New game Pokémon GO announced for iPhone, Android: Releasing 2016

[Kadabra]

Am i the only one who went: "Meh, don't care. When's the next main series game?"?

No, most likely not. But I suspect that many people who thought something along those lines were ignorant of who Niantic are and what Ingress is. Ingress is amazing (especially from a social aspect--that Mewtwo scene is relevant) and now they will be leveraging that engine's capabilities to make a new kind of Pokemon game.

Sadly, this is not an AR game. It'll look more like this:

How the rest of the game will look is hard to say. It'll most likely have some resemblance to the world mechanics found in Ingress, meaning some kind of map overlay with objects of interest (wild pokemon? trainers?)
This is a screenshot of Ingress from its Google Play page:

Maybe it'll have Pokemon icons just like in Google Maps: Pokemon Challenge?

(Exploring Japan like that was fun, but this time I guess I'd have to travel back to Japan in person. )

They'll also have this optional Plus accessory, which pairs with your phone via bluetooth and gives you vibration/LED notification if you happen to come by any real-world events:

I wish the design was a round Pokeball instead. xd

It's about time Nintendo got around to harnessing the innovations in mobile computing and go beyond the cheap handheld console gaming. There's so much more potential in mobile, but I suppose only time will tell whether they will really make use of it.

 

[Fig]

Re: 'Pokémon GO' Announced for iOS, Android: Releasing 2016

That has got to be one of the most misleading trailers. The actual gameplay appears to have very little in common with the awesome cinematic trailer. For example, the trailer would lead you to believe the game has AR, but the actual gameplay indicates otherwise (and they never state that it has AR in the press release or conference, which you would expect if it did).

The evidence for some degree of augmented reality is as strong as if not stronger than the evidence against it:

-For: the entire trailer hints at it ; emphasis on Niantic and Ingress (the flagships of AR games)
-Against: We see that some of the battlefields are partially computer generated.

Note, partially. The foreground in those catching videos at the end is obviously computer-generated. The background, however, looks much more photorealistic, so it's impossible to say whether those scenes are combination CG/AR or just CG. EDIT: although the pictures Kadabra posted hints that it is CG.

Even if that's the case, that does not mean the entire game is in CG. Encountering Pokémon in the Real World via AR, then battling them/catching them on a dedicated CG battlefield is a very real (and entirely sensible) possibility - if you run into, say, a Charmander at a bus stop, you wouldn't want to lose it because you have to keep moving! So switching to a classic battle screen after the initial encounter is also a very distinct possibility.

It's also possible that the game is not classic visual-based AR. But there appears not to be an actual term for a game where your surroundings are entirely determined by your IRL location (via geolocalization). To me, that's more a different approach to AR than "not AR".

You are, in short, leaping to conclusions at least as much if not more (and probably more) than the people saying it's AR on the basis of the trailer.

 

[xXMelanie_HimeXx]

Aww this game seems kinda cute judging by the video.

I'm not sure what to think of it yet though.

 

[Kadabra]

Technically, it is an AR game simply because it will (most likely) have a real-life map overlay with event markers, much like in Ingress. It's just not the kind of AR that's implied in the trailer, with the omission of the super-cool type of AR being due to technical limitations. Simply put, you need 3D imaging hardware in order to make it possible to render AR just like in the trailer. For example, the system would need to know how the Pikachu model resides in the 3D world (e.g. partially hides behind bushes) if you wanted it to render correctly from any angle:

If they simply put a picture of a Pikachu on top of the camera view, it would be much more simple. And they could do that, but there's nothing to suggest that they would.

Would love to see Pokemon battles done in full AR, though. Shouldn't be too hard to make it look good either, assuming you pick a flat area with no obstacles.

Either way, I'm super excited to see Nintendo going this route. Made a thread about something like this a long time ago (http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/f323/would-you-prefer-pokemon-smartphones-164345/); I wonder if the people who hated the idea are going to give this a try now that it's coming out.

 

[PkmnChmp5]

I hate to be negative, but this sounds awful to me. It seems like a lot of trouble for not enough reward. The AR stuff just doesn't impress me, and I don't want to have to go traipsing all over town hunting for Pokemon in random locations. I live out in the country outside of a small town in KY. I don't want to have to make a special trip to get some limited-time Pokemon in my game (I get enough of that crap from those stupid GameStop giveaways.) Plus, if they actually have events like the Mewtwo one shown in the video, it would probably be nowhere near me anyway.

Then there's the FTP/micro-transactions bit. Even if they do it "right" where it's not a rip-off, it's still going to be more annoying and grind-y than a game you just pay for up-front. (And, yes, that is coming from someone who has over 130 hours in Pokemon Shuffle without having spent a single cent on it.)

The thought of "Pokemon in the real world" is fun to think about, but in execution, it's just another gimmick that will ultimately be less fun than the main series games or one of the good spin-offs.

