Generation VI: The Future

[thatdude53]

You're missing the point. The people that want those games don't really want Nintendo's consoles in the first place, there's no reason for them to invest hundreds of dollars in dedicated gaming hardware when they can get games cheap and easy on their phone. Masuda is trying to appeal to an audience that's not even accessible to him (or at least not ATM, maybe when we start seeing handheld games come to mobile that would be a more valid strategy).

thing is, if you can't market your console as having something you'd want to have with you because it has games that'll pass the time better than your phone, people aren't going to buy it. hell, the shit sales of the 3DS (alongside the fact that it honestly just looks like handheld generation 7.5, imo) and the PSP Vita can be attributed to the fact that people can pass their time better with either home consoles, computers, tablets, and phones. and i get what you're hinting at: if they're not buying, why bother trying to cater to them? i would agree that that is an acceptable strategy if you're already a "niche" game producer, the Xenoblade series comes to mind. it's not like they sell a bunch so they can strike a better balance (imbalance?) between catering to "hardcore" gamers that like longer campaigns and the "casual" gamers that pick-up and play for an hour. the same can be applied in the opposite direction: Candy Crush doesn't have to cater to "hardcore" gamers because the game is vastly played by "casuals" on their phone or Facebook.

unfortunately, that's not the case for Pokemon. it's by-and-large a casual game with a global reputation. it has to balance between bringing in hardcore players (cc: VGC) and casual players that just want to pass the time. it can't skate on by by not selling like an indie game or a smaller studio game. it needs to sell.

Game Freak has no control over that though, it's Nintendo's responsibility to make sure that the hardware is appealing to a broad market. Game Freak is just licensed to make the main games. That's why the casual element they're looking for is unattainable to them at this point, the limitations of having to develop for the 3DS means that there's less casuals and more hardcore, and so the decision to almost entirely focus on casuals makes them look oblivious to their fanbase.

I don't agree completely with you. Saying X game only sold X amount on X console because said console sold so poorly is an excuse. Pokemon is the best example because it's been proven to move consoles completely because of its brand. It's the responsibility of the people making the game to attract people to buy that console. Software exist solely to sell consoles. Of course we could argue games existence is for fun, enjoyment, and entertainment which is true, but business wise that doesn't matter as much. And yes it's the responsibility of the console's creators to make a great console that will sell well, but no matter how great said console is it doesn't mean it will sell enough units.

The problem with the gaming market right now is this: there will never be any gaming device that is a necessity for everyday life. A cell phone has become a necessity in the last decade and no gaming device will ever compare.

 

[~ Blazing White Yang]

@~ Blazing White Yang; i don't think Pokedex completion is all that hardcore, at least not in Generation VI. it may take some time, but it's not like something that you couldn't achieve by playing only an hour per day.

I'm not quite referring to it as "hardcore" activity, just something that requires a player's dedication. They've made it easier to do by providing them all between XYORAS, but you still need knowledge of how and when a Pokemon evolves, to make deals with others for exclusives and Pokemon who evolve by trading, to fulfill all the random, obtuse requirements for ORAS Legends (who, by themselves, can take a very long time to get because of their catch rates...), etc.

I mean it doesn't exactly fall in line with Masuda's idea that dedicated play is "less than in the past".

 

[Bolt Strike]

You're missing the point. The people that want those games don't really want Nintendo's consoles in the first place, there's no reason for them to invest hundreds of dollars in dedicated gaming hardware when they can get games cheap and easy on their phone. Masuda is trying to appeal to an audience that's not even accessible to him (or at least not ATM, maybe when we start seeing handheld games come to mobile that would be a more valid strategy).

thing is, if you can't market your console as having something you'd want to have with you because it has games that'll pass the time better than your phone, people aren't going to buy it. hell, the shit sales of the 3DS (alongside the fact that it honestly just looks like handheld generation 7.5, imo) and the PSP Vita can be attributed to the fact that people can pass their time better with either home consoles, computers, tablets, and phones. and i get what you're hinting at: if they're not buying, why bother trying to cater to them? i would agree that that is an acceptable strategy if you're already a "niche" game producer, the Xenoblade series comes to mind. it's not like they sell a bunch so they can strike a better balance (imbalance?) between catering to "hardcore" gamers that like longer campaigns and the "casual" gamers that pick-up and play for an hour. the same can be applied in the opposite direction: Candy Crush doesn't have to cater to "hardcore" gamers because the game is vastly played by "casuals" on their phone or Facebook.

unfortunately, that's not the case for Pokemon. it's by-and-large a casual game with a global reputation. it has to balance between bringing in hardcore players (cc: VGC) and casual players that just want to pass the time. it can't skate on by by not selling like an indie game or a smaller studio game. it needs to sell.

