The Pokemon Switch Version

[Bolt Strike]

Pokemon isn't Nintendo. I mean that in sense they aren't made Nintendo EPD. Pokemon it's his beast with a creative team

Fire emblem and kirby are same situation they are 2nd party games. Don't know why people insist on Pokemon having a big change like a mario or zelda

Mario and zelda are like pixar

Pokemon is like dream works


If you anyone watches animated films you would understand this analogy

So? Pokemon isn't being compared to Mario and Zelda because of their developer, they're being compared to Mario and Zelda because they're high selling console exclusives. Pokemon is seen as a tentpole release for Nintendo platforms, something that can drive hardware sales almost singlehandedly. It's because of that that they're expected to be a competitive offering that takes full advantage of the hardware's power, and that means matching what BotW and Odyssey have done.

 

[MetroLSD]

He's the one who translated the Starters leak.

Was he the one who leaked it? Simply translating it doesn’t make him credible.

 

[TheMonster6893]

He didn't leak the starters as as I know, but he does have some ground to stand on apparently. I don't remember specifically, but he was around during XY's release period. He has also been around supposedly since gen 4. That's nother here nor there tho.

Anyway here's an interesting article from Eurogamer. Seems they have some follow up info as far as Pokemon stars is concerned. Sounds like things actually turned out for the best. Also it sounds like the Switch game has been in development for quite some time. Although part of it was Stars itself. So, what happened with Pokémon Stars?

 

[Silktree]

I don't see a reason to trust Eurogamer without actual evidence. For one thing, why weren't they informed of this before USUM's announcement? And the actual reasoning is fishy: Nintendo suddenly realized that they didn't need Stars and told Game Freak to turn it into USUM? Meanwhile, Masuda and Ishihara expressed so many doubts about the Switch that it's doubtful they would have played along to begin with, and after that, gone back to the 3DS when the Switch proved successful. It isn't devoid of logic, but it doesn't fit them at all.

 

[lavandula]

Was he the one who leaked it? Simply translating it doesn’t make him credible.

No, but he is in contact with some leakers, after he translated it.
Just like how I'm now in contact with some leakers after I translated the Chinese leaks.

 

[Minnale101]

So? Pokemon isn't being compared to Mario and Zelda because of their developer, they're being compared to Mario and Zelda because they're high selling console exclusives. Pokemon is seen as a tentpole release for Nintendo platforms, something that can drive hardware sales almost singlehandedly. It's because of that that they're expected to be a competitive offering that takes full advantage of the hardware's power, and that means matching what BotW and Odyssey have done.

And? Have you ever played zelda and mario before oddsey and botw? They ALWAYS were more ambitious than any Pokemon game. That's reality.

To say Pokemon has to change up formula drastically because 1st party games like mario and Zelda did it? I disagree

You realize even without drastic change Pokemon is gonna outsell oddsey and botw? Pokemon is way bigger than zelda in japan. First console Pokemon game hype

 

[Tuoko]

The remake pattern suggests 5 years between remakes. 5 years between FrLg and HgSs, And 5 years between HgSs and OrAs so presumably 5 years between OrAs and D/P remakes

That would put D/P remakes in 2019, And Generation 8 in 2020

Why are you even bothering to mention patterns, anyway? Besides, there's more than one "pattern" (FRLG was released 8 years after the originals, HGSS was released 10 years after, ORAS was releasing 12 years after, so that'd potentially put DP remakes at 14 years after, which would be 2020). Even then, Game Freak can just drop both of those patterns, so we shouldn't be relying on those.

I still doubt the Switch games are DP remakes, though, it makes more sense from a marketing perspective for the first games of a new system to be a new generation. Remakes would definitely be in the middle of a generation.

 

[Rosalia R]

Personally, I'll believe the battle system changes when I see them. GameFreak does stupid things sometimes, but I can't see them making a drastic, likely unpopular change to the fundamental gameplay and alienating VGC players. I could see moderate changes, as we get minor changes basically every generation like weather abilities and Megas' speed stats, but any new Gen 8 changes would almost certainly be of a lesser scope than the physical/special split.

edit - clarity

 

[Silktree]

but any new Gen 8 changes would almost certainly be of a lesser scope than the physical/special split.

I hope they don't share this mentality; the physical/special split wasn't even innovative or hard to implement. Enough of the gimmicks and power creep.

 

[Bolt Strike]

If their idea of disrupting the series is removing the depth from the combat system I will drop this series faster than a Snorlax falling from the top of Prism Tower. This series could definitely use a disruption, but not one that makes the series even MORE simplistic and casualized, that's the exact opposite kind of disruption this series needs.

 

[TheMonster6893]

From what he was saying it sounded less like they're simplifying the current system and more like they have a new one that isn't as complicated as yuo'd think. This whole battle changing systems came from when he mentioned it. Then when someone asked if it was anything like Pokken and he said that's kind of what he has heard. Then in a different tweet he is now saying it's been simplified? Sounds to me like he's saying it's similar to Pokken, but less complicated.

 

[Stratelier]

I could potentially see Pokemon doing an ARPG formula, a la FF12, Tales series... but there are so many things that would need to be reworked at a pretty fundamental level as compared to its current turn-based, round-based system.

 

[dvor]

if it's gonna change i'm pretty sure pokemon will be dead for me.
they gonna lose ton of players

 

[Ree.Dogg]

They can go in so many directions its not even funny, but that's what they like to do, keep everything off balance which is cool. I can't shake the feeling though, that its Gen 8 with a post game going back to Kanto, and its a bit of a stretch, but who knows, maybe its a 3 region game? New Region>Kanto>Johto, and if Generations hinted at anything, maybe we partner with Looker, Annabelle and International police again to stop Giovanni's new plans, then meet up with Silver again in Johto who met Looker already for a partnership? Then the story continues in the inevitable Gen 4 remake. I dunno, just throwing it out there, and if no one called this already and it turns out this is what happens, I called it, don't forget me lol

 

[Bolt Strike]

if it's gonna change i'm pretty sure pokemon will be dead for me.
they gonna lose ton of players

Yeah. Game Freak's made a lot of boneheaded decisions in the past but this is one decision that can legitimately hurt the series sales. The battling system is such a major part of the series' identity that I could see a lot of players getting fed up and stop buying over its removal. Casual players may not have the patience to adapt to something completely different. Competitive players have to completely rethink their strategies. Pokemon has a lot of brand power but even that couldn't save a complete shift in genre.

 

[Knightwolf09]

How would Pokemon favor as an action RPG now that I think about it?

 

[Mitchman]

Okay, BotW/Odyssey are not just about going back to basics. In fact, Odyssey really isn't doing that at all, if you're just looking for a Mario game that goes back to basics NSMB and 3D World are more in line with that philosophy. BotW and Odyssey are praised for a few reasons:

1. Because they apply the core appeal of their series to a console environment. It's not about which style was first. It's about which one fit a console game. BotW reverting to the same style as the original games made sense because it was a more open and explorable gameplay style, as opposed to the style more recent games had adopted which had a more scripted approach. For Odyssey though, the opposite made more sense. Traditional Mario gameplay is designed to be linear and bite sized, and fans weren't happy when they tried applying it to a 3D space with games like 3D Land and 3D World. So they went back to the Mario 64 style which allowed you to run and jump through 3D spaces and use your platforming skills to explore. There's nothing really "back to basics" about the latter, it's actually the more complex of the two styles. But what it does have in common with BotW is that it returned to a style of game that would appeal to more of a console audience.
2. They allow for an unheard of sense of freedom and experimentation. The game worlds are about as unrestrictive as you can get and the gameplay encourages you to adopt your own style of playing and come up with your own solutions to problems. BotW had a wide variety of items and intricate physics that allowed you to come up with multiple ways to attack an enemy or explore. Odyssey gave Mario a large repertoire of platforming moves and designed its levels so you could reach an objective in multiple ways.

The approach you're describing isn't like BotW and Odyssey, the changes in those games were radical departures from previous games, they weren't gradual trends towards that direction, they were sudden shifts. That's why they're described as "disruptive". So using Kanto as a way to ease into the console space isn't really using those games as inspiration. A BotW/Odyssey inspired Pokemon game would probably feature a more open and explorable region, less scripted events and more of a focus on adventure, and an overhaul of gameplay mechanics to allow players to come up with their own strategies in battle and ways of navigating the overworld. A Kanto sequel probably isn't the best candidate for such a game, this would be better suited for a new region.

That is what I meant. Back to the basics in terms of returning to a familiar base and radically altering what that is. BoTW went back to the concepts and world building of Zelda 1, ignoring the LttP template and ideas used for the series in the last 25 or so years. In the same way, Mario 64 and Sunshine's template was brought back in a dramatically new way, while the more linear goal focused games from Galaxy to 3D World were more in line as a 3D evolution of 2D Mario.
In that same way is what I am proposing.
Pokemon meanwhile, is an entirely different beast. Although it changes locales every 3 or 4 years, the regions are much more permanent or solid compared to the ever changing Hyrule and Mushroom Kingdom, so when faced with a radical change and evolution in the series, I fell that going forward with it while also introducing a new region might feel too alien for the majority. So going back to Kanto/Johto, and the less linear and less story focused more experience/exploration focused concepts of Gen 1/2 at the same time, while also making some of the hugest changes in the series, would be an excellent way to capture everyone's hearts.

