• Another exciting episode of Bulbacast has been uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here.
  • Grookey, Scorbunny or Sobble, which one do you love most? Want to show your support with a cool banner, check out the info here!

Change in Pokemon - Good or Bad?

Matleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
411
Using real-time battling is a major risk. How would the fandom react to it? Maybe it could have worked if it was implemented in early gens.
if done right, but me worries the amount of data the games would need.
 

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
4,447
Reaction score
863
But a problem would be if your opponent too can dodge. I don't like when my attack misses because it's wasted PP. Plus, that could make battles longer.
In a realtime environment, this can be addressed by deducting PP only from successful hits, like basically every game with a weapon-durability mechanic ever.
 

ocelotlrama jaguar

Fluffy with 80% more spots!
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
2,921
Reaction score
1,019
Every game has taught me something: don't expect changes to be innovative in every generation, expect Game Freak to go two steps forward and three steps back, and if a change is a big welcome, I expect them to take it away in the next generation with something nice but hard to achieve (like perfect IVs at level 100).

Changes made that stayed in every generation: there's running. Strangely, they took away the day/night feature in Gen III and brough it back in Gen IV and it stayed ever since. That's all I can think of that became a mainstay.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
1,747
Reaction score
1,913
Every game has taught me something: don't expect changes to be innovative in every generation, expect Game Freak to go two steps forward and three steps back, and if a change is a big welcome, I expect them to take it away in the next generation with something nice but hard to achieve (like perfect IVs at level 100).

Changes made that stayed in every generation: there's running. Strangely, they took away the day/night feature in Gen III and brough it back in Gen IV and it stayed ever since. That's all I can think of that became a mainstay.
the reality of the situation is that Game Freak is pragmatic. let's look at your IV example. why is it so cumbersome? because it's not meant to be used on any and every Pokemon. the fact that it only soft changes your stats (ie., it just changes your stats to be as if you had 31 IVs, but your IVs are still whatever they are) on top of the level requirement and item requirement point to it being meant for Pokemon you had used in the main campaign or un-breedable Pokemon like legendaries. it's meant to patch up your starter for the post-game, not general competitive play. another example would be the DexNav which Game Freak outright said was intended to address the fact that Hoenn pales in comparison to Kalos when it comes to selection so they said "well let's just make it more fun to capture the same five things at least," hence why despite its popularity it has never returned.

change in pokemon comes as Game Freak sees fit for the change to be made.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
3,715
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...
The games and the anime are separate. It should be kept that way. Yellow was a one time thing made in the height of Pokemania. And, Lycanroc-Dusk is not at all related to Ash. It was an early buy bonus for USUM which Ash got to promote said game.
 
Last edited:

Riahi

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
198
Reaction score
397
Here's the dumbest argument I have ever seen on the internet, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. What a joke of a comment
upload_2018-2-27_21-50-44.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
3,715
Here's the dumbest argument I have ever seen on the internet, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. What a joke of a comment
Yeah. This guy has one of the worst arguments I ever seen. Just because the games will be on a more powerful system does not mean that they will change everything about the series. Maybe this guy should know that, but he's too stuck in his ways. He just wants Pokemon to turn into some mindless button masher.
 

General Custard

Excited.
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
823
Reaction score
730
It's not untrue that as technology advances, expectations do so as well. Super Mario 64 probably wouldn't have been as renowned as it is if it had kept the 2D platformer style. What was previously the 'main' Mario gameplay is now the cheap, budget style titles. And that's perfectly natural.

To say that's changing everything that makes the series what it is is a gross over exaggeration.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,840
Reaction score
2,657
It's not untrue that as technology advances, expectations do so as well. Super Mario 64 probably wouldn't have been as renowned as it is if it had kept the 2D platformer style. What was previously the 'main' Mario gameplay is now the cheap, budget style titles. And that's perfectly natural.

To say that's changing everything that makes the series what it is is a gross over exaggeration.
Super Mario 64 was mainly done because at the time they couldn't make enough content for a linear Mario game in 3D. Had the technology allowed that at the time, they probably would've made something more like 3D Land/3D World to bring Mario into 3D. However, Super Mario 64 did hit on a completely different style of Mario that appeals to a completely different style of platforming. The sandbox Mario platformers (64/Sunshine/Odyssey) are what I'd call a second branch of the series. They're considered main games because they contain the core essence of what makes a Mario game a Mario game, but that core identity is realized in a very different way and creates a completely different experience. And no, the traditional linear games aren't as looked down upon as you think. In fact, they sell much more than the sandbox games. But console gamers aren't really fond of that style and that's why you get complaints of rehashing and the linear platformers not being considered "real 3D Mario games", it's the wrong target audience for that type of game.

