Gather round, people, I'll tell you a story
- Apr 3, 2009
- Reaction score
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).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?