As for changes to battles, turn based is going nowhere. But I have mentioned before, that they could add a time limit between moves, and introduce terrain positioning, adding a second layer of strengths and weaknesses on top of basic type effectiveness.

 

[Silktree]

adding a second layer of strengths and weaknesses on top of basic type effectiveness.

What would that entail?

 

[Bolt Strike]

That is what I meant. Back to the basics in terms of returning to a familiar base and radically altering what that is. BoTW went back to the concepts and world building of Zelda 1, ignoring the LttP template and ideas used for the series in the last 25 or so years. In the same way, Mario 64 and Sunshine's template was brought back in a dramatically new way, while the more linear goal focused games from Galaxy to 3D World were more in line as a 3D evolution of 2D Mario.
In that same way is what I am proposing.
Pokemon meanwhile, is an entirely different beast. Although it changes locales every 3 or 4 years, the regions are much more permanent or solid compared to the ever changing Hyrule and Mushroom Kingdom, so when faced with a radical change and evolution in the series, I fell that going forward with it while also introducing a new region might feel too alien for the majority. So going back to Kanto/Johto, and the less linear and less story focused more experience/exploration focused concepts of Gen 1/2 at the same time, while also making some of the hugest changes in the series, would be an excellent way to capture everyone's hearts.

Except Zelda and Mario's changes have little to do with their locations. Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom do change their designs over time, but in the former, each iteration of Hyrule is basically treated as a separate entity and in the latter, you don't actually spend a whole lot of time in the Mushroom Kingdom for that sense of alienation to set in (in 64 it's a hub world, but you only go there for the tutorial in Galaxy and for one level in Odyssey). Meanwhile in Pokemon's case, the fandom is used to constantly going to new locations, so this wouldn't feel alienating at all. The larger issue is going to be when going back to old regions, but that's workable.

 

[Mitchman]

What would that entail?

My concept is taking the already existing rock-paper-scissor strategy, and enriching it. Some examples I already mentioned.
-You are in a forest, and a wild Pokemon attacks you. Its a nasty little flying type. While fighting it, you attack with a rock type move, do some damage, and the turn ends. Annoyed at your attack, it jumps up into a tree. Now projectile based attacks, like rock type moves, are less effective because its high on up. But electric move are also more effective and have way higher accuracy, as the tree acts as a grounding rod.
-Now then. You are out on a route, minding your own damn business, when walking into some tall grass, a bug Pokemon pops up. You luckily have a fire type with you, so while attacking it, which is still in the grass, your fire move does massive damage, because the grass also goes ablaze. It quickly moves out of the grass, into the dirt of the road. Now your fire attack does less damage and has a chance of not working cause the bugger threw some up into the air.
-While walking in a dark cavern, a sneaky little bastard pops up. As a dark type, it naturally has the advantage, attacking and retreating into the dark ad nauseum. But when your turn comes along, you guide your Pokemon to a spot that has light coming through the cavern roof. Now it can't attack with such high accuracy and you can even dodge it! Naturally, electric Pokemon and Fighting types have less of a problem in such a situation, either giving off enough light to catch it or sensing the opponents movements.
There is a huge amount of situations they can use with terrain strategies and movement, and it adds a level of depth that is not too different, while also being entirely new to the franchise.

Except Zelda and Mario's changes have little to do with their locations. Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom do change their designs over time, but in the former, each iteration of Hyrule is basically treated as a separate entity and in the latter, you don't actually spend a whole lot of time in the Mushroom Kingdom for that sense of alienation to set in (in 64 it's a hub world, but you only go there for the tutorial in Galaxy and for one level in Odyssey). Meanwhile in Pokemon's case, the fandom is used to constantly going to new locations, so this wouldn't feel alienating at all. The larger issue is going to be when going back to old regions, but that's workable.

Right. The changes have little to do with location, and so would Pokemons. However I feel no matter how independent they are of where in the world it takes place, Pokemon does tend to need a strong dose of nostalgia to have an idea accepted, and if they change how to build a region, that is how routes connect to towns and cities, what even makes a route a route, etc, then using an existing region first and THEN going for an entirely new world to further said changes is the more sensible, albeit safe, choice.