Game Freak has no control over that though, it's Nintendo's responsibility to make sure that the hardware is appealing to a broad market. Game Freak is just licensed to make the main games. That's why the casual element they're looking for is unattainable to them at this point, the limitations of having to develop for the 3DS means that there's less casuals and more hardcore, and so the decision to almost entirely focus on casuals makes them look oblivious to their fanbase.

I don't agree completely with you. Saying X game only sold X amount on X console because said console sold so poorly is an excuse. Pokemon is the best example because it's been proven to move consoles completely because of its brand. It's the responsibility of the people making the game to attract people to buy that console. Software exist solely to sell consoles. Of course we could argue games existence is for fun, enjoyment, and entertainment which is true, but business wise that doesn't matter as much. And yes it's the responsibility of the console's creators to make a great console that will sell well, but no matter how great said console is it doesn't mean it will sell enough units.

The problem with the gaming market right now is this: there will never be any gaming device that is a necessity for everyday life. A cell phone has become a necessity in the last decade and no gaming device will ever compare.

Sales don't really work like that, if you compare the attachment rates (what percentage of console owners bought the game) of games from the same series across different consoles you'll find that the attachment rates are fairly steady, so consoles do tend to have an effect on game sales. And most of the people that Pokemon attracts to the new handhelds are already fans of Pokemon in the first place who are just looking for the next entry in the series, there's not a lot of new fans being drawn in by these games.

At any rate, this doesn't have as much to do with sales as it does to audience, and logically, the kind of audience Masuda wants for this series has no reason to buy a 3DS. So it's still a foolish plan.

 

[Apawn:p]

An Idea I had is if they could introduce a new Mega Pokemon in Shuffle or Rumble World

 

[DoctorWhy]

And do you guys think GF will continue with their current mobile- philosophy with the next games? That is the big question for the next game/s imo.

For me, the key question is: Will Masuda stay TRUE to his words. His words, when asked about why was there no BF (and other features) in ORAS, etc, answer he gave was "most of the players are to busy with mobiles and don´t spend as much time on a single game." So, is this formula staying for X2/W2/Z/etc or was it just an excuse for not including it in ORAS? Like did they doit out of pure laziness, or was he serious with this decission for the next games?

pairing that quote with that interview about gen 7 a while back (when they talked about reverting to simplicity), I feel like he was being serious and the games will continue to take on a minimalist approach.

Of course I hope they've thought about it since then and decided that's not the route to go.

Agreed. I've always liked Masuda, but if he sticks with comments like that and keeps making the games more like XY (easier and minimalist trend), then I want him gone. I want the exact opposite. I want the games to get bigger and stronger and deeper.

If they really want to cater to the casual mobile gaming audience, just make spinoff games for iOS and Android! Get more serious about the main series, and make the games stronger, harder, deeper, better, bigger, longer, etc. Then, for the casual audiences, release spin off mobile games a couple times a year. Masuda is completely missing the point and he's taking the series in the wrong direction.

 

[godiego]

Sales don't really work like that, if you compare the attachment rates (what percentage of console owners bought the game) of games from the same series across different consoles you'll find that the attachment rates are fairly steady, so consoles do tend to have an effect on game sales. And most of the people that Pokemon attracts to the new handhelds are already fans of Pokemon in the first place who are just looking for the next entry in the series, there's not a lot of new fans being drawn in by these games.

At any rate, this doesn't have as much to do with sales as it does to audience, and logically, the kind of audience Masuda wants for this series has no reason to buy a 3DS. So it's still a foolish plan.

i might be misunderstanding attachment rate, but is it not the total number of games sold divided by the number of consoles which is the average number of games per person (and by extension, how 'attached' they are to the console)? strictly looking at the attachment rates of the consoles, 3DS and Wii U have some of the lowest attachment rates for Nintendo ever, despite Pokemon XY bolstering 3DS sales and Smash 4 attempting to boost Wii U sales. you're right that software isn't the sole determinant of whether or not a console will sell, it is a significant factor. i mean, the PSP Vita isn't selling partially because there's nothing good for it. personally, i wasn't going to bother with a 3DS (or even Pokemon for that matter) until i saw what Pokemon XY looked like and a 2DS.

catering to non-existent crowd is a bit silly, but only if the game isn't designed for that crowd. Grand Theft Auto trying to appeal to five-year olds is very silly. as i pointed out previously, i could understand if Pokemon was largely a hardcore game. but that's not the case. GameFreak stands to lose more by not at least trying to capture an audience.

i also take contention with your wording: the audience Masuda wants does have reason to buy a 3DS/handheld console, they just have no desire to buy it since they can pass the time just as easily with their phone/tablet.