I am not a mobile gamer. I have a cheap, pre-paid tracfone because it does the bear minimum I need a cell phone to do. I can't afford to buy an expensive Android or iOS device and pay a monthly bill to get some Pokemon game that's just going to be more of a headache. And before anyone starts in with the "you don't have to buy/play it" comments, that is true. But, I'm worried about the part where they said it would link to the main series games. The first time they have some special Pokemon that can ONLY be obtained through Pokemon GO, I'm going to be angry and upset because it's going to be like I'm being punished for not having a fancy smartphone.

As long as this is mostly a standalone thing that only allows you to get stuff in the main games that you can get through some other method anyway, then I am perfectly fine with it. Those who like this kind of thing can enjoy it and I can stick to what I enjoy and everyone is happy. My only fear is exclusive main series crossover stuff. (Can you imagine if the only way to get Volcanion was through this... thing.)

Anyway, that's my long, boring opinion. Ya'll can go ahead and start arguing with me now.

 

[Blockhead Pippi]

Gotta say, while I normally do not care for phone app games, this one definitely caught my attention... until I came upon the "Will be able to link with main series games" statement. I'm... really not sure how I feel about that. Though color me impressed, the advertisement was nicely made. This is about as close as we'll ever get to having "real" Pokemon. It'd be nice if this did have augmented reality.

 

[jackatlasred]

What is AR?

 

[Amante do Mikuri]

What is AR?

Augmented reality (AR) is a live direct or indirect view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data.

 

[Achrom25tic]

I was honestly conflicted at first. Dunno why, perhaps the move to mobile on a grand scale for a lot of companies was beginning to upset me. But wow, the trailer looks fantastic! And the app looks just as good as the graphics in the main series. It keeps the ideas of the core games but brings it to a different platform. Very cool!

 

[ocelotlrama jaguar]

What is it about mobile games that people dislike so much? It's not like the main title Pokemon games are going to transition to mobile. This is just a silly freemium game that caters to those who like those things, and really, I don't see the problem in that.

It looks fun for what it is. I'd love to try it out.

 

[lovandra]

The dangerous of freemium is for example when my 9 years old brother tempted to buy all those stuff with my credit card. But with child lock and all of that kind of stuff. I see that as smaller problem.

Also, good freemium developer usually keep adding new stuff to ballace the money they get and keep expand to new servers due to high demands. I had been on a freemium game where only less than 40 players played at the same time and now almost 1000 players play there at once... from when the owner like to hang out and chat with players on their official forum till when they dont have free time anymore between real life and handle the game.. I know that they get the money but it balances with the work since on online keep progressing game, you need to create lots of events to excited the players so they dont stop play and stop pay.... different like for example current 3ds games where we just buy the game and may be get 1 or 2 updates and that's all...

Dont underestimate freemium game!!!

 

[Blockhead Pippi]

What is it about mobile games that people dislike so much? It's not like the main title Pokemon games are going to transition to mobile. This is just a silly freemium game that caters to those who like those things, and really, I don't see the problem in that.

It looks fun for what it is. I'd love to try it out.

A lot of it has to do with (the majority of) app games being very short, cheaply made, and purposely limited to encourage microtransaction purchases. Assuming you're the same person who goes to The Mega Man Network and Protodude's Corner, I'm sure you already know how awful Rockman Xover was.

It's just too much pandering to the casual market where repeatedly tapping the screen is considered "gaming". I'm not saying all mobile app games are like that, but quite a few of them, even the good ones, are. It becomes quite worrying when a lot of game companies forego making larger-scale handheld and console games to cater to the app market, or heck, Pachinko machines. (I'm looking at you Konami.) Unfortunately a lot of companies have no choice now because of how damn popular these things are. Nintendo swore off mobile app games for quite awhile now, but now they have no other choice.

But Pokemon Go does have redeeming points.

 

[Fig]

It's just too much pandering to the casual market where repeatedly tapping the screen is considered "gaming"

You realize how arrogant that kind of statement sound, right?

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

Re: 'Pokémon GO' Announced for iOS, Android: Releasing 2016

The evidence for some degree of augmented reality is as strong as if not stronger than the evidence against it:

-For: the entire trailer hints at it ; emphasis on Niantic and Ingress (the flagships of AR games)
-Against: We see that some of the battlefields are partially computer generated.

Completely disagree.

-For: The non-gameplay trailer gives the impression. Also, the game is inspired by a game that uses AR, and developed by the same developer.

I don't see the non-gameplay trailer as any different to the Google Maps Pokemon Challenge trailer, or any other non-gameplay trailer of any game that shows CGI models in the real world. Plenty of game trailers do that, and if they don't actually say or show that it includes AR, it's probably just promotional.

