Your controversial opinions

[Bolt Strike]

They can barely handle one region in one game, two regions in one game would break current Gamefreak.

Nah. They'd just give us two half-sized regions instead of one full sized region (which is kind of how Kanto and Johto combined feel compared to Hoenn and Sinnoh anyway, before they started toning things down with Unova and later making the jump to 3D). Double the regions doesn't necessarily mean double the content, GSC just gave the illusion of double the content while both regions felt shallow, and even HGSS' expansions just made it feel more like Hoenn/Sinnoh size instead of two full regions combined. Game Freak would be smart enough not to fall into that trap.

 

[Sheep40]

Nah. They'd just give us two half-sized regions instead of one full sized region (which is kind of how Kanto and Johto combined feel compared to Hoenn and Sinnoh anyway, before they started toning things down with Unova and later making the jump to 3D). Double the regions doesn't necessarily mean double the content, GSC just gave the illusion of double the content while both regions felt shallow, and even HGSS' expansions just made it feel more like Hoenn/Sinnoh size instead of two full regions combined. Game Freak would be smart enough not to fall into that trap.

Exactly what I said. There is also literally a part of the world just built for that premise (and it's popular with Japanese tourists)

 

[Rockapheller]

"But this is a game for kids" counter-argument has always rubbed me on the wrong side. It is not false by any means, but these arguments make kids look extremely incapable of understanding some game mechanics whether simple or relatively complicated. The last time I saw this was on Reddit when someone criticized the gym leaders' tera types as they are very predictable and said how more engaging it would be if the gym leaders terastallized their Pokémon to other types than they are specialized in, and someone came up with an anti-argument, claiming the games are meant for the kids. To be honest it looks extremely irrelevant argument to bring on the table, at least to me.

The Pokémon games are not as simple as you probably imagine. The natures, EVs, IVS, the lore of competitive playing are all very complex things. There are 20-min long instructions on YouTube how to breed the perfect Pokémon in each game. The abilities, the items, egg moves, other things I can't think of right now, they all make things more complicated "for kids". Just because gym leaders use a different tera type than one you can predict in advance does not make games unplayable for the kids.

If I created a thread 6 years ago and said there should be an evolution method where a Pokémon loses at least 49 HP, but does not faint, and then you walk under a bridge or something, and that triggers the evolution, some people would probably tell me that these games are made for kids, and this is too complex for them, until we actually get it. Compared to this, gym leaders using a different tera type would be much less complex for them to understand and adapt.

I don't think the kids are as "distracted" or silly as most people assume they are, and I genuinely believe the reason why Battle Frontier was not added in Hoenn remakes was not because the kids have low attention span, but because Game Freak had to meet the deadline.

 

[Daren]

If I created a thread 6 years ago and said there should be an evolution method where a Pokémon loses at least 49 HP, but does not faint, and then you walk under a bridge or something, and that triggers the evolution, some people would probably tell me that these games are made for kids, and this is too complex for them, until we actually get it. Compared to this, gym leaders using a different tera type would be much less complex for them to understand and adapt.

I don't think the kids are as "distracted" or silly as most people assume they are, and I genuinely believe the reason why Battle Frontier was not added in Hoenn remakes was not because the kids have low attention span, but because Game Freak had to meet the deadline.

Yeah, the first problem is one of history; many NES games were aimed at kids (probably even more strongly than the modern gaming scene) and were often brutally difficult compared to recent games. There are individual stages in some of those harder than the entirety of some modern games.

Besides, if it was just difficulty why make obnoxious Raid battles, remove the ability to grow berries, and make TMs harder to get?
I'm a good 90% convinced GameFreak slammed into the same 2D to 3D transition pains a lot of companies did, and still hasn't recovered.

 

[Norzan]

Besides, if it was just difficulty why make obnoxious Raid battles, remove the ability to grow berries, and make TMs harder to get?

Gamefreak's design mentality is all over the place at this point and it feels there's no clear vision of what they want the games to be. They make stuff like forced Exp. Share and create many sources of quick exp so that people can basically breeze through the main story with no challenge to get into the competitive part of the game faster, but then turn around and make BP grinding obnoxiously slow in Sword and Shield when you need BP to get items and other stuff for competitive.

These clashing design choices are becoming more infuriating to me personally and at this point i just want someone to come in and actually create a consistent vision for the series. Basically telling Gamefreak to pick a lane.

 

[Greninjaman]

Gamefreak's design mentality is all over the place at this point and it feels there's no clear vision of what they want the games to be. They make stuff like forced Exp. Share and create many sources of quick exp so that people can basically breeze through the main story with no challenge to get into the competitive part of the game faster, but then turn around and make BP grinding obnoxiously slow in Sword and Shield when you need BP to get items and other stuff for competitive.

These clashing design choices are becoming more infuriating to me personally and at this point i just want someone to come in and actually create a consistent vision for the series. Basically telling Gamefreak to pick a lane.

You know you don't HAVE to use the EXP Candy, right? You also don't have to battle every wild Pokemon and trainer you encounter.

 

[Norzan]

You also don't have to battle every wild Pokemon and trainer you encounter.

Telling me to skip basically what is half of the game which is battling trainers doesn't make any of these decisions good. And forced Exp. Share and affection ensure that difficulty is pretty much non-existant.

Your argument also has nothing to do with what i was talking about. I was talking about clashing design choices, not that if i'm forced to use exp candies or not.

 

[Mr. MoonStone]

You also don't have to battle every wild Pokemon and trainer you encounter.

Yeah, not a big fan of this argument personally. I get what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that this is a good compromise.

 

[Pasio]

More than anything, I think they removed the Battle Frontier thinking it was redundant at this point in belief that not enough people would spend time on it compared to what else they could spend time on. Gen 3 didn't have feasible enough pvp, trading, collecting, or shiny hunting mechanics for many people to focus on, so back then, the Battle Frontier was virtually the only thing keeping the game strong after the main adventure. Gen 6 arguably has the best pvp, trading, collecting, and shiny hunting methods in the entire series simultaneously, and for a long while it's what people really cared for more in a Pokémon game. Most of these mechanics have remained at least somewhat feasible in comparison to Gen 3 since.

This also explains why the Battle Frontier hasn't been seen in  any game after Gen 4. We got the PWT in Gen 5 but honestly that's more of like a Battle Maison-esque thing with nostalgia fuel thrown into the mix, than a entire island with 7 different metagames to master. PWT would not be placed on that same pedestal at all if it had no Gym Leaders or Champions and everyone there were regular trainers instead. Well anyway, I don't think the removal of the Battle Frontier was just a time constraint if it hasn't shown up ever since, but rather, Gamefreak found this to be too big of a project to be worth it nowadays when the vast majority of players will rather spend their time doing something else, like pvp, shiny hunting, completing the dex, playing another game, etc.

 

[Daren]

More than anything, I think they removed the Battle Frontier thinking it was redundant at this point in belief that not enough people would spend time on it compared to what else they could spend time on. Gen 3 didn't have feasible enough pvp, trading, collecting, or shiny hunting mechanics for many people to focus on, so back then, the Battle Frontier was virtually the only thing keeping the game strong after the main adventure. Gen 6 arguably has the best pvp, trading, collecting, and shiny hunting methods in the entire series simultaneously, and for a long while it's what people really cared for more in a Pokémon game. Most of these mechanics have remained at least somewhat feasible in comparison to Gen 3 since.

This also explains why the Battle Frontier hasn't been seen in  any game after Gen 4. We got the PWT in Gen 5 but honestly that's more of like a Battle Maison-esque thing with nostalgia fuel thrown into the mix, than a entire island with 7 different metagames to master. PWT would not be placed on that same pedestal at all if it had no Gym Leaders or Champions and everyone there were regular trainers instead. Well anyway, I don't think the removal of the Battle Frontier was just a time constraint if it hasn't shown up ever since, but rather, Gamefreak found this to be too big of a project to be worth it nowadays when the vast majority of players will rather spend their time doing something else, like pvp, shiny hunting, completing the dex, playing another game, etc.

Can it actually be proved that more people like shiny hunting or multiplayer functions than the BF? I never got a survey myself despite being signed up to that trainer newsletter back in the day, and the gen 3 and 4 games couldn't as far as I'm aware track what players were doing like some modern PC games rather creepily do.
And considering the games underwent a price hike in gen 8 shouldn't we be expect them to put time into big projects for it instead of minimal effort chaff like raising the shiny rate?

 

[Sheep40]

Game Freak is Japanese Bethesda. Somebody should make an it just works meme or equivalent about them. Even Bethesda iterates more on it's gameplay than Game Freak.

 

[Daren]

You've said they're Bethesda before--and confusingly, also said they never will be Bethesda--but you're going to need to explain what you mean because I see next to no similarity between the two. Pokémon has nowhere near Bethesda levels of bugginess (and before you bring up R/B/Y--they had nothing on Daggerfall when it comes to bugs, and it even came out the same year as Red/Green) and has never been as ambitious, doesn't radically alter games between entries to the same extent...so what exactly do you mean by "Japanese Bethesda"?

 

[Sheep40]

The former referred to their "creative" process, the latter to their lack of ambition.

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

Going to go beyond my normal controversial opinion of "Pokémon games should have all the old Pokémon like they used to" and say that not only should Scarlett and Violet have all the Pokémon patched in but also Sword and Shield should too including the gen 9 Pokémon. If patching in Pokémon is allowed, they should allow gen 8 and 9 to trade and battle with each other. A Dragon Ball 3ds fighting game was patched to be able play against people using One Piece 3ds fighting game so, patching in multi-player between two different games with different mechanics and movesets within the same genre and developer was done before.

 

[Norzan]

Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet didn't deserve DLC, what they deserved was actually be finished. Have a polished release mixed with actual substantial content (side activities with substance) and then maybe you could consider DLC.

 

[Pasio]

Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet didn't deserve DLC, what they deserved was actually be finished. Have a polished release mixed with actual substantial content (side activities with substance) and then maybe you could consider DLC.

Pokemon DLC is a scam. Especially with the way Scarlet and Violet are doing it. They removed basic content (ex: battle facility) and story elements (ex: any remote lore explaining what makes the box arts legendary) of the game that every previous major mainline series game had as a default. Basic staples of the game every previous entry either had right from the get go or with like 1 free update, just to repackage it as $35 DLC. People are having to pay $95 to get the same levels of content previous entries had for $40.

 

[Norzan]

$35 DLC

$95 to get the same levels of content previous entries had for $40.

Are you serious? Just lol.

The DLC is 5 bucks short of being the same price as the 2D games and the 3DS games. Like, the hell?

 

[Pasio]

Are you serious? Just lol.

Unfortunately yes, and it somehow got more expensive than Sword and Shield.

 

[skynerel]

I think gens 7 through 9 have the worst pokemon designs. Not that I don’t like some of them of course, but for the third time in a row I find myself disliking most of the designs.

 

[Die-Hard Dragon Devotee]

I think gens 7 through 9 have the worst pokemon designs. Not that I don’t like some of them of course, but for the third time in a row I find myself disliking most of the designs.

Well, I guess they're just running out of ideas after 27 years. Plus, the games release too quickly now, giving them less time for working on designs. But yeah, they're definitely getting a little less....creative, I guess?