 

[The Outrage]

Why do we even take Masuda's words for anything? It sounds like a cop-out excuse for being lazy.

"We didn't make the Battle Frontier because people don't have time for that and not because we had a set time frame and couldn't complete the Battle Frontier in time, but no we also won't consider DLC for ORAS. After all, its better to have a complete game with missing features rather than add these features later and have people think it wasn't complete"

"Let's make people collect 1000 flags, at a rate of 30 flags per day, if they're lucky, to get a Garchompite because people clearly have time for that"

That doesn't even go into the fact that if they made regular and Super battles like they did for the Maison, then people at all skill levels could enjoy the game (and remove the 20 battle limit for regular). Or the fact that yes, people don't have time. But the difference between Candy Crush and Pokemon is that Candy Crush will always have something to do. The Battle Frontier provides an avenue for continuous play to keep people interested. Yeah, I could always "catch 'em all" but honestly, trying to figure out where every Pokemon is, and arranging trades, is far more tedious than randomly starting a battle at the Frontier.

Masuda has also said that in XY, the protagonists have to wear hats because that's their identifying feature. Even though there are dozens of NPC's who wear hats (so how is it an identifying feature?) and in the game immediately preceding (B2W2) and succeeding (ORAS) XY, the protagonists didn't wear hats. They had headwear, but not hats. But the XY protagonists must wear hats to distinguish themselves from the dozens of other NPC's wearing hats.

 

[TheMonster6893]

I think the point is that GF wants to branch out and do other things with their products other than work solely with Nintendo or it's products. This I say is a good thing. Companies that branch out after forming a solid infastruture do well. If GF wants to move to the mobile platform then that's awesome! People who say that mobile games don't do well obviously don't own phones. It doesn't matter what the game is or what system it's on as long as it's fun and can keep our attention. People use the excuse that games on phones r just time wasters and while in some ways I agree I can also disagree as well. Mobile games r what the developers make them. If they want the game to b simple, fast, and fun then that's just what that one developer wants. It doesn't stop another developer from making an equally fun game that has some depth to it. This can all b done on the mobile platform. And to those who think that GF wanting to branch out is a bad thing bc for whatever reason they think Pokemon will b moved there, it's just not that easy.... The main series Pokemon games will forever b on whatever console Nintendo puts out bc that's the contract that they signed with GF. Nothing will change that. If one day GF wanted to go off on it's own and wanted to bring Pokemon with them, it wouldn't happen. Yes they own Pokemon to a degree, but Nintendo basically owns the right to keep it in a vault. It's very similar, but NOT totally like, what happened with Halo and Bungie. Bungie wanted to do some other stuff and Microsoft put an end ot it. Now Bungie doesn't make Halo and Microsoft still owns the rights to the product. I will say that if GF ever did part ways completely with Nintendo I couldn't c the company ever do what Microsoft did and hire a new team to make Pokemon in some way, but that's one of the ways that the situations r different. Anyway I'm all for GF wanting to branch out onto the mobile platform!! hahaha

 

[Bolt Strike]

