Pokemon Corner

[Eschaton]

Well, it was years ago.  Maybe a feature in which holding the button skipped the pauses between messages and animations, and played the animations *faster* would be preferable.  Again, I'm not the guys at Game Freak; I'm not removed from the rest of the plebs, sitting on a mile-high pile of money.

 

[Tai_MT]

If you set your message speed to the fastest it can go, the pauses between attacks is actually shorter.  Likewise, there's a feature to turn off animations entirely if you're not interested in waiting the 5 seconds it actually takes to complete most every battle in the game, save for Gym Leaders and Elite Four.

On top of the "faster text speed" option, you can actually rapidly tap the button to fill in the entire box of text all at once in most instances.

Call me a jerk, but I've often wondered why people wanted to speed through Battles in Pokémon to begin with.  I mean, seriously, most combat does NOT last long in that game to begin with.  Unless you have no idea how to play the games, you'll find most of your Pokémon are overleveled for every single area you come across, so battle never lasts more than maybe two turns, and simple attacks like "Quick Attack" can usually slaughter most mons fairly easily.  To me the complaint reads something like this:  "What!?  Battle lasts five seconds!?  I WANT IT TO LAST ONE SECOND!  FIVE SECONDS ISN'T FAST ENOUGH!".  To me, it seems a bit silly and arbitrary.  It's especially that way once you hit about midway through most of the games and the complaint of "moves that hit 2 to 5 times take too long to execute!" disappears because very few (if any) of the mons in the wild or on trainers carry these moves anymore due to their absolute terrible status of weakling attacks.  Maybe if their power was upped to 55 a hit, they'd be worth carrying, but at a paltry 25 or 35, they're just not worth the time.

 

[Eschaton]

We want to speed through the battles because there's no real strategy to Pokemon; unless you're fighting a Gym Leader or a human being, just use the strongest attacks that are super effective (and it's always 'super effective' not 'hitting the weak point for massive damage').

There are occasional difficulty spikes that call for a real strategy, but by then, the player isn't used to applying strategy.  They just want to get to point where they can catch a Larvitar and a Dratini.

If the game were always strategic - that is, going beyond the application of elemental rock-paper-scizzors - then it would call for me paying more attention and not speeding through the fights.  I mean EVERY fight.  Why is the PC the only competent Trainer?  The only challenges are Trainers whose mons are exempt from the rules (LANCE!).  Why is the gameplay shallow?

Because it's for kids.

There, I said it.

 

[NPC]

It's for kids, because that's the biggest target audience you can get. With all the different types of people, they pick the audience with the least amount of differences. It's all about the kids. Game Freak was just nice enough to add features for those who want to go further and enjoy the game differently.

 

[Seacliff]

Because it's for kids.

It is targeted for kids, true, but I would guess that 85% of all Pokemon players are 13 or older who have been playing the series since THEY were kids. >.>

 

[Tai_MT]

We want to speed through the battles because there's no real strategy to Pokemon; unless you're fighting a Gym Leader or a human being, just use the strongest attacks that are super effective (and it's always 'super effective' not 'hitting the weak point for massive damage').

There are occasional difficulty spikes that call for a real strategy, but by then, the player isn't used to applying strategy.  They just want to get to point where they can catch a Larvitar and a Dratini.

If the game were always strategic - that is, going beyond the application of elemental rock-paper-scizzors - then it would call for me paying more attention and not speeding through the fights.  I mean EVERY fight.  Why is the PC the only competent Trainer?  The only challenges are Trainers whose mons are exempt from the rules (LANCE!).  Why is the gameplay shallow?

Because it's for kids.

There, I said it.

You're basically complaining about something that has existed in almost every RPG since the beginning of time.  I'm not even kidding about that.

Look, if Battle doesn't interest you, I mean, you can play Visual Novels or something.  You don't have to pick up Pokémon and play it.  I know lots of people perfectly happy with their Visual Novels.

I'm sorry, it's just really weird to me that someone is complaining about something that 90% of every pokemon game consists of.  Seriously, you spend the most time in the battle screens than anywhere else in the game.  Especially when you're trying to complete your dex.

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking for in an RPG if the battle system of Pokémon doesn't interest you.  I mean, it's no more complicated or compelling than 99% of any other RPG's battle system out there.  I've run into so few where I've had to do little more than "mash attack to win".  I just choose to play these games differently and explore what the system does or how it works instead of "mash attack to win".  If you're skipping basically the entire draw of the game, you may as well not even play the games to begin with.  Just look up the summary of the story on YouTube.  I promise you, unless you're 8, the story isn't going to satisfy you in Pokémon.