As far as Pokemon goes, real time battling isn't really a technological advancement, that's something games have been able to do for years. I would also put real time battling in second branch/spinoff territory (I doubt Pokemon will create a second branch of the series anytime soon considering how packed its release schedule is and how they don't really have the manpower to essentially double their output, so probably spinoff). Real time battling simply attracts a completely different market of RPG fans that have completely different battling skills, in turn based combat reflexes play more of a role so depending on whether or not the player enjoys/is good at physically reacting to the other players moves it might attract them or turn them off. So they really shouldn't be replacing one with the other, they should have different games that have one or the other and let the player buy whichever game suits their playing style the best.

I do agree with that first sentence though, that technology does cause expectations to raise. But that's a better argument for open world than real time battling. Real time battling is more of a stylistic choice. Open world is more of a technological advancement. You didn't see people on the N64/PS1 demanding BotW style open world because it simply wasn't possible at the time, but now that consoles are capable of much larger, much more detailed, and much more open ended game worlds open world is becoming more and more of an industry standard for any exploration based adventure game. And unlike with real time battling it's not a mutually exclusive gameplay element that can instantly turn people off because of fundamental gameplay differences, they can integrate it into the existing design so long as they make it clear to those that don't want it where you're supposed to go to progress the game. At its core, open world is about allowing you the choice to go wherever you want, ignoring the optional areas and heading straight towards your next destination is one choice. So that's something they can definitely add to the main series.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
3,715
I do agree with that first sentence though, that technology does cause expectations to raise. But that's a better argument for open world than real time battling. Real time battling is more of a stylistic choice. Open world is more of a technological advancement. You didn't see people on the N64/PS1 demanding BotW style open world because it simply wasn't possible at the time, but now that consoles are capable of much larger, much more detailed, and much more open ended game worlds open world is becoming more and more of an industry standard for any exploration based adventure game. And unlike with real time battling it's not a mutually exclusive gameplay element that can instantly turn people off because of fundamental gameplay differences, they can integrate it into the existing design so long as they make it clear to those that don't want it where you're supposed to go to progress the game. At its core, open world is about allowing you the choice to go wherever you want, ignoring the optional areas and heading straight towards your next destination is one choice. So that's something they can definitely add to the main series.
Doesn't mean that they have to. Console games don't have to be open world, you know.
 

Matleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
411
I wouldnt complain if they add grass and bug types a fairy resistance.
Then Chesnaught and others wouldnt need to fear dazzling anymore.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
3,715
Changing the battle system would do more harm than good, in my opinion.
 

Matleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
411
at least make proper battle animation when avoiding a hit, that it looks well when a attack misses.
Like jumping left of right... some people like battles and long battles that wouldn't be bad actually.
And good animation when the target has immunity, that the attack hits , smoke but no demage... or like ghost that it wents through the target.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
3,715
I think they should improve some details but not change the whole system because it will not improve anything
Yeah. There are many problems with Pokemon moving to an active battle system, and here's a list of some of them.

  1. They would have to create unique animations for 800+ Pokemon and many more alternate forms. Yokai Watch and Digimon both dealt with this problem by making some of the creatures reskins of already existing ones. Pokemon is not a franchise that makes Pokemon reskins of older Pokemon (not counting Alola Forms, that's different, as they are not considered unique species). They would essentially have to completely cut most Pokemon from the game, ruining Bank compatibility.
  2. They would essentially have to revamp everything. Every game mechanic would have to be modified to fit in the new battle environment, and whatever can't would be dropped from the game entirely.
  3. Some people can't handle it. Some people have poor reflexes and they are attracted to Pokemon due to its simplistic nature. Going real time/active would cause them to drop the franchise entirely.
 

techitisJ

Pokemon Researcher
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
819
Reaction score
1,249
I think a change in the series would be good for it, but not a drastic change. We should still be playing a Pokemon game up in here. Honestly, I do kind of prefer smaller changes that all add up to make the game, but there are some big changes I think they could do that would make the game better. Making the game a lot less linear would be a really good one, and would follow in line with the renewed Mario Series with Oddysey and Legend of Zelda Series with Breath of the Wild.

I think a really neat way to do this would to give the game more gyms than what is required. You still only need to collect 8 badges, but there are multiple gyms out in the world. The levels of wild Pokemon and trainers would also grow as you grow. With each new badge, the level of the trainers you fight, and wild Pokemon you can get, will increase. And if you want to get all the badges, you can still do that, and the levels will continue to increase. This would also be better for people who like to try to keep their levels more balanced. If they find themselves hitting their level limit, they could avoid trainer battles, and then when they find they need a little extra training, they can go back to those avoided trainers and challenge them in order to train up a bit. And you can go whatever way you want, there is no set road.

