Official Pre-Pokémon Sword & Pokémon Shield Speculation & Leaks thread

[Boss1708]

I am a bit divided on this.

On the one hand, I am perfectly fine with the way Pokémon currently works in terms of unlocking chunks of the map one after the other. I generally like to be told where to go in Pokémon games, instead of having to make choices where to go first, etc, and people should stop forcing this meme that this is a flaw and a negative, just because they don't like it. Not everybody chooses open world over the current formula. Please remember this.

On the other hand, though, I am interested in how an open world main series Pokémon game would feel. I have an idea of how Open World games function because I have played Ocarina of Time. However, I am not convinced that map design will be beneficial for this franchise... The open fields of Hyrule, for example, were quite long and tedious to traverse. It was basically just walking and walking and walking forward until reaching the destination. Nothing else to do. And this is not something Pokémon would benefit from.

But I am not opposed to at least one main series Open World game, just to see if the concept works for Pokémon.

 

[Oriden]

Is letting your character go streaking not the pinnacle of open-word games?

I now no longer consider it full character customization if my character can't run around in the buff. =P

I am a bit divided on this.

On the one hand, I am perfectly fine with the way Pokémon currently works in terms of unlocking chunks of the map one after the other. I generally like to be told where to go in Pokémon games, and people should stop forcing this meme that this is a flaw and a negative, just because they don't like it. Not everybody chooses open world over the current formula. Please remember this.

On the other hand, though, I am interested in how an open world main series Pokémon game would feel. I have an idea of how Open World games function because I have played Ocarina of Time. However, I am not convinced that map design will be beneficial for this franchise... The open fields of Hyrule, for example, were quite long and tedious to traverse. It was basically just walking and walking and walking forward until reaching the destination. Nothing else to do. And this is not something Pokémon would benefit from.

But I am not opposed to at least one main series Open World game, just to see if the concept works for Pokémon.

I think there's a difference between being told where to go and being forced to go there. Because being told where to go could easily be achieved by putting a marker on a map while still allowing you to go off and explore. Pokemon doesn't do that, however, it really just strong arms you into going where it wants you to without the option to go anywhere else- that's where the flaw is, because it does royally kill the enjoyment of exploring to essentially be dragged along on a guided tour of a region.

And yeah, I think the huge fields in the Zelda series are really a flaw of that particular series' maps rather than a flaw of open world games in general... if the areas were proportioned well without any areas that are just huge and empty, then I think Pokemon could create an open world game that would be fully enjoyable to travel around and explore.

 

[prog rocker]

On one hand, I'm like Meta Boss and like being told where to go, specially if it has a nice storyline or is a fun game like Mother or Final Fantasy.

On the other hand I would like a region where you can challenge any gym/trial/whatever they do this time in any way I want it since I sometimes like to try doing things randomly (no, Gen I/III Kanto and OoT Hyrule don't count for me since it wasn't done on purpose in those games). It would make replays more interesting instead of, you know, doing the same thing over and over again, and knowing myself, I will play those games again. The problem with this is that I feel that they will sacrifice the storyline if they do this and I don't want to return to the pre-Gen IV days in those regards.

 

[Poke Dragon]

The reason why I don't want Pokemon to become completely Open-World is that story elements might be sacrificed, that's what happened with Breath of the Wild where the player had to look for story elements to get the full jest of what was happening before and during the events. This is why they should let Monolith Soft help if they plan on making Pokemon Open-World.

 

[Stratelier]

I think there's a difference between being told where to go and being forced to go there. Because being told where to go could easily be achieved by putting a marker on a map while still allowing you to go off and explore. Pokemon doesn't do that, however, it really just strong arms you into going where it wants you to without the option to go anywhere else- that's where the flaw is, because it does royally kill the enjoyment of exploring to essentially be dragged along on a guided tour of a region.

That is the difference, all right. There's a huge conceptual difference between the game asking you to go somewhere you have access to, and the game actively prohibiting you from going somewhere you're not.

That guy with the Stoutland. The kahuna blocking off Diglett's Cave just inside its entrance. Lillie standing along a geographic chokepoint insisting that you go check out Malie Garden. Stuff like that. Seriously, why are you not allowed to explore the Grand Hotel on Akala island until after defeating the kahuna?

