Change in Pokemon - Good or Bad?

[Jabberwocky]

Um... how? Just take an open world, fill it with Pokemon to catch and trainers to battle. What's so hard about that? About the only thing that would really change is that there wouldn't be routes anymore, but are routes really necessary to the Pokemon experience? If you just had a seamless oveworld and divided it into sectors for different types of Pokemon to show up, what would be the difference?

The difference is that the Pokemon world is urbanized and developed in a way most open worlds are not by design. Most open worlds are set in wilderness and undeveloped areas because it allows for a lot of open space, which is important because it allows the developers to avoid having to devote too much time and energy to creating unique landmarks and locations which an urban or more dense world would demand. You can't just create a ton of open space and call it a day with Pokemon, it isn't Skyrim or Fallout. The design principles of Pokemon routes and locations work for what the world is. Add this to the fact that GameFreak has absolutely no experience with anything approaching the scale of an open world game and you have a recipe for disaster. Not everything has to be an open world, and we've seen it proven the last few years that trying to add an open world to a series for the sake of it, very bad things can happen (see: Dynasty Warriors). The main series Pokemon games have always been very linear adventures, and they work. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel on a whim, especially on only the first real romp on a console (with LGPE as a proof-of-concept).

 

[Bolt the Cat]

The difference is that the Pokemon world is urbanized and developed in a way most open worlds are not by design. Most open worlds are set in wilderness and undeveloped areas because it allows for a lot of open space, which is important because it allows the developers to avoid having to devote too much time and energy to creating unique landmarks and locations which an urban or more dense world would demand. You can't just create a ton of open space and call it a day with Pokemon, it isn't Skyrim or Fallout. The design principles of Pokemon routes and locations work for what the world is.

Um what? It makes perfect sense for Pokemon to have vast swaths of empty wilderness. They're supposed to be vast regions teeming with wild Pokemon, it would makes sense to for most of them to inhabit areas completely untouched by man. There's no need to make the Pokemon world so heavily urbanized, and it's not really realistic anyway. The real world isn't some giant megalopolis, there's pockets of highly populated areas dotted across mostly empty landscapes. There's nothing wrong with Pokemon going in that direction.

Add this to the fact that GameFreak has absolutely no experience with anything approaching the scale of an open world game and you have a recipe for disaster.

I never said it had to be this generation.

Not everything has to be an open world, and we've seen it proven the last few years that trying to add an open world to a series for the sake of it, very bad things can happen (see: Dynasty Warriors).

Not everything does have to be open world, but it fits the spirit of the series. You're out on an adventure through a vast region hunting for wild creatures to capture, an open world fits with that concept.

 

[RileyXY1]

Open worlds are not necessary. Pokemon's doing just fine in its current linear state.

 

[Oricorio]

At first I thought an open world Pokémon game would be ridiculous; after Breath of the Wild I am convinced it can be done. Doing an open world game for Pokémon may take years, but it would be worth it in the end. The concept of Pokémon just lends itself out to exploring huge areas and looking for monsters.