The only fault I do see with this idea is the story plot with the evil team (or other parts of story plot). This non=linear progression of the game could result in things moving out of order for the story of the game. It would be really weird.

I did come up with a little fix that they could do for it, but it's not the best idea. The game would have some sort of call feature, video or just over phone, where you can get calls from friends that will direct you over to the places of the plot points, and you have to go over there to go figure it out. It is nice for the story. And it would also be another cool way to add another open world thing that would be a change in the series. Having all the road block/surf/fly moves or abilities or Pokeride, however they plan to do it, available from the very start of the game. That way you can travel quickly over to where the plot point is. The problem I do see with this is that it might be nagging to the player who might be on a roll and not want to have to go back. But I did mention it wasn't the best idea.

But yes, I am welcome to a change in the Pokemon series. I would not like it if it was a change so drastic that it didn't feel like Pokemon anymore, but I think there's more formula changes they could add to the series to make the games feel refreshing, without being too out of it to be Pokemon.
 

colours

etch dreams into life
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
574
It's interesting, really. For 20 years, we've been exposed to more of the same, and for the most part, the fans seems to be ok with it. You start an ambiguously (somewhat) aged protagonist, destined to become the Pokemon Champion.

The thing is, SM was basically Game Freak putting their best foot in changing the formula the best way that they could. Replace Gyms with Trials, but keep the concept in that completing the trials will allow you to challenge the Pokemon League. The problem with this is that, even though this was a significant change as far as implementing the most amount of culture in a Pokemon game, it was still more of the same, because it's the same concepts, just dressed to look differently.

So the tough questions then need to be asked -- how do you change the games enough so that fans both new and old find it enjoyable to play through? How do you create a Pokemon game, not with enough change that would alienate the older fans, but with enough that would satisfy them and attract newer fans as well? Do you just not make Gyms the focus anymore? Do you make obtaining badges and fighting the Pokemon League a more secondary goal, as opposed to a primary?

I've honestly been more of a fan of obtaining badges being more of a sidequest sort of thing, and have the main quest be something more heavily engaging to the player; at least let it be something interesting that would engross us in it and have proper mini-bosses (think something like Totem Pokemon, because SM had the right idea with that) while progressing to fight the final boss sort of deal. I think this is pretty much the route most RPGs go in anyway, but a change like this isn't so drastic as to be unfamiliar (unless you've never touched an RPG outside of Pokemon before), but at the same time it'd be a breath of fresh air.

That's just me, anyway.
 

BlueWaves

Uplifting Artist
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
122
Reaction score
147
As for those wanting a change in the battle system, I think this is the problem. Cut, Copy and pasted from a Smogon User:

#5,154
I don't think the issue is with them having stayed with the same style for so long, but rather they haven't really made it feel rewarding putting effort into delving into the mechanics as they are now. As Tapu Koko Loko said, Pokemon's turn based battle system relies on knowing their Pokemon's specs (Stats, Ability, Moves, Type Match-ups, Held Item), damage calculation, predicting what your opponent has or is going to do, and calculating risk vs reward. It is a really deep system with many generations worth of Moves, Abilities, and Items to flesh it out and provide potentially limitless options...

BUT the games NEVER require you to do this. Okay, maybe the Battle Facilities will require you to have a winning strategy, but unless you're versing another human opponent the AI is usually simple and doesn't use any strategy except the type of Pokemon they're using. And no, I'm not asking to have Battle Facility level trainers during the main game, but I'm asking to see them at least using strategies that makes me think more carefully about how I set up my Pokemon. But since they don't there's no reason for me to dive into the deep battling mechanics as surface level stuff is good enough to get me by and going deeper doesn't change anything.

You know, the reason we haven't seen a Battle Frontier since Gen IV is because GF says the majority of players weren't playing it so they felt it wasn't worth doing. But I'm wondering if this is because, since the Battle Facilities expect the players to start using strategy, it's not that players don't like it but weren't prepared because the main game didn't require them to be so feel like this is a "difficult spike". Which in that case the solution wasn't removing the Battle Frontier but to add strategies to the trainers in the main game.

The reason this indepth battling system feels so bland is entirely GF's fault for not wanting to put the effort to make players use more complex strategies during main game. Thus players aren't prepared for Battle Facilities thus players don't want to play it thus GF feeling their efforts were wasted thus GF makes the game simpler... BREAK THE CYCLE GF! The issue is on your end!
 
Top