Personally, I get my enjoyment out of "catching them all".  Lots of battle to be had there, but that's fine by me.  It's not like I have major complaints about the Battle System.  After all, it works EXACTLY like every Battle System in every RPG I've ever played since I picked up the NES when I was 7.

 

[Eschaton]

It's for kids, because that's the biggest target audience you can get. With all the different types of people, they pick the audience with the least amount of differences. It's all about the kids. Game Freak was just nice enough to add features for those who want to go further and enjoy the game differently.

I don't disagree.

I'm not the guys at Game Freak; I'm not removed from the rest of the plebs, sitting on a mile-high pile of money.

You're basically complaining about something that has existed in almost every RPG since the beginning of time.  I'm not even kidding about that.

Look, if Battle doesn't interest you, I mean, you can play Visual Novels or something.  You don't have to pick up Pokémon and play it.  I know lots of people perfectly happy with their Visual Novels.

I'm sorry, it's just really weird to me that someone is complaining about something that 90% of every pokemon game consists of.  Seriously, you spend the most time in the battle screens than anywhere else in the game.  Especially when you're trying to complete your dex.

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking for in an RPG if the battle system of Pokémon doesn't interest you.  I mean, it's no more complicated or compelling than 99% of any other RPG's battle system out there.  I've run into so few where I've had to do little more than "mash attack to win".  I just choose to play these games differently and explore what the system does or how it works instead of "mash attack to win".  If you're skipping basically the entire draw of the game, you may as well not even play the games to begin with.  Just look up the summary of the story on YouTube.  I promise you, unless you're 8, the story isn't going to satisfy you in Pokémon.

Personally, I get my enjoyment out of "catching them all".  Lots of battle to be had there, but that's fine by me.  It's not like I have major complaints about the Battle System.  After all, it works EXACTLY like every Battle System in every RPG I've ever played since I picked up the NES when I was 7.

No, there are RPGs that are leaving behind the turn-based features.  They're also winning Game of the Year awards, while JRPGs with their turn-based battles aren't.

Anyway, so this doesn't become a flame war, I'm going to share my memories of the franchise with y'all.

I remember traversing the Unknown Dungeon with my Pikachu trailing behind me.  The poor guy was paralyzed and wasn't fond of me because I traded him out and back.  But after it was all over and I had me one less Master Ball and one more Mewtwo, he and I were bros again.  I felt, as a 12 year old boy, that the little bit of code comprising my Pikachu was my best friend.

 

[Tai_MT]

I don't disagree.

No, there are RPGs that are leaving behind the turn-based features.  They're also winning Game of the Year awards, while JRPGs with their turn-based battles aren't.

Anyway, so this doesn't become a flame war, I'm going to share my memories of the franchise with y'all.

I remember traversing the Unknown Dungeon with my Pikachu trailing behind me.  The poor guy was paralyzed and wasn't fond of me because I traded him out and back.  But after it was all over and I had me one less Master Ball and one more Mewtwo, he and I were bros again.  I felt, as a 12 year old boy, that the little bit of code comprising my Pikachu was my best friend.

Keep in mind that these "Game of the Year" awards are American Game of the Year Awards.  JRPGs actually sell really well in Japan and not so well here.  Western RPGs don't sell so well over there.  Mostly, it's culture difference and has zippo to do with whether a battle system is "active" or "turn based".

I've also played as many "active" battle systems that are merely "mash attack until win" as well.  Battle systems, regardless of how executed all basically boil down to that same fact.  Mash Attack Until Dead.  Even in Skyrim or Oblivion.  Mash Attack until dead, no real strategy.  Sure, you can stealth and other stuff, but it's basically mash attack until dead.  Turn Based Battle Systems have the same number of options that aren't just "mash attack until dead", but it's easiest done that way, same with any other RPG.

 

[Luminous Warrior]

I remember traversing the Unknown Dungeon with my Pikachu trailing behind me.  The poor guy was paralyzed and wasn't fond of me because I traded him out and back.  But after it was all over and I had me one less Master Ball and one more Mewtwo, he and I were bros again.  I felt, as a 12 year old boy, that the little bit of code comprising my Pikachu was my best friend.