 

[QueenAria]

This

The reason why I don't want Pokemon to become completely Open-World is that story elements might be sacrificed, that's what happened with Breath of the Wild where the player had to look for story elements to get the full jest of what was happening before and during the events. This is why they should let Monolith Soft help if they plan on making Pokemon Open-World.

 

[Oriden]

The reason why I don't want Pokemon to become completely Open-World is that story elements might be sacrificed, that's what happened with Breath of the Wild where the player had to look for story elements to get the full jest of what was happening before and during the events. This is why they should let Monolith Soft help if they plan on making Pokemon Open-World.

I think, as long as they do point you to the next plot point, that they wouldn't have to sacrifice story at all. Like... again, have characters tell you where the next plot thing is and then put a marker on the map. So you can either follow the story or go off and do your own thing. What might be the best thing for this would be separating gyms from the story, so you don't have to beat them to further the plot and can have more freedom to challenge them in whatever order. I think some gyms should still be tougher than others and maybe require a certain minimum of gym badges before you can challenge them, but in general there should be more options of what gym to fight when instead of doing it in the same exact order every time.

 

[Karamazov]

story elements might be sacrificed,

Now I want open world even more. The Pokemon stories are almost always generic and formulaic, sometimes with plot holes, poor characters or questionable decisions. Plus Gen VII (and to a much lesser extent, Gen VI) strangled us with constant dialogue and characters you had to babysit. Stories are not Game Freak's strong suit, and I'd actually love for the games to feature even less story, because stories and railroading can and has held back game design.

Something like Elder Scrolls would be the golden medium: a free-roaming game with bunch of stories and sideplots you can follow, along with a main plot you can get to any time. It also lets you customize your experience even further.

 

[Feign]

I am a bit divided on this.

On the one hand, I am perfectly fine with the way Pokémon currently works in terms of unlocking chunks of the map one after the other. I generally like to be told where to go in Pokémon games, instead of having to make choices where to go first, etc, and people should stop forcing this meme that this is a flaw and a negative, just because they don't like it. Not everybody chooses open world over the current formula. Please remember this.

On the other hand, though, I am interested in how an open world main series Pokémon game would feel. I have an idea of how Open World games function because I have played Ocarina of Time. However, I am not convinced that map design will be beneficial for this franchise... The open fields of Hyrule, for example, were quite long and tedious to traverse. It was basically just walking and walking and walking forward until reaching the destination. Nothing else to do. And this is not something Pokémon would benefit from.

But I am not opposed to at least one main series Open World game, just to see if the concept works for Pokémon.

I'd argue that open fields like Hyrule would be inherently more interesting because they have potential teammates you can pick up along the way. Zelda's fields are about surviving until you reach the dungeon. Only then will you get the new item. Breath of the Wild "fixes" this by having weapons and treasures hidden everywhere. It even takes a cue from Pokemon by allowing you to take the weapon of the enemy you defeat. However, it really did hurt the story. And though Zelda has rarely ever been dense, the regions have been intricate. So much in Breath of the Wild is reused assets.

I think what might work for Pokemon is to have a large hub field. Like if Unova's Entralink had been removed and replaced with a giant area that connected all the routes, without removing any existing ones.

Really, the benefit of an open world Pokemon region would be the merging of present and past pokemon philosophy. While the games have gotten worse when it comes to exploration, they've really gotten into Pokemon habitats. I think if you have exploration that rewards you with something like a unique grotto filled with a family of rare water pokemon, it could enrich the experience leaps and bounds. SuMo were so on rails, but the areas were lush and full of life. It felt like walking through a zoo or reading a pop-up book. All they need to do is expand on that.

 

[prog rocker]

Now I want open world even more. The Pokemon stories are almost always generic and formulaic, sometimes with plot holes, poor characters or questionable decisions. Plus Gen VII (and to a much lesser extent, Gen VI) strangled us with constant dialogue and characters you had to babysit. Stories are not Game Freak's strong suit, and I'd actually love for the games to feature even less story, because stories and railroading can and has held back game design.

