Jonnas Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 By the way, there's one fundamentally good reason as to why Pokémon works better in handhelds than in a home console: Kids. Recess. That's where they trade their Pokémon. Let's face it, there's no way a home console can compete with that. Also, calling Mario 64 is a "natural" evolution of the series is misleading. It might seem that way because 3D was hot and new at the time, but don't kid yourselves. Mario went from a linear level system to an explorable open world (the fact that it was segmented means little). Later 3D Marios don't even try to follow this freedom, preferring to structure the missions as if they were linear levels. Mario 64 was a game that was fundamentally different from its predecessors AND successors. So would this hypