• Bulbacast is back with a new episode in advance of tomorrow's Direct. Watch it on YouTube here.

Change in Pokemon - Good or Bad?

General Custard

Excited.
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
823
Reaction score
729
Sooo, this came up in the fakes/leaks thread, and it was kinda derailing it, so please direct further conversation here.

Is change/innovation good for the series? Should they seek to flip the table and get a new one for the Switch? Or should they stick to what's traditional?

In my opinion, the former. They should seek to improve what works, yes, but at this point, with a change to a huge nee platform with a new audience, they should reinvent the wheel. Not make a new franchise or spin off, the core Pokemon games need their Breath of the Wild/Odyssey.
 

SugarCookie420

PK... idk
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
711
Reaction score
431
They should stick with what they've got. The games in their current form sell so well.
That would just create a Gen 3 scenario. Where older fans left because it was pretty much the same thing. SM sold a lot because it changed up the formula, and if you look at sales before it took almost 4 years for XY to reach the 15 million milestone, BW barely made it past 15 million, and ORAS, B2W2, and presumably USUM did not make it past 15 million.
In fact, Pokemon sales have gone down a lot. Compared to 32 million for Gen 1, 23 million for Gen 2, the numbers of Pokemon game sold isn't increasing, with a brief spike in Gen 4 but that's it. I'm pretty sure that if SM followed the same formula as its predecessor it would have sold much less. I'm saying that change definitely is necessary, or else GF will just start losing people who want to buy the games because lack of originality. Seriously, we had literally the same thing: get 8 badges, become champion, defeat crime boss, and capture box legendary, for a really long time now.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
240
Reaction score
298
We've thoroughly discussed about the Battle System in the fakes/leaks thread. The last two games, Pokémon S&M and US&UM have added direct anime references: Ash-Greninja, the Ash-Pikachu homage and Lycanroc-Dusk which is owned by Ash in the anime. Let us not count the Pikachu of Yellow, because Ash was served as Red's anime form in the very beginning so that Pikachu is very ambiguous. I think this is GF's new twist: not being ashamed of adding anime elements, or even adapting the games to the anime. I hope they'll go further with it. Rumors say that some elements like PP are going to change to an anime-themed mechanic. I'd be very pleased if the whole Battle System will be like how trainers battle in the anime. However, if don't want it to be like DX (trainer of the BW and XY series besides Sawyer battle just like how battles are executed in DX). I want it to be like how the writers of DP made the trainers battle with not only sheer force but also strategy. Trainers in the likes of Conway, Paul, Roark, Fantina, Ash from the DP series and Sawyer have a top-notch balance between power and tactics. I'd LOVE it if the Switch gives us the freedom to battle like that. However, this sounds a bit too ambitious at the moment...
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,782
Reaction score
2,581
Yes, but it depends on what kind of change. In general, you're going to want to change things to keep the game from getting stale, but change the wrong aspect of the games and you can end up removing part of the appeal to the games. Changing their approach to region design and content would definitely be a positive because it seems like most of the fanbase is getting sick of the current approach there and it would definitely help the game provide the sort of BotW/Odyssey-esque shakeup the series could use, but things like changing up the battle system or removing useful features from the games is a step too far. Game Freak has to be very careful about what to keep and what to change up, and that's something I would say they've been getting completely wrong for a while now.
 

VelVoxelRaptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
534
Reaction score
666
but change the wrong aspect of the games and you can end up removing part of the appeal to the games.
but things like changing up the battle system is a step too far.
I feel like there is some bias here. To you the “appeal to the games” might be the battle system, but it doesn’t speak for everyone. The “appeal to the games” was always “catch them all”. Yes the battle system is part of the original game but Pokemon itself is much bigger than this. Why do you think Pokemon Go was so popular (not so much right now but it did get a good while of fame). It wasn’t because of the battle system (which is real-time and lets weaker Pokemon actually have a chance), it’s because of the “appeal of the game” which is to “catch them all”.
 

Esserise

Leaking Gen 8 info to WaPo
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
4,631
Reaction score
11,171
Change is good when it's called for. When the series has bold ideas, or needs to show that it can still do new things, or that it can come up with an exciting new approach to an element that has stagnated. If you're just changing things for the sake of it, as Game Freak often do by way of removing things that were actually useful or contributed to the gameplay, then you just wind up with inconsistent products.
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
3,350
The “appeal to the games” was always “catch them all”.
For some people, yes, for others, no. Have you never seen someone complaining that there's now 800 Pokemon to catch? Or frustrated at the need for Mystery Gift/trading to get Pokemon?