-Against: They never mention or show AR at all, which they most certainly would if it was a key part of the game (they do mention that Ingress uses AR, but do not go on to even hint that it will be in Pokemon GO). Additionally, the game screenshots for both Pikachu and Charizard show identical, entirely static backgrounds.

While the distant backgrounds appear to be high-quality and realistic-looking, from the images and info we have it does not look like they are actually photos of the nearby environment. I have seen non-AR games use backdrops of similar quality before. However, what I would guess is that the game will pick a background from some a pool of pre-generated ones based on the GPS location, or potentially even based on what the camera sees (or a combination of the two).


Also, the trailer implies that battles use AR, but you seem to think that what will be using AR will be non-battle content? I'm not even really sure what non-battle content would be anyway, but I see even less reason to believe that; the existence of the Pokemon GO Plus makes it seem like the battles are the majority of the game.

I see very little reason to believe this game will use AR.

It's also possible that the game is not classic visual-based AR. But there appears not to be an actual term for a game where your surroundings are entirely determined by your IRL location (via geolocalization). To me, that's more a different approach to AR than "not AR".

It's clearly a location-based game, but that's not AR. AR specifically refers to the visual aspect, like the features we see in Pokemon Dream Radar and Pokedex 3D.

 

[PikaTruuu]

I really loved the trailer, it looked so cool!

 

[Blockhead Pippi]

It's just too much pandering to the casual market where repeatedly tapping the screen is considered "gaming"

You realize how arrogant that kind of statement sound, right?

Well guess this is just where it comes down to opinion.

I don't consider app games to be "gaming" where you tap and hold the screen to make a bird fly, or to make a robot jump over projectiles on a flat, incredibly plain background screen with no other obstacles, and where fighting the stage's end boss takes the form of turn taking that literally requires no strategy and has no way of getting a game over.

So maybe my comment comes off as incredibly arrogant, but I honestly don't really care. I did not say that -all- app games are like that, just seemingly the majority of them. For certain there are good games on the mobile market, and ports of games.

 

[Fig]

It's just too much pandering to the casual market where repeatedly tapping the screen is considered "gaming"

You realize how arrogant that kind of statement sound, right?

Well guess this is just where it comes down to opinion.

I don't consider app games to be "gaming" where you tap and hold the screen to make a bird fly, or to make a robot jump over projectiles on a flat, incredibly plain background screen with no other obstacles, and where fighting the stage's end boss takes the form of turn taking that literally requires no strategy and has no way of getting a game over.

So maybe my comment comes off as incredibly arrogant, but I honestly don't really care. I did not say that -all- app games are like that, just seemingly the majority of them. For certain there are good games on the mobile market, and ports of games.

The part about "the casual market" was the part that comes off as incredibly arrogant.

Casual-bashing, and disdain toward "casuals" is just disgusting.

 

[The Outrage]

"Repeatedly tapping on the screen"

Can't you say the same thing about any gaming system if you reduce it to its mode of control?

It's just too much pandering to the casual market where repeatedly pressing a button is considered "gaming"

If you just look at a gamer playing SSB, that's what they look like. Phoenix Wright is a critically acclaimed game yet if you look at a person playing it, you'd think they were dumb or something since they spend most of the time just "staring" at the screen. People don't seem to give Pokemon Ranger a hard time despite its core game play is to draw circles.

I mean really, if face-value complexity of controls equals true gaming experience, Wii Sports Resort beats any existing game since you combine specific body movements with button presses.

The dangerous of freemium is for example when my 9 years old brother tempted to buy all those stuff with my credit card. But with child lock and all of that kind of stuff. I see that as smaller problem.

Shuffle (and I'm told Rumble) has a monthly spending limit, and also limits the amount of jewels one can carry, meaning you can't even get to that limit on a single transaction without having to first play the game.

People make fun of Nintendo because of how cautious they are around kids, but their caution translated well into how microtransactions are handled.

 

[SUP3RN0VA]

I hate to be negative, but this sounds awful to me. It seems like a lot of trouble for not enough reward. The AR stuff just doesn't impress me, and I don't want to have to go traipsing all over town hunting for Pokemon in random locations. I live out in the country outside of a small town in KY. I don't want to have to make a special trip to get some limited-time Pokemon in my game (I get enough of that crap from those stupid GameStop giveaways.) Plus, if they actually have events like the Mewtwo one shown in the video, it would probably be nowhere near me anyway.

Then there's the FTP/micro-transactions bit. Even if they do it "right" where it's not a rip-off, it's still going to be more annoying and grind-y than a game you just pay for up-front. (And, yes, that is coming from someone who has over 130 hours in Pokemon Shuffle without having spent a single cent on it.)

The thought of "Pokemon in the real world" is fun to think about, but in execution, it's just another gimmick that will ultimately be less fun than the main series games or one of the good spin-offs.