Yeah, why did Game Freak remove that feature? I loved the fact that your Pokemon followed you around in HG. Nothing makes a trainer feel more macho than having a Red Gyarados right behind you. I have no clue why Game Freak didn't make that a permanent feature of the Pokemon franchise. But there are a lot of features that I miss, like Pokemon Contests or the Pokeathelon.

 

[hyde9318]

Because at 700+ pokemon, 2 walking animations per poke (walk/Run), 5+ emotion animations per poke, and multiple little animations here and there, Nintendo doesnt allow Gamefreak enough time to work on stuff like that. Nintendo really put some major time restraints on Gamefreak that many people just never hear about. It is a miracle that X and Y are so crazy with how much time Nintendo gave them to have it out (especially right after Black2 and White2).

 

[Seacliff]

Because at 700+ pokemon, 2 walking animations per poke (walk/Run), 5+ emotion animations per poke, and multiple little animations here and there, Nintendo doesnt allow Gamefreak enough time to work on stuff like that. Nintendo really put some major time restraints on Gamefreak that many people just never hear about. It is a miracle that X and Y are so crazy with how much time Nintendo gave them to have it out (especially right after Black2 and White2).

Yeah, we should be lucky we got Pokemon anime, that's the closest we'll ever get.

 

[Tai_MT]

Yeah, we should be lucky we got Pokemon anime, that's the closest we'll ever get.

Pokémon Amie, you mean?  'Cause otherwise, we're talking about anime here.  Ha ha ha.

 

[NPC]

Speaking of anime...new series is animated by the ones who animated Origins! So pretty.

The head of Pokemon in Game Freak has recently stated that there will be major changes to the battles soon, going for a more simpler, yet cohesive game style instead.

 

[Eschaton]

The head of Pokemon in Game Freak has recently stated that there will be major changes to the battles soon, going for a more simpler, yet cohesive game style instead.

Real time (or at least active time) battles, and global cooldown for moves instead of move PP FTW.  Major improvement, I think.

But knowing Nintendo, they'll just reduce it to a "do things" button.

 

[Luminous Warrior]

Eschaton, if Pokemon battles were to be changed that drastically, then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. Maybe a real time or active time battle style could work in a spin-off game, but not in a main series Pokemon game. It sounds like you want Game Freak to turn Pokemon into a Final Fantasy game with collectible monsters.

Now that I think about it though, I think Game Freak should do something like that. A spin-off Pokemon game on the WiiU with realistic looking Pokemon, a much darker and complex storyline, HD graphics, and a battle system like the one Eschaton described. A spin-off series like that would help extend the Pokemon fan base, and it would cater to the older Pokemon fans. What do you think they would call it?

 

[Eschaton]

Eschaton, if Pokemon battles were to be changed that drastically, then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. Maybe a real time or active time battle style could work in a spin-off game, but not in a main series Pokemon game. It sounds like you want Game Freak to turn Pokemon into a Final Fantasy game with collectible monsters.

Now that I think about it though, I think Game Freak should do something like that. A spin-off Pokemon game on the WiiU with realistic looking Pokemon, a much darker and complex storyline, HD graphics, and a battle system like the one Eschaton described. A spin-off series like that would help extend the Pokemon fan base, and it would cater to the older Pokemon fans. What do you think they would call it?

Not necessarily.  Turn-based battles, and moves with finite uses doesn't make Pokemon Pokemon.

What makes Pokemon Pokemon are its core gameplay mechanics, and the aims of its developers.  What does the developer want the player to experience?

I read that Satoshi Tajiri wanted kids to experience the joy of collecting and trading (particularly bugs) in a place that doesn't facilitate such a thing, such as a big city.

The games were made around collecting monsters, training them, battling them, and trading them.  These are the series core gameplay mechanics.  If any of these were to change, then Pokemon would not be the same.

The battle mechanics, the turn-based system, the stats, the items, the badges, the PokeCenter... all of these mechanics are meant to compliment the above core gameplay mechanics.  These are actually expendable, mutable.  They can be changed (while not changing the above core gameplay mechanics), and Pokemon would still be Pokemon.  The player would still be able to collect, train, battle, and trade monsters.

Battling and trading monsters.  These things NEED to happen in a Pokemon game.  HOW you battle and trade them do not have to be consistent.

For a canonical example, when the games went from Gen I to Gen II, they split the Special attribute into Special Attack and Special Defense.  This wasn't a change in the core game play mechanics, nor is this an addition.  This is a deliberate removal of one mechanic and the replacement of another.

Now sexes of Pokemon, Dark and Steel types, the new moves, hell, the new Mons... these are NOT changes in the gameplay, they are additions to the gameplay.