Something like Elder Scrolls would be the golden medium: a free-roaming game with bunch of stories and sideplots you can follow, along with a main plot you can get to any time. It also lets you customize your experience even further.

1- I know, but for me some kind of story > no story at all. It's the reason why I can't play Gen I, Stadium, most Mario games or the first Zelda without forcing myself to do it (and trying to not to fall asleep). Constant dialogue never bothered me in any way, but that may be because I grew up with JRPGs and Adventure games like Ace Attorney or Zero Escape. Same with cutscenes. Then again, that's my personal preference and I respect your point of view.

2- I would like something like that, it would be perfect, but knowing Game Freak, it will be a plotless game like Gen I and I'll put it away almost immediately. Like I always say, I want to be proved wrong here. I could be surprised, right?

 

[Oriden]

Now I want open world even more. The Pokemon stories are almost always generic and formulaic, sometimes with plot holes, poor characters or questionable decisions. Plus Gen VII (and to a much lesser extent, Gen VI) strangled us with constant dialogue and characters you had to babysit. Stories are not Game Freak's strong suit, and I'd actually love for the games to feature even less story, because stories and railroading can and has held back game design.

Something like Elder Scrolls would be the golden medium: a free-roaming game with bunch of stories and sideplots you can follow, along with a main plot you can get to any time. It also lets you customize your experience even further.

I definitely want a story but I also want them to cut back on the dialogue- or consider voice acting to make the cut scenes more entertaining than watching a group of characters flail about generically on a screen while you try to make the text move as fast as possible. I really like your suggestion of a free-roam game with pursuing the stories being kind of an optional thing. Though perhaps not optional if you want the box legendary, because it seems like that should always be tied to the main plot as a reward for getting through it.

They also really need to just improve on their stories in general.

 

[prog rocker]

Voice acting in Pokémon can work if they don't touch the Pokémon themselves. And if they do, use normal sounds or something instead of having them say their name. They can also learn what not to do by hearing Suikoden Tierkreis's voice acting. To summarize their problems:

1- Some characters speaklikethiswithoutanypauseorcommas. Sieg (the main character) does this the most. Thankfully fixed towards the end of the game.
2- Some characters sound bored IIRC. Apparently a problem with every single dub since there's always that one character that sounds like this. Mostly averted in the LA dubs I have heard.
3- Don't use what I think were early names or at least early pronunciation of the character's names. It was weird hearing "Deirdre" but reading "Diadora" in the text box.

I also hope if they do this, the LA Spanish translation can get nice VAs that can actually pronounce the names of the Pokémon and the characters. Go listen to Spanish Smash's narrator's voice acting, he can't pronounce anything well! Believe me, I had to put Smash back to English after hearing his voice. C'mon dudes, you can do much better than that. Maybe I could play the game in Spanish again if they do that.

 

[Aulos]

I guess for me, I just never came to expect story from Nintendo games. It was never at all the draw to their games for me. So with Nintendo games, I'd always prefer a solid gameplay experience over too much focus on the story. The sad thing is I think GF has balanced this with Pokemon before. I have always adored Black/White for their gameplay. However, a lot of people have said they really liked the story and characters, too. This is just in stark contrast to Sun, where I just didn't find the actual game to be as fun, and when GF made the big selling point of US/UM about story changes, I knew those games were not for me.

Stories are fine by me and it's not like I don't pay attention to them. Again, I just think that games like Pokemon and Mario (especially Mario, RPGs aside - which the first two Paper Mario's are so much fun altogether, so there's a balance there, as well) are traditionally more about gameplay than story, and when you make the games more about the story and let the gameplay become tedious and frustrating, you've lost me.

The story has to be exceptionally engrossing to be able to even to begin to make up for tedious, frustrating gameplay, and I'm sorry, but for me, Pokemon hasn't really ever been there. A game like Persona 5, I'll let some frustrating aspects slide, but Pokemon, I want good gameplay.