(I hope this isn't derailing this subject? Froyo's post said to bring the anime/game debate over here, but I haven't yet seen anyone bring it up)
Lugia was just created for the movie. Without Lugia we would just be getting Pokémon Gold.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Ho-Oh appeared in the first season of the anime-do you think it was created just for TV? And do you honestly believe they'd release only one version, when Red/Blue already had the precedent of version exclusives?
Ash, the most prominent anime element, recently has a direct involement in the games whether you like it or not:
- First we have Ash-Greninja
- Then we have the Ash-Pikachu homage. Wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Ash-Greninja
- At last, we have Lycanroc-Dusk, which has been added to the games. The exclusive form is owned by... Ash. Coincidence? I think not.
Saying "Ash-Pikachu wouldn't have happened if not for Ash-Greninja" is really ridiculous. The two are completely separate events in the anime, and both had clear reasons for their inclusion: Ash-Greninja for the SuMo demo, and Capped Pikachu for the anniversary.

And saying "Ash owns this Pokemon, so it's another Ash connection" is also silly. Ash has owned all sorts of Pokemon over the course of the series. Why aren't you considering the Snorlium Z event an indication of Ash? Or receiving the Kanto starters in XY?

All this happened in the last year. This is GF new twist.
Referencing the anime isn't a new twist-we've had it before, in Pokemon Yellow. A direct involvement between the games and anime, and yet, somehow, it didn't result in the games being based entirely around the anime.

The anime has always followed the game. The first episode came out a whole year after the release of Red and Blue. And it's the more profitable of the two-games have been making much more sales than any DVDs of the anime.
i have like 15 friends that are playing go from the start and played the original GBA games, from red. But they quit the core series. Now, when they heard the kanto remake and new BS rumor they are excited and they will buy the switch game if true. You see? General players, nostalgic players and so on, a wider audience.
Allegorical evidence isn't an actual statistic. You have 15 friends that didn't like the new games-Game Freak has 15.9 million people that bought them. They're not going to change their games just for 15 people, are they?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
240
Reaction score
298
Saying "Ash-Pikachu wouldn't have happened if not for Ash-Greninja" is really ridiculous. The two are completely separate events in the anime, and both had clear reasons for their inclusion: Ash-Greninja for the SuMo demo, and Capped Pikachu for the anniversary.

And saying "Ash owns this Pokemon, so it's another Ash connection" is also silly. Ash has owned all sorts of Pokemon over the course of the series. Why aren't you considering the Snorlium Z event an indication of Ash? Or receiving the Kanto starters in XY?
Ash-Greninja was initally an anime-exclusive purpose, this was teased from the beginning because Ash-Greninja was already labeled as a special case when it was a Froakie. GF afterwards decided to exploit Ash-Greninja to increase the sales, they also did it with Lycanroc-Dusk. This is a clear coordination between GF and the anime. A bilateral agreement. Something unilateral would be Ash facing Wulfric because the anime has no choice but directly copy Wulfric. The game dictates on for example who the gym leaders of the anime are.

As for Ash-Pikachu, the 20th anniversary would have been celebrated with something else like only giving away mythical pokemons for free. GF also decided to give away Ash-Pikachus but the 20th anniversary could have been celebrated perfectly without them because the 10th anniversary didn't need Ash-Pikachus. I was satisfied enough when GF decided to give the mythicals. Thank you Ash-Greninja for buffing Ash's influence in the games...

I only summed up the VERY straightforward anime entitites. ONLY Ash had Ash-Greninja, those caps are only Ash's and ONLY Ash has Lycanroc-Dusk. 3 consecutive Ash-exclusive pokemon within 1 year. This clear straightforwardness never happened before. "Ash owns this Pokemon, so it's another Ash connection" is most definitely NOT my reasoning. I don't know how you came up with that. I certainly don't care nor take his remaining pokemon into account. Only these 3. Ash-Greninja has a trait that distinguishes itself from all other Greninjas in existence. Ash's Charizard is just your average Charizard.

Speculation: for the first time ever Ash references in the games and all of them last year, so the new possible trend: the anime, especially Ash, may now also partly dictate on the games. That's the new twist.

Edit: I now see that you mentioned that Yellow is an anime reference. Look at my very first post on this thread. I also put emphasis on anime reference consistency, which is getting more and more consistent (3 Ash references in 1 year). Before this period, the amount of anime elements that were later on added to the games (e.g. GS ball) is VERY low.
 
Last edited:

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,782
Reaction score
2,581
I feel like there is some bias here. To you the “appeal to the games” might be the battle system, but it doesn’t speak for everyone. The “appeal to the games” was always “catch them all”. Yes the battle system is part of the original game but Pokemon itself is much bigger than this. Why do you think Pokemon Go was so popular (not so much right now but it did get a good while of fame). It wasn’t because of the battle system (which is real-time and lets weaker Pokemon actually have a chance), it’s because of the “appeal of the game” which is to “catch them all”.
Well, yes, there is some subjectivity to that. So what you have to do is look at the fanbase as a whole and determine what aspects people value in the games and retain them. The mobile market may (and probably does) also have different expectations for the series, so it's probably not a good idea to compare the two.
 