I think the point is that GF wants to branch out and do other things with their products other than work solely with Nintendo or it's products. This I say is a good thing. Companies that branch out after forming a solid infastruture do well. If GF wants to move to the mobile platform then that's awesome! People who say that mobile games don't do well obviously don't own phones. It doesn't matter what the game is or what system it's on as long as it's fun and can keep our attention. People use the excuse that games on phones r just time wasters and while in some ways I agree I can also disagree as well. Mobile games r what the developers make them. If they want the game to b simple, fast, and fun then that's just what that one developer wants. It doesn't stop another developer from making an equally fun game that has some depth to it. This can all b done on the mobile platform. And to those who think that GF wanting to branch out is a bad thing bc for whatever reason they think Pokemon will b moved there, it's just not that easy.... The main series Pokemon games will forever b on whatever console Nintendo puts out bc that's the contract that they signed with GF. Nothing will change that. If one day GF wanted to go off on it's own and wanted to bring Pokemon with them, it wouldn't happen. Yes they own Pokemon to a degree, but Nintendo basically owns the right to keep it in a vault. It's very similar, but NOT totally like, what happened with Halo and Bungie. Bungie wanted to do some other stuff and Microsoft put an end ot it. Now Bungie doesn't make Halo and Microsoft still owns the rights to the product. I will say that if GF ever did part ways completely with Nintendo I couldn't c the company ever do what Microsoft did and hire a new team to make Pokemon in some way, but that's one of the ways that the situations r different. Anyway I'm all for GF wanting to branch out onto the mobile platform!! hahaha

I have absolutely no problem with Game Freak wanting to branch out, that's not the issue. The issue is that the mobile mentality is bleeding into the main series games. Masuda has this idea that Pokemon should be entirely designed around mobile and that the hardcore audience means absolutely nothing and that's just plain not true. I don't care if Masuda branches out to spinoffs or designs the main series games to accommodate both markets, but please, turn Pokemon back into a game that hardcore gamers can enjoy.

 

[The Outrage]

Game Freak has already looked at creating other non-Pokemon franchises, their most current not even on a Nintendo console with the Masuda-level reasoning from James Turner that basically amounts to "We chose to release the game on these platforms because their logo looked nice on our posters":

When I was writing the presentation documents for this game, I drew a mockup poster, and I put the Steam, PlayStation, and Xbox logos at the bottom. It seemed to fit, and it happened to stick that way. We thought about other hardware during development, but our hands were pretty full with those three platforms!

If we're talking about diversifying their business model, then they shouldn't make everything cater to a mobile crowd. They should have some games cater to it, and a core series game catering to their core base. I'd love for Game Freak to actually make an android or iOS app where we play as Looker or Essentia but they're not doing it.

 

[TheMonster6893]

I think the point is that GF wants to branch out and do other things with their products other than work solely with Nintendo or it's products. This I say is a good thing. Companies that branch out after forming a solid infastruture do well. If GF wants to move to the mobile platform then that's awesome! People who say that mobile games don't do well obviously don't own phones. It doesn't matter what the game is or what system it's on as long as it's fun and can keep our attention. People use the excuse that games on phones r just time wasters and while in some ways I agree I can also disagree as well. Mobile games r what the developers make them. If they want the game to b simple, fast, and fun then that's just what that one developer wants. It doesn't stop another developer from making an equally fun game that has some depth to it. This can all b done on the mobile platform. And to those who think that GF wanting to branch out is a bad thing bc for whatever reason they think Pokemon will b moved there, it's just not that easy.... The main series Pokemon games will forever b on whatever console Nintendo puts out bc that's the contract that they signed with GF. Nothing will change that. If one day GF wanted to go off on it's own and wanted to bring Pokemon with them, it wouldn't happen. Yes they own Pokemon to a degree, but Nintendo basically owns the right to keep it in a vault. It's very similar, but NOT totally like, what happened with Halo and Bungie. Bungie wanted to do some other stuff and Microsoft put an end ot it. Now Bungie doesn't make Halo and Microsoft still owns the rights to the product. I will say that if GF ever did part ways completely with Nintendo I couldn't c the company ever do what Microsoft did and hire a new team to make Pokemon in some way, but that's one of the ways that the situations r different. Anyway I'm all for GF wanting to branch out onto the mobile platform!! hahaha

I have absolutely no problem with Game Freak wanting to branch out, that's not the issue. The issue is that the mobile mentality is bleeding into the main series games. Masuda has this idea that Pokemon should be entirely designed around mobile and that the hardcore audience means absolutely nothing and that's just plain not true. I don't care if Masuda branches out to spinoffs or designs the main series games to accommodate both markets, but please, turn Pokemon back into a game that hardcore gamers can enjoy.