 

[prog rocker]

Yeah, a balance between gameplay and story sounds nice and I hope they pull it. The problem is that for me, I don't know how to put it (but I'll still try), I need a reason to keep playing. Let's say we get a plotless but open world game: I would play it for maybe one or two days before asking myself "why am I doing this?" and move on to other games. Being the best trainer? I have no interest in competitive playing. Challenge the Battle Facilities (knowing Game Freak it will only be a Tower and maybe a Factory with another name)? It gets boring after a while. Completing the dex? That can only work for some time. I would feel like I wasted my time even if I try to cripple myself to make the game more challenging.

On the other hand, with a story no matter how cliché, I want to see it through the end unless the gameplay is really bad (can't think of any examples I played), I suck at the game (Fire Emblem, Shin Megami Tensei) or is just hellishly tedious (Final Fantasy II). I feel like I achieved something, instead of just pressing buttons in front of a screen. I guess I'm just weird, or at least don't know how to explain myself.

That doesn't mean that I don't have exceptions. Smash is the biggest example. Theatrhythm and Rock Band are other games I like that don't have plot, but that may be because I love the music in those games. Spyro and Super Mario 64 are possibly only exceptions because I played those games in my childhood and couldn't complete them until I replayed them last year.

Sorry for the continuous long posts, I guess I need to learn how to summarize things.

 

[Oriden]

Yeah, a balance between gameplay and story sounds nice and I hope they pull it. The problem is that for me, I don't know how to put it (but I'll still try), I need a reason to keep playing. Let's say we get a plotless but open world game: I would play it for maybe one or two days before asking myself "why am I doing this?" and move on to other games. Being the best trainer? I have no interest in competitive playing. Challenge the Battle Facilities (knowing Game Freak it will only be a Tower and maybe a Factory with another name)? It gets boring after a while. Completing the dex? That can only work for some time. I would feel like I wasted my time even if I try to cripple myself to make the game more challenging.

On the other hand, with a story no matter how cliché, I want to see it through the end unless the gameplay is really bad (can't think of any examples I played), I suck at the game (Fire Emblem, Shin Megami Tensei) or is just hellishly tedious (Final Fantasy II). I feel like I achieved something, instead of just pressing buttons in front of a screen. I guess I'm just weird, or at least don't know how to explain myself.

That doesn't mean that I don't have exceptions. Smash is the biggest example. Theatrhythm and Rock Band are other games I like that don't have plot, but that may be because I love the music in those games. Spyro and Super Mario 64 are possibly only exceptions because I played those games in my childhood and couldn't complete them until I replayed them last year.

Sorry for the continuous long posts, I guess I need to learn how to summarize things.

I totally get what you mean about a plotless game, because I get that feeling while playing Minecraft. It's like you play and play and play while you have a goal in mind, but once you start to run out of goals or things start to be too easy, you look around the big open world and start to wonder why you bother. A good story at least gives you something more engaging.

I think they could really improve long term play-ability if they were to separate the story from the gyms. So instead of progressing through gyms and the story at the same time, you could pursue one goal or the other separately. That would allow people to take on the league first and then go back for the story later, or do the story first and then go back for the gyms... or maybe you don't give a rat's ass about the story and just want to do the league? Or the opposite. Or maybe one day you don't feel like doing story things and just want to go challenge a gym leader. It's nice to have options of what you want to work on instead of a linear progression keeping you from moving forward because you haven't done the story thing before challenging the gym.

 

[PocketMonster]

I think if they dont hand hold through the game or story and stop the head bobbing during cut scenes, if they must have cut scenes, it will be fine. (please no voice actors gamefreak) i love the text/reading aspect of pokemon.
one of the reasons why I play pokemon is for the story. Sun and moon did way to much hand-holding, limited exploration, and just forced you into things all the time. For that particular game, I do think the story got too big with the Ultra Beasts, but I think the hand-holding on main things is what lowered my like of Sun and Moon.
(I don't like Ultra Beasts as catchable pokemon to be honest if they must exist, just me)

like
Hoenn
Unova
Johto
Kalos
Alola <--
Sinnoh (this can easily move up above Johto if they do a remake of D/P with better pokemon placement on map)
dislike

