an opportunity to go with an easier difficulty to make things easier on them to allow them to get used to the game, and it gives the more experienced players an opportunity to go with a more difficult version of the game to make it a little more challenging for them. Defaulting to Normal difficulty would make it a middle ground that isn't too difficult, but isn't too easy either.

Otherwise, other than the difficulty bit, not quite sure why you're quoting my post to mention that there's players of all ages for all kinds of games right now, but I'm willing to clarify my thoughts on anything else as necessary!
 
蒼い炎
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
285
Reaction score
849
With regards to difficulty in Pokémon, I always believed that that freedom should be left for player. Depending on the player's choices in Pokémon, usage of items and additional rules, players can essentially control the difficulty of their playthrough. This makes Pokémon fun to replay, because you can get a different experience every time.

Here's an example. I'm playing through Emerald again (without using items in battle) and got obliterated by Watson three times in a row, before finally defeating him by locking his Manectric into Howl with Illumise's Encore and breaking through paralysis with Sableye to get the deciding hit in at the end. All in all, it was an intense and strategic battle that came to utilizing the unique aspects of my Pokémon and a little bit of luck to win. On the other hand, had I chosen Mudkip as my starter instead of Torchic, it would've been a completely walk in the park and I wouldn't have had to even think about how I was going to win: spam Mud Shot. I probably would've had an easier time too if I was using items in battle.

That is the sign of a well balanced Pokémon in my opinion. Your choices are directly impactful on the gameplay experience and still allow for freedom in teambuilding. No Pokémon are useless, but using some of them will up the challenge and makes them feel rewarding to use if you can overcome difficult battles.

The problem arises when you make Watson even harder by giving him more or stronger Pokémon or adding berries to every one of his Pokémon. For the Marshtomp player, the battle will become slightly harder yes, but unless you accidentally get exploded upon, you can still win relatively easily with Ground moves. For people with Combusken or, even worse, Grovyle, Watson becomes an unconquerable nightmare that requires severe level grinding, item spamming or catching and training up a specific counter Pokémon solely for the Gym battle. Is that fun? While some might say yes, a lot of players would get frustrated and would be deterred with such a sudden spike in difficulty.

I think in order to continue to allow for player freedom, the difficulty level shouldn't be raised too high for everyone. Multiple difficulty levels could potentially address the issue and give veterans a real challenge in the regular campaign the likes of which unseen before in main series games. However, this would require a great deal of balancing and experimenting so that the game would not become too restrictive. What is the fun in a game about catching many different unique creatures if you are forced by the game to only use a specific few or grind over and over in order to progress in the game? When I'm on Route 201 in Platinum I have to be able to enjoy the rest of the game regardless if I choose to add either Krickitune or Starly on my team.
 
Veteran Trainer
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
11
As already mentioned I feel like selecting the difficulty at the beginning of the game would somewhat address the problem I'd also add back the challenge mode from Black and White 2 which would be accessible when you beat the game, it'd basically the expert mode with the difficulty cranked up even higher.
 
New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
With regards to difficulty in Pokémon, I always believed that that freedom should be left for player. Depending on the player's choices in Pokémon, usage of items and additional rules, players can essentially control the difficulty of their playthrough. This makes Pokémon fun to replay, because you can get a different experience every time.

Here's an example. I'm playing through Emerald again (without using items in battle) and got obliterated by Watson three times in a row, before finally defeating him by locking his Manectric into Howl with Illumise's Encore and breaking through paralysis with Sableye to get the deciding hit in at the end. All in all, it was an intense and strategic battle that came to utilizing the unique aspects of my Pokémon and a little bit of luck to win. On the other hand, had I chosen Mudkip as my starter instead of Torchic, it would've been a completely walk in the park and I wouldn't have had to even think about how I was going to win: spam Mud Shot. I probably would've had an easier time too if I was using items in battle.

That is the sign of a well balanced Pokémon in my opinion. Your choices are directly impactful on the gameplay experience and still allow for freedom in teambuilding. No Pokémon are useless, but using some of them will up the challenge and makes them feel rewarding to use if you can overcome difficult battles.