I don't think u have to worry about the main series going entirely to mobile. Again Nintendo wouldn't have it as Pokemon is one of their main money makers. If the main series went to mobile then Nintendo would have some problems and for that it's pretty clear it'll never happen. Even if they got money for it the sales of their old and new consoles would suffer to much for them to allow it. As for making the games a bit more difficult I'm not against it. The only problem is that the way they have the games set up makes it hard for it to b a "hard" game in general. Sure they could raise the levels of opposing Pokemon, but that wouldn't solve anything bc all we'd have to do is grind like it's any other Pokemon game, just maybe a little longer lol What they need to do is look deeper into it and change the series on a fundamental level. Sure People might not like that, but if u look at other games that ARE "hard" then there's a clear difference. I don't believe Pokemon was ever meant to b the type of challenge people have made it out to b. It's basically a game that is as hard or easy as the player wants to make it. Sure GF could go out of it's way to make the story more challenging, but at this point the formula they use is set to make the player feel like it's an relatively easier game compared to others. I think another problem is that most people that play Pokemon now and complain about it being too easy r adults or young adults that look back on younger days of playing the games and think of it as hard when it was really not all that different. Children don't have the attention span that adults or late teens have so a game like Pokemon may have just seemed harder back then that it actually was. Also the way it was made during the days of Red and Blue was terrible.......there I said it lol.....I'd take all the technological advances and extra stuff like running shoes or even......skates.......over the slow grind that was walking from ur house to the top of Pallet only to go back even further south to Oaks lab....lol

 

[Bolt Strike]

I don't think u have to worry about the main series going entirely to mobile. Again Nintendo wouldn't have it as Pokemon is one of their main money makers. If the main series went to mobile then Nintendo would have some problems and for that it's pretty clear it'll never happen. Even if they got money for it the sales of their old and new consoles would suffer to much for them to allow it.

I never said I was worried about the games moving to mobile. Yeah, I think Nintendo would be reluctant to put Pokemon on mobile when they're still trying to sell handhelds.

I think another problem is that most people that play Pokemon now and complain about it being too easy r adults or young adults that look back on younger days of playing the games and think of it as hard when it was really not all that different. Children don't have the attention span that adults or late teens have so a game like Pokemon may have just seemed harder back then that it actually was.

I never really found Pokemon to be that hard even when I was a kid and my skills haven't improved that much, so no, it's definitely the game.

Also the way it was made during the days of Red and Blue was terrible.......there I said it lol.....I'd take all the technological advances and extra stuff like running shoes or even......skates.......over the slow grind that was walking from ur house to the top of Pallet only to go back even further south to Oaks lab....lol

RBY have aged terribly, definitely (and there's a lot about them that's never been fixed, but that's an entirely different discussion). 3rd and 4th gen are better standards for the series.

 

[thatdude53]

Sales don't really work like that, if you compare the attachment rates (what percentage of console owners bought the game) of games from the same series across different consoles you'll find that the attachment rates are fairly steady, so consoles do tend to have an effect on game sales. And most of the people that Pokemon attracts to the new handhelds are already fans of Pokemon in the first place who are just looking for the next entry in the series, there's not a lot of new fans being drawn in by these games.

At any rate, this doesn't have as much to do with sales as it does to audience, and logically, the kind of audience Masuda wants for this series has no reason to buy a 3DS. So it's still a foolish plan.

i might be misunderstanding attachment rate, but is it not the total number of games sold divided by the number of consoles which is the average number of games per person (and by extension, how 'attached' they are to the console)? strictly looking at the attachment rates of the consoles, 3DS and Wii U have some of the lowest attachment rates for Nintendo ever, despite Pokemon XY bolstering 3DS sales and Smash 4 attempting to boost Wii U sales. you're right that software isn't the sole determinant of whether or not a console will sell, it is a significant factor. i mean, the PSP Vita isn't selling partially because there's nothing good for it. personally, i wasn't going to bother with a 3DS (or even Pokemon for that matter) until i saw what Pokemon XY looked like and a 2DS.

catering to non-existent crowd is a bit silly, but only if the game isn't designed for that crowd. Grand Theft Auto trying to appeal to five-year olds is very silly. as i pointed out previously, i could understand if Pokemon was largely a hardcore game. but that's not the case. GameFreak stands to lose more by not at least trying to capture an audience.

i also take contention with your wording: the audience Masuda wants does have reason to buy a 3DS/handheld console, they just have no desire to buy it since they can pass the time just as easily with their phone/tablet.

This is exactly what I meant. A lot of people only buy the latest portable console for the next Pokémon game. I wouldn't even consider getting any console in the 3DS or even the DS family if there wasn't any planned pokemon games. Pokémon is the game for the Nintendo portable family.