BigBadButterfree

the Destroyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
1,369
So, to the people saying that changing the battle system or that changing for the sake of change is bad (there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a perfectly valid opinion), I ask one thing: what WOULD constitute a valid change? If there’s a wrong way to change the franchise, then there’s a right way as well. And while I understand not everyone wants the series to change too drastically, it DOES need to continue to grow so it doesn’t become stagnant. I mean, after 7 generations, just new Pokémon (or the same reused concept) just wont cut it.
 

Riahi

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
198
Reaction score
397
I don't understand the "anime is real time so the games should be too" argument, it's so stupid. You don't change the core design of a videogame because of lore, it's like saying that Forza motorsport is stupid because the game doesn't allow me to leave the car and in real life I can, see how stupid that sounds?
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
3,350
So, to the people saying that changing the battle system or that changing for the sake of change is bad (there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a perfectly valid opinion), I ask one thing: what WOULD constitute a valid change? If there’s a wrong way to change the franchise, then there’s a right way as well. And while I understand not everyone wants the series to change too drastically, it DOES need to continue to grow so it doesn’t become stagnant. I mean, after 7 generations, just new Pokémon (or the same reused concept) just wont cut it.
Personally, I consider it just a matter of intent. Is the change intended to create a better battle system, or is it to make a new one just to have a new one?

I don't think you can really argue that the whole system has to be redone to keep interest rather than adding new things. I'm not opposed to changing the system, but the fear of boredom doesn't really make sense to me. Look at how closely people follow sports like basketball and football, which have been around for far longer than Pokémon games. Have they had to change their whole structure to keep interest?

@Diamond & Pearl (apologies, mobile's not letting me quote directly)
GF afterwards decided to exploit Ash-Greninja to increase the sales, they also did it with Lycanroc-Dusk.
It's not exactly "exploiting afterwards" when Dusk Lycanroc was revealed in the games before it was in the anime. And Ash-Greninja was a gift for playing the demo of SuMo- an entirely free gift.
"Ash owns this Pokemon, so it's another Ash connection" is most definitely NOT my reasoning. I don't know how you came up with that.
Because of this statement right here;
At last, we have Lycanroc-Dusk, which has been added to the games. The exclusive form is owned by... Ash. Coincidence? I think not.
You said right here: Ash owns this Pokémon, so it's another Ash connection.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
240
Reaction score
298
I don't understand the "anime is real time so the games should be too" argument, it's so stupid. You don't change the core design of a videogame because of lore, it's like saying that Forza motorsport is stupid because the game doesn't allow me to leave the car and in real life I can, see how stupid that sounds?
Not only that, but the battle system of the games are far superior to the anime series (excluding DP).
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
240
Reaction score
298
It's not exactly "exploiting afterwards" when Dusk Lycanroc was revealed in the games before it was in the anime. And Ash-Greninja was a gift for playing the demo of SuMo- an entirely free gift.
I remember that the anime teased us that Lycanroc-Dusk was a special case when it was still a Rockruff (just like Froakie).

You said right here: Ash owns this Pokémon, so it's another Ash connection.
Just like Ash-Greninja, Lycanroc-Dusk, owned by our hero Ash, distinguishes itself from all other Lycanrocs in existence. It's not your average Lycanroc.
 

Kallyle

Pink Lasagna
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
1,513
I personally think that the core formula of Pokémon battles are fine as-is in terms of staying a turn-based RPG (otherwise, Game Freak have to overhaul a lot of their past game mechanics when I don't think they're ready to handle yet). However, though I do think that we can afford some changes to the current battle system as long as it doesn't convert to an ARPG style.

For example, having each Pokémon draw from a PP pool instead of each attack having their own set amount of PP would be a welcome change that would spice things up for the better, and it seems to be be something supported by being something various rumors supposedly have in common (I think; correct me if I'm wrong). Not only that, but the only moves, abilities, and items that would have to be adjusted from this change would be those that involve PP usage (making them more important than purely situational). A change in PP mechanics wouldn't really make the battle system of Pokémon unrecognizable, just a change involving the mechanics of PP. It's a great starting point for Game Freak that doesn't involve adding a new gimmick like Mega Evolution or Z-Moves!
 

SugarCookie420

PK... idk
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
711
Reaction score
431
I only summed up the VERY straightforward anime entitites. ONLY Ash had Ash-Greninja, those caps are only Ash's and ONLY Ash has Lycanroc-Dusk. 3 consecutive Ash-exclusive pokemon within 1 year.
Well, it is the anime's 20th birthday...

Also I have no idea who decided Ash-Greninja was to exist, but since ORAS Ohmori has been directing Pokemon, so it's probably something he wanted
 
Top