The problem arises when you make Watson even harder by giving him more or stronger Pokémon or adding berries to every one of his Pokémon. For the Marshtomp player, the battle will become slightly harder yes, but unless you accidentally get exploded upon, you can still win relatively easily with Ground moves. For people with Combusken or, even worse, Grovyle, Watson becomes an unconquerable nightmare that requires severe level grinding, item spamming or catching and training up a specific counter Pokémon solely for the Gym battle. Is that fun? While some might say yes, a lot of players would get frustrated and would be deterred with such a sudden spike in difficulty.

I think in order to continue to allow for player freedom, the difficulty level shouldn't be raised too high for everyone. Multiple difficulty levels could potentially address the issue and give veterans a real challenge in the regular campaign the likes of which unseen before in main series games. However, this would require a great deal of balancing and experimenting so that the game would not become too restrictive. What is the fun in a game about catching many different unique creatures if you are forced by the game to only use a specific few or grind over and over in order to progress in the game? When I'm on Route 201 in Platinum I have to be able to enjoy the rest of the game regardless if I choose to add either Krickitune or Starly on my team.
I 100% agree with that. Sure some might say that Pokemon games are like you play it once, you don't "really" have that much a reason to play it again. I also do get that Pokemon is a series targeted towards kids. Now I'm not saying kids are dumb when it comes to video games. There is bound to be new players every game. So thats why most players who played through the game obviously set challenges like Nuzlockes, Solo challenge runs, no items, level caps, EXP share off, no legendaries, etc so that way it wont be that "boring" to replay again. And like you said anyone can play the way they want to with ways I mentioned above.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
88
With regards to difficulty in Pokémon, I always believed that that freedom should be left for player. Depending on the player's choices in Pokémon, usage of items and additional rules, players can essentially control the difficulty of their playthrough. This makes Pokémon fun to replay, because you can get a different experience every time.

Here's an example. I'm playing through Emerald again (without using items in battle) and got obliterated by Watson three times in a row, before finally defeating him by locking his Manectric into Howl with Illumise's Encore and breaking through paralysis with Sableye to get the deciding hit in at the end. All in all, it was an intense and strategic battle that came to utilizing the unique aspects of my Pokémon and a little bit of luck to win. On the other hand, had I chosen Mudkip as my starter instead of Torchic, it would've been a completely walk in the park and I wouldn't have had to even think about how I was going to win: spam Mud Shot. I probably would've had an easier time too if I was using items in battle.

That is the sign of a well balanced Pokémon in my opinion. Your choices are directly impactful on the gameplay experience and still allow for freedom in teambuilding. No Pokémon are useless, but using some of them will up the challenge and makes them feel rewarding to use if you can overcome difficult battles.

The problem arises when you make Watson even harder by giving him more or stronger Pokémon or adding berries to every one of his Pokémon. For the Marshtomp player, the battle will become slightly harder yes, but unless you accidentally get exploded upon, you can still win relatively easily with Ground moves. For people with Combusken or, even worse, Grovyle, Watson becomes an unconquerable nightmare that requires severe level grinding, item spamming or catching and training up a specific counter Pokémon solely for the Gym battle. Is that fun? While some might say yes, a lot of players would get frustrated and would be deterred with such a sudden spike in difficulty.

I think in order to continue to allow for player freedom, the difficulty level shouldn't be raised too high for everyone. Multiple difficulty levels could potentially address the issue and give veterans a real challenge in the regular campaign the likes of which unseen before in main series games. However, this would require a great deal of balancing and experimenting so that the game would not become too restrictive. What is the fun in a game about catching many different unique creatures if you are forced by the game to only use a specific few or grind over and over in order to progress in the game? When I'm on Route 201 in Platinum I have to be able to enjoy the rest of the game regardless if I choose to add either Krickitune or Starly on my team.
A few things:
1) You say "freedom should be left for the player", which I strongly agree with. You then later say "While some might say yes, a lot of players would get frustrated", seeming to imply that choice shouldn't be available to players because many other players wouldn't find it enjoyable. Yet if we want the freedom to be left for the player, shouldn't the option be available, to be taken advantage of by those who would find it fun, and ignored by those who would not?

2) I agree that the default or baseline difficulty should not increase significantly and that multiple difficulty levels are a way of addressing the issue. However, I disagree that it would require a great deal of balancing and experimenting in order to prevent the game from being too restrictive. Right now in virtually all games you can beat the game with a Magikarp and HM slaves, or just your starter with HM slaves. You can beat the game without ever heading into a Pokemon center, or without ever taking damage. All of these things are great, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying, there is a TON of headroom available before certain underpowered Pokemon are impossible to use while still progressing in the game.

I would also argue that careful consideration of the options in regards to the Pokemon available, and choosing the "right" Pokemon for a given situation, is part of the challenge and difficulty that some, myself included, are looking for. Not all difficulties need to be set up such that every Pokemon can solo the game and every Pokemon is viable in every situation. Though it may not be your cup of tea, that doesn't mean it's not a valid difficulty level, would you not agree?

3) In regards to the Watson scenario listed above - it depends on how it was done. For example, giving one of his Pokemon an Air Balloon would definitely require ceasing the mud shot spam, while not impacting the difficulty of the battle with Torchic at all. That's just one example, but there are plenty of others. In fact I think the majority of suggestions I've seen for increasing difficulty focus on that specifically- trying to reduce mindless 1 move spam by increasing coverage or strategy, rather than arbitrarily throwing more of the same at the player.

Overall I think the difference is that I'm one of those who thinks it's totally fair and reasonable to go get a ground type pokemon, any ground type pokemon at all, to have a great deal of success in a gym. If anything, not only do I think that's fair, I'd love to see the gym do more to counter its weakness to ground types and increase the challenge for those who come prepared. I understand and respect you feeling differently in regards to this though, I just wanted to provide a different perspective on it.
 
New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
A few things:
1) You say "freedom should be left for the player", which I strongly agree with. You then later say "While some might say yes, a lot of players would get frustrated", seeming to imply that choice shouldn't be available to players because many other players wouldn't find it enjoyable. Yet if we want the freedom to be left for the player, shouldn't the option be available, to be taken advantage of by those who would find it fun, and ignored by those who would not?

2) I agree that the default or baseline difficulty should not increase significantly and that multiple difficulty levels are a way of addressing the issue. However, I disagree that it would require a great deal of balancing and experimenting in order to prevent the game from being too restrictive. Right now in virtually all games you can beat the game with a Magikarp and HM slaves, or just your starter with HM slaves. You can beat the game without ever heading into a Pokemon center, or without ever taking damage. All of these things are great, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying, there is a TON of headroom available before certain underpowered Pokemon are impossible to use while still progressing in the game.

I would also argue that careful consideration of the options in regards to the Pokemon available, and choosing the "right" Pokemon for a given situation, is part of the challenge and difficulty that some, myself included, are looking for. Not all difficulties need to be set up such that every Pokemon can solo the game and every Pokemon is viable in every situation. Though it may not be your cup of tea, that doesn't mean it's not a valid difficulty level, would you not agree?

3) In regards to the Watson scenario listed above - it depends on how it was done. For example, giving one of his Pokemon an Air Balloon would definitely require ceasing the mud shot spam, while not impacting the difficulty of the battle with Torchic at all. That's just one example, but there are plenty of others. In fact I think the majority of suggestions I've seen for increasing difficulty focus on that specifically- trying to reduce mindless 1 move spam by increasing coverage or strategy, rather than arbitrarily throwing more of the same at the player.

Overall I think the difference is that I'm one of those who thinks it's totally fair and reasonable to go get a ground type pokemon, any ground type pokemon at all, to have a great deal of success in a gym. If anything, not only do I think that's fair, I'd love to see the gym do more to counter its weakness to ground types and increase the challenge for those who come prepared. I understand and respect you feeling differently in regards to this though, I just wanted to provide a different perspective on it.
For the Air Ballon Part that would only work in ORAS since it wasn't a thing until Gen V. They were talking about emerald.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
88
For the Air Ballon Part that would only work in ORAS since it wasn't a thing until Gen V. They were talking about emerald.
Fair, but I was kinda assuming any discussion of that was framed within the context of a remake anyway. After all, they're not going to retroactively change anything in emerald at this point regardless, right? :) Can't exactly push patches or DLC to that game.
 
Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
414
Reaction score
305
going to be rather brief because i feel like this can be a thing that's open to interpretation. here are some talking points o:

1. should pokemon games become more difficult, despite the argument that they're mainly targeted towards children?
2. if you were in charge of development, how would you implement a "difficulty mode"? would it be similar to b2w2, or different?
3. do you think self-induced difficulty challenges are enough (for example, nuzlockes, monotype challenges, etc)? how far would you go?

by all means, don't limit yourself to these questions in particular, but the broader question as to how everyone feels about difficulty i'm rather curious about!
1. Maybe not just overall hard, because part of the charm of the franchise is that anyone can pick up a game and start playing it off the bat without necessarily having to master the game mechanics right away. The type matchups, abilities and natures, among other things, make the games complicated enough.

2. Yes, definitely. They should add a hard mode (where mostly Gym Leaders, evil doers and the Champion have much more balanced and competitive teams), or why not, even a built-in nuzlocke mode.

3. I'm all for self-imposed challenges, but they do require a lot of self-discipline. I'm actually in the middle of playing two nuzlockes (one is a wonderlocke), and I intend to do a few more, such as a Solo Run, a Only-Weak-Pokemon Run, and a No-Evolution Run (excluding any non-evolving Mons with good stats). I'm even thinking about doing a No-New-Moves Run, but I'm not sure about that one.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
2,665
Reaction score
3,252
While difficulty is subjective (specially in the earlier games) you can't deny that XY and SWSH are much easier than USUM. Those games make so many idiotic choices, like limiting some Pokémon's movesets to 3 moves with a lot of status moves, make most of bosses monotyped, having laughable defenses, etc
I think the reason why SwSh feels so extremely easy, is a combination of different factors and not only limiting 3 moves with status moves for trainers or most bosses being monotyped (They play a part in the easiness), but its also a factor of not being able to turn of the Exp share, the Wild Area (Which makes you go overlevelled really fast due to Exp share) and that the first gym is far away, which doesn't help, especially since the gaps between gyms aren't that big either, except for gym 3 and gym 4 (But then you have again the problem that you are gonna overlevel due to the Wild area being in between them).
And if you really want to, you can have the majority (If not all) of the types by the time you enter the first gym, due to the Wild Area and the Raid Dens, so even if you don't choose the starter that isn' SE against the Grass gym, you can get mons that SE against them (Same goes for the other starters since you can get Electric to cover Water and Rock and Water to cover Fire). The balancing isn't good in the games and the Wild Area is the main source of unbalance.
 
Go listen to The Birdwatcher's Guide to Atrocity
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
6,709
Reaction score
17,527
You know, one thing I've never understood is why obedience doesn't also apply to Pokémon with your own OT. It seems like such a no-brainer for preventing overleveling? And I feel like it makes more sense for you to have to earn a Pokémon's respect by working together with it in battle, even if you yourself caught it, rather than it becoming your personal unwavering soldier until the end up time right upon capture.

The way that it functions for traded Pokémon but not your own feels like such a half-assed, myopic implementation. If you know another person who could trade you an overly powerful Pokémon, then you likely know someone who you could trade your own Pokémon over to for a bit of power-leveling to get around the game's natural experience curve.
 
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
790
What do You think about making pokemon games learn from game series like Sekiro shadows die twice or Cyberpunk 2077 when it comes to strategy and game play difficulty? Diffrent aproaches??? Styles???
 
Last edited:
What Had Happened In The Eternatus Battle
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
839
Some Galar Gym Leaders have a strong team member like Nessa's Dreadnaw.
 
PinkIceTales!
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
4,878
If difficulty means more trainers with a full team of 6 pokemon by the half-way point in the gyms at least, I'm all for more difficulty.