never played Kanto

As for an open world game with pokemon I dont like the idea. I would like a hybrid of open world and whatever you call pokemon games now. Maybe unlocking "open world" sections of the map??
My concern is too many wide open spaces with not much to do beyond encountering wild pokemon or a few trainers or being able to go all over a map before hitting any gym or whatever. Dont like that.
Side Stories and side missions that are optional would be awesome. Esp it if included exploration. (kinda like the ruins of Alph in Johto was optional) I would like to see more of that in each game. Esp if they still leave you with some mystery at the end of whatever story/mission/exploration. Not everything in life has or needs answers.
we also need post game stuff beyond some battle tower thing in my opinion. Though it was short, I loved the Delta Episode of ORAS and how it was post game stuff.

sorry if I posted any of this before here. I hop on more than one forum site.

 

[prog rocker]

Well, optional areas in games are most of the time good, but I hope they are not completely forgettable like Kala'e Bay or the Scorched Slab. I keep forgetting those places exist.

 

[Oriden]

I think if they dont hand hold through the game or story and stop the head bobbing during cut scenes, if they must have cut scenes, it will be fine. (please no voice actors gamefreak) i love the text/reading aspect of pokemon.
one of the reasons why I play pokemon is for the story. Sun and moon did way to much hand-holding, limited exploration, and just forced you into things all the time. For that particular game, I do think the story got too big with the Ultra Beasts, but I think the hand-holding on main things is what lowered my like of Sun and Moon.
(I don't like Ultra Beasts as catchable pokemon to be honest if they must exist, just me)

like
Hoenn
Unova
Johto
Kalos
Alola <--
Sinnoh (this can easily move up above Johto if they do a remake of D/P with better pokemon placement on map)
dislike

never played Kanto

As for an open world game with pokemon I dont like the idea. I would like a hybrid of open world and whatever you call pokemon games now. Maybe unlocking "open world" sections of the map??
My concern is too many wide open spaces with not much to do beyond encountering wild pokemon or a few trainers or being able to go all over a map before hitting any gym or whatever. Dont like that.
Side Stories and side missions that are optional would be awesome. Esp it if included exploration. (kinda like the ruins of Alph in Johto was optional) I would like to see more of that in each game. Esp if they still leave you with some mystery at the end of whatever story/mission/exploration. Not everything in life has or needs answers.
we also need post game stuff beyond some battle tower thing in my opinion. Though it was short, I loved the Delta Episode of ORAS and how it was post game stuff.

sorry if I posted any of this before here. I hop on more than one forum site.

Voice acting would make the cut scenes easier to enjoy for me, so maybe still have the text at the bottom but have the option to turn voices on or off? Some people are deaf or hard of hearing, so it wouldn't make sense to completely remove the text anyway- having the voices just makes it a less boring read for some people, and I think could help with animating the characters more by giving them more emotion to go off of.

Also heck yes, I completely agree on the catching Ultra Beasts- I liked the concept before I learned that Beast Balls were a thing. >.> Bleh.

And I think open world would be a great idea as long as they populate it enough and don't make it too massive. Like we definitely don't need BotW level of huge, just more open, with free exploration and enough things to make it so there aren't any areas that feel very empty. Because those empty areas aren't necessarily a problem with open world, it's more a problem with the ratio between map size and points of interest. And as long as there's an in-game map highlighting towns and plot destinations, navigation shouldn't be a problem for the people who are worried about that.

 

[Bolt Strike]

And I think open world would be a great idea as long as they populate it enough and don't make it too massive. Like we definitely don't need BotW level of huge, just more open, with free exploration and enough things to make it so there aren't any areas that feel very empty. Because those empty areas aren't necessarily a problem with open world, it's more a problem with the ratio between map size and points of interest. And as long as there's an in-game map highlighting towns and plot destinations, navigation shouldn't be a problem for the people who are worried about that.

This. The emptiness is more a problem of content density, and they can fix that by decreasing the size of the world and trimming the fat. They can still make the game open world without making it empty and desolate.

 

[Stratelier]

Very true -- open-world maps are often described as having a "thirty second rule", in the sense that the player should always be able to find something (within a geographic area of one square minute) to engage their interest.