I am not a mobile gamer. I have a cheap, pre-paid tracfone because it does the bear minimum I need a cell phone to do. I can't afford to buy an expensive Android or iOS device and pay a monthly bill to get some Pokemon game that's just going to be more of a headache. And before anyone starts in with the "you don't have to buy/play it" comments, that is true. But, I'm worried about the part where they said it would link to the main series games. The first time they have some special Pokemon that can ONLY be obtained through Pokemon GO, I'm going to be angry and upset because it's going to be like I'm being punished for not having a fancy smartphone.

As long as this is mostly a standalone thing that only allows you to get stuff in the main games that you can get through some other method anyway, then I am perfectly fine with it. Those who like this kind of thing can enjoy it and I can stick to what I enjoy and everyone is happy. My only fear is exclusive main series crossover stuff. (Can you imagine if the only way to get Volcanion was through this... thing.)

Anyway, that's my long, boring opinion. Ya'll can go ahead and start arguing with me now.

My personal thought is that we won't have to worry about special events only occuring on Pokemon Go without it also being available later on in the main series games, however, considering that Gamefreak isn't involved in this project (besides Junichi), there may be certain events that are given on Pokemon Go that won't be available in the main series games as well.

I think it is too soon to tell, as we don't know how much involvement Junichi will have with the app after it has been completed.

 

[Bittersweet]

I hate to be negative, but this sounds awful to me. It seems like a lot of trouble for not enough reward. The AR stuff just doesn't impress me, and I don't want to have to go traipsing all over town hunting for Pokemon in random locations. I live out in the country outside of a small town in KY. I don't want to have to make a special trip to get some limited-time Pokemon in my game (I get enough of that crap from those stupid GameStop giveaways.) Plus, if they actually have events like the Mewtwo one shown in the video, it would probably be nowhere near me anyway.

Then there's the FTP/micro-transactions bit. Even if they do it "right" where it's not a rip-off, it's still going to be more annoying and grind-y than a game you just pay for up-front. (And, yes, that is coming from someone who has over 130 hours in Pokemon Shuffle without having spent a single cent on it.)

The thought of "Pokemon in the real world" is fun to think about, but in execution, it's just another gimmick that will ultimately be less fun than the main series games or one of the good spin-offs.

I am not a mobile gamer. I have a cheap, pre-paid tracfone because it does the bear minimum I need a cell phone to do. I can't afford to buy an expensive Android or iOS device and pay a monthly bill to get some Pokemon game that's just going to be more of a headache. And before anyone starts in with the "you don't have to buy/play it" comments, that is true. But, I'm worried about the part where they said it would link to the main series games. The first time they have some special Pokemon that can ONLY be obtained through Pokemon GO, I'm going to be angry and upset because it's going to be like I'm being punished for not having a fancy smartphone.

As long as this is mostly a standalone thing that only allows you to get stuff in the main games that you can get through some other method anyway, then I am perfectly fine with it. Those who like this kind of thing can enjoy it and I can stick to what I enjoy and everyone is happy. My only fear is exclusive main series crossover stuff. (Can you imagine if the only way to get Volcanion was through this... thing.)

Anyway, that's my long, boring opinion. Ya'll can go ahead and start arguing with me now.

Couple of things I think are worth mentioning here. First being, gaming has always been a hobby for those who are at least somewhat financially privileged. Video games themselves have never been cheap, and neither have the devices used to play them. The statement "I'm going to be punished for not having a fancy smartphone" is... well, somewhat of a nebulous remark, though I can understand where the unease is coming from. When Pokemon moved to the 3DS... was that not "punishing" people who didn't own a 3DS yet? When a new iOS upgrade is "exclusive" to the new versions of iPhone, is that not "punishing" people who haven't paid to upgrade yet? I know it might feel like it, but you're not really being "punished" for not having an iPhone or Android. The game just happens to only be practical on those devices; a lot of people have them, they have location services/GPS, and mobile internet, which are all things this game requires.

Pokemon has made certain event Pokemon exclusive to other games before (like the Manaphy egg) which can be transferred to the main series games. Was I not being "punished" for not buying that game?

I know it feels like being punished, but equally, would it not be "punishing" people who have Pokemon GO and possibly paid for extra content if they were to NOT give them some exclusive Pokemon/content that were transferrable to their much loved main series games? It's not a punishment for people who only have a main series game and not a smartphone/Pokemon GO, so much as it's a reward for the players who have both. I know when it comes to the side-games, I am far more likely to buy them if they offer benefits in the main games.

I would feel pretty cheated if I got Pokemon GO and caught a really cool Pokemon with it, maybe a Mewtwo like in the trailer... and I couldn't transfer it to the main series game.

That said, if Pokemon's past is anything to go by, I highly doubt that the transferable 'mons will offer that much in the main series games. Lack of exclusive event Pokemon has never done that much to hinder enjoyment of the main games before, so I don't see why this app would be any different.