If difficulty means strategies like those used by players online... no. No god no. No no no no no please no. More power to the people who like that kind of game play but for me it just straight up sucks the fun out of the game.

What do You think about making pokemon games learn from game series like Sekiro shadows die twice or Cyberpunk 2077 when it comes to strategy and game play difficulty? Diffrent aproaches??? Styles???
Cyberpunk 2077 isn't even out yet so we don't know if it'll be a good game. Plus it's not even the same kind of game as pokemon. It looks like it'll be a First Person shooty rpg like Fallout. How can a turn based JRPG monster raising game learn from that?

And as much as I love Bloodborne, I want that game's difficulty to stay about as far from pokemon as the earth is from the ever expanding edge of the universe. Also, how does a turn based JRPG monster raising game going to learn from game designed to punch you in the kidneys and expect a "thank you sir may I please have another", but with Japanese world inspiriation this time, in response?

Also both of these games have M for +17 ratings from the ESRB. Pokemon has an E for everyone rating. You're trying to tell a cat to learn from a stealth bomber.
 
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
790
If difficulty means more trainers with a full team of 6 pokemon by the half-way point in the gyms at least, I'm all for more difficulty.

If difficulty means strategies like those used by players online... no. No god no. No no no no no please no. More power to the people who like that kind of game play but for me it just straight up sucks the fun out of the game.


Cyberpunk 2077 isn't even out yet so we don't know if it'll be a good game. Plus it's not even the same kind of game as pokemon. It looks like it'll be a First Person shooty rpg like Fallout. How can a turn based JRPG monster raising game learn from that?

And as much as I love Bloodborne, I want that game's difficulty to stay about as far from pokemon as the earth is from the ever expanding edge of the universe. Also, how does a turn based JRPG monster raising game going to learn from game designed to punch you in the kidneys and expect a "thank you sir may I please have another", but with Japanese world inspiriation this time, in response?

Also both of these games have M for +17 ratings from the ESRB. Pokemon has an E for everyone rating. You're trying to tell a cat to learn from a stealth bomber.
I mean the style already exist of smart and mind games, defensive play, to a fuly offensive way of aproach in battle...

I dont mean the +17 elements but the ways the battles are animated, the way of movement and the aproach of using different strategies in battle.

still can be turn based but with movements of both to make avoiding moves more realistic with speed and everything... especially in the Pokken department... imagine you would need to move and hit the buttons in right moment to realese the attack and the oponent would try to move to avoid it... reverse way the same.


a pokemon shotter and fight game with get the flag, and other elements and regular battles from the basic games would be much cooler...
with the right aproach of course depending on the battle style and task and restrictions.
 
Last edited:
PinkIceTales!
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
4,878
Pokemon's turn based rpg combat. There's nothing about it that can be compared to 'dodge to not die' in bloodborne and aim and shoot, move from side to side to not be shot in a game that looks like fallout 3 and 4. The closest to things like that I could picture is pokemon Tekken and there is a reason I have never touched that game. It's not my idea of pokemon and its not fun to me. It's like, heck. When people complain about this and suggest these things I just want to look at them and say "are you sure you like pokemon, or do you just want to shove pokemon into a game you DO like?" If you're going to change the core gameplay of a mainline pokemon game, you've basically just created another spinoff series.

POkken is not fun to me. I hate button mashy fighting games. They're completely different from POkemon. They're not pokemon games. Pokken is Tekken but with pokemon painted on it.

If they're gonna do anything for pokemon battling I'd like them to maybe add another move slot or something. Not every rpg has to evolve past turn based stuff. I mean, unless you're able to move around the battle screen like you can in Dragon Quest XI. Sure its useless and effects literally nothing but it's entertaining. But then people would complain that a move still hit them even though they ran away from the opponent on the field. Being able to do that would require a complete overhaul of the battle system, accuracy, and everything else. I really don't see anything that needs to change about the way battles happen themselves in the pokemon games. At least nothing that would call for that level of insane, drastic change.
 
Top