 

[BlackButterfree]

I don't believe Pokemon was ever meant to b the type of challenge people have made it out to b.

It's basically a game that is as hard or easy as the player wants to make it.

it's an relatively easier game compared to others.

I think another problem is that most people that play Pokemon now and complain about it being too easy r adults or young adults that look back on younger days of playing the games and think of it as hard when it was really not all that different.

Yeah, no. I played Ruby at the same time as Alpha Sapphire. Alpha Sapphire I beat in one week. Ruby I'm still trying to get past Mt. Pyre 9 months later. Trust me. The games have definitely gotten easier. (To be fair, though. It'd probably take me a month and a half or so to beat Ruby if I played everyday. But the constant grinding is too much for me.)

 

[godiego]

Yeah, no. I played Ruby at the same time as Alpha Sapphire. Alpha Sapphire I beat in one week. Ruby I'm still trying to get past Mt. Pyre 9 months later. Trust me. The games have definitely gotten easier. (To be fair, though. It'd probably take me a month and a half or so to beat Ruby if I played everyday. But the constant grinding is too much for me.)

i don't think grinding necessarily equates difficulty, it just means more time wasted. i mean, i spent more time grinding in BW2 than any other game, but it's not like it was hard. once i got to around +/- 2 levels, i was still ohkoing everything with the appropriate type match-ups.

 

[thatdude53]

Yeah, no. I played Ruby at the same time as Alpha Sapphire. Alpha Sapphire I beat in one week. Ruby I'm still trying to get past Mt. Pyre 9 months later. Trust me. The games have definitely gotten easier. (To be fair, though. It'd probably take me a month and a half or so to beat Ruby if I played everyday. But the constant grinding is too much for me.)

i don't think grinding necessarily equates difficulty, it just means more time wasted. i mean, i spent more time grinding in BW2 than any other game, but it's not like it was hard. once i got to around +/- 2 levels, i was still ohkoing everything with the appropriate type match-ups.

I've been KOing pretty much everything since 1998. But the following games were more of a challenge: Emerald, Platinum, HGSS, and BW2 mainly because of the battle Frontier and the PWT. That's exactly what DLC for Pokémon should consist of: a more difficult challenge for the more involved pokemon trainers. That's what I want in the future.

 

[WallflowerCanyon]

Interesting note, but the only reason I was able to defeat the E4 in Alpha Sapphire so easily is because I activated my Super Training gizmo in the game. I've noticed this in X/Y as well, but as soon as you use Super-Training even for just one time throughout the game, your Pokémon are automatically being trained off to the side without even directly using Super-Training(when you slide into the Super-Training screen, it shows your 'mons hitting a punching bag). My advice if you want to make it more of a challenge to raise your 'mons the old-fashioned way? Don't even use the Super-Training even ONCE. Don't activate it, nothing.

When the next Kalos game comes out, and if it has Super-Training in it still, I'm going to test that theory out and see if it makes a difference.

 

[Mitchman]

Yeah, instant EV training that early screws with the difficulty much, MUCH more then the exp all. I had done it for my team in XY, with contradictory natures and all, but they were easily sweepingthe harder trainers, while ORAS was a bit of a struggle towards the end.

 

[Boss1708]

For instance, I get the feeling that some great features introduced in OR/AS are going to stay exclusive to OR/AS and we are not going to see them in the next games. Like the PokeNav Plus, for example. And OR/AS has no gym rematches. It´s like they are trying to AVOID a perfect game. Like they don´t want their games to be perfect. They leave features, then reintroduce them, then leave them out again, but substitute them with other features... Never having all the features in the same game.

I mean, does a complete game mean LOWER sale rate? Shouldn´t it be the other way around? More features, better sales? Did Platinum and B2W2 sell that bad for being complete? I am asking this honestly.

And was it so time-consuming and hard to include Gym rematches in OR/AS? Not that I even care about Gym rematches, but some fans DO... And honestly, is it so much work? Who (i guess Masuda) and WHY decides whether a game should have gym rematches or not? Cause I think such a small feature should be in all pokemon games nowadays...

PD as a sidenote, I really don´t remember, which games had gym rematches since Ruby/Sapphire? I´d be thankful if somebody put them here...

 

[Jun]

Super Secret Base could be returning again in Kalos with Aarune, indeed he said he was a world traveller.
With all 6gen Pokemon being available in ORAS and XY, I can't imagine a 6G game again, but I think it will be special.