With the changes and additions, did you notice such a radical change in the experience?  No.

You were still collecting, training, battling, and trading monsters.  The core gameplay was intact.

Now, if the battle system got an overhaul, would this fundamentally change the core gameplay?  Would real-time battles affect the experience of collecting, training, battling, and trading monsters?

No.  It would not.  If a new Pokemon game had real-time battles and a global cooldown in lieu of Power Points, it would STILL be about collecting, training, battling, and trading monsters. 

Pokemon would still be Pokemon.

Your argument is...flawed.

However, there would still be cries of "ruined forever."  On that we do not disagree.  It's because you and the aforementioned criers are used to and expect those mechanics.  You and those criers are their fanbase and a huge percentage of Pokemon's demographic pie.  Nintendo wants that pie to continue buying their product.  So, it won't change.

That, and static, unchanging gameplay mechanics better facilitates inter-generational interaction.

 

[Seacliff]

^

Pokemon would still be Pokemon, but that doesn't mean it will still be the same.

They should stick to new battle systems in spin-offs, they sometimes work like conquest, or be utter failures at other times (no names).

 

[Eschaton]

The problem with the battle system in versioned Pokemon games is that it is a relic.  It worked on Game Boy.  Technology changed.  The graphics changed.  Yet the gameplay has not.  They had a chance to unify the gameplay of versioned Pokemon games and Pokemon Stadium as far back as the Nintendo DS back in 2004.

Sure, the games look great, but they still play like a Game Boy game.  I guess it keeps development time short, and retains a sense of continuity and solidarity within the series, but, they weren't afraid of altering the supplicative gameplay back in Gen II when they altered the Special stat and added sexes, breeding, and infant Pokemon.  The game wasn't as linear; you could explore other areas off the beaten path (granted there weren't that many, but...).  The game was real time.  The game became a reason to play at night, or early in the morning.  You could make friends with other Trainers and battle them again at higher levels.  And when I went to Kanto-- get out of here---  I just lost it.  I looked at my map and I was like, "Holy CRAP  YES!!"

Back when Gen II came out, I was nuts over that, but I saw it as natural progression of the series, within the constraints of the hardware.  I was expecting great things out of Gen III.  I remember my friend and I discussing possible new features before they came out.

When Gen III and IV came out, I wasn't impressed.  The additions made there were bells and whistles at best; nothing really new or groundbreaking.  Now I just look back at the changes in Gen II and just see them as daring for the series as a whole, while the rest just play it safe with limited additions of new content, and a rehash of the same old story (travel the land, battle Gym leaders, foil the Mafia/Yakuza, take on the Elite Four, become Champion, blah, blah, blah.).

sigh

It's a comfort zone.  Fans don't want too many changes.  Hell, when Skyrim came out, I was a little disappointed at how simple it was compared to Oblivion and Morrowind when they took out attributes and classes.  Over time, as I learned more about game design, I came to accept and understand the changes.  Skyrim didn't get dumbed down with the changes.  The changes represented an overall streamlining of the system; I had less to worry about and more fun to have.  It still rewarded me for roleplaying by making me more capable of playing my role.  And that's part of the Elder Scrolls' core gameplay.

sigh, again

Anyway, I know what I'd like out of Pokemon (other than a reason to play it again), but I know I won't get it.  Too many cultural differences, too much money.

 

[orochii]

Well, I think that at Gen3 the basic core... stuff was finished. The natures and more importantly the abilities. Those are things that nowadays are very important. I don't remember anything important that had occurred neither on DPP or BW/B2W2 (oh right! except for DreamWorld abilities, which is pretty much a third hidden special "overpowered" ability). But anyway, haven't played these games (yes friends, here is a gap for my reasoning!).

Anyway, I feel mostly the same as you Eschaton. I agree on the part of the gameplay having some space for change. Still, as Tai points out, things can't change from spaguetti to crème brûlée from evening to morning. And not all elements of the Pokémon battles is totally bad. I think the turn-based nature of the Pokémon battles makes it more compatible with WiFi connectivity. You don't know what ****ty connections does people around the world have (Pokémon tries to be accessible, or so I think). Also gives you time for planning, something I think the metagame encourages.

I don't know, if I get some free time to spare, and I'm tired of making my own game, I'll try and think something just for fun (?),

Orochii Zouveleki

 

[Seeaka]

Eschaton, it seems like you just don't like pokemon.