• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Change in Pokemon - Good or Bad?

lol, what's wrong with the map design in Pokemon?

Too small and linear. The overworld feels way too small and corridor-like. And with them moving to console, this is only going to be more and more of an issue, console adventure games tend to be large and open ended and emphasize exploration. For Pokemon to really feel modern and console-esque, it's definitely going to need to move in that direction.
 
Too small and linear. The overworld feels way too small and corridor-like. And with them moving to console, this is only going to be more and more of an issue, console adventure games tend to be large and open ended and emphasize exploration. For Pokemon to really feel modern and console-esque, it's definitely going to need to move in that direction.
I don't tend to find linearity to be a problem, personally. Routes and caves in Pokemon tend to have a fair amount of exploration and branching paths as it is, so I don't see much need for improvement beyond expanding on what's already there - an ethos I hope GameFreak will try to subscribe to in most aspects of Gen VIII's design.
 
I don't tend to find linearity to be a problem, personally. Routes and caves in Pokemon tend to have a fair amount of exploration and branching paths as it is, so I don't see much need for improvement beyond expanding on what's already there - an ethos I hope GameFreak will try to subscribe to in most aspects of Gen VIII's design.

Eh, not really. The game constantly forces you in one direction the entire game now, and the "branching paths" are usually short detours that don't last long. There's little to no hidden areas to find, no mazes to navigate, no puzzles to solve, it's primarily a long slog from beginning to end. That really doesn't encourage a lot of exploration.
 
Eh, not really. The game constantly forces you in one direction the entire game now, and the "branching paths" are usually short detours that don't last long. There's little to no hidden areas to find, no mazes to navigate, no puzzles to solve, it's primarily a long slog from beginning to end. That really doesn't encourage a lot of exploration.
Like I said, an overarching linearity isn't a bad thing to me, and short detours are all I need. I liken exploration in Pokemon to taking a hike: sure, you might be only going in one direction, but the scenery is beautiful and you're discovering a bunch of neat things, so it's not really a problem.
 
Like I said, an overarching linearity isn't a bad thing to me, and short detours are all I need. I liken exploration in Pokemon to taking a hike: sure, you might be only going in one direction, but the scenery is beautiful and you're discovering a bunch of neat things, so it's not really a problem.

Maybe to you, but I don't think most people view exploration the same way. I view exploration as more like sightseeing in a large city. You have all of these landmarks spread all around you and you can experience them however you want. You could wander through the city, go towards the most popular attractions, look for lesser known attractions, whatever you want. Pokemon's current design doesn't really facilitate that, it's a scripted, cookie cutter experience.
 
Yeah. Pokemon doesn't need to be open world.
Not the main series, at any rate. A spin-off open world RPG where you play as a Pokemon would be fine, I think, but apply the design and aesthetic principles of main-series Pokemon routes to an open-world structure, and well... you kind of just get the Hinterlands from Dragon Age Inquisition. Or otherwise you have to alter the design and aesthetic principles to a point where it just becomes unrecognizable as a main series Pokemon game.
 
Not the main series, at any rate. A spin-off open world RPG where you play as a Pokemon would be fine, I think, but apply the design and aesthetic principles of main-series Pokemon routes to an open-world structure, and well... you kind of just get the Hinterlands from Dragon Age Inquisition. Or otherwise you have to alter the design and aesthetic principles to a point where it just becomes unrecognizable as a main series Pokemon game.

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?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Doesn't help that they would need an obscene amount of testing to make sure every single Pokémon works, and I doubt GF will remove any Pokémon.
Thanks to Dexit, this comment aged rather poorly.
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!
Forcing players to learn competitive strategies is a bad idea because not everyone wants to play competitively.
 
Please note: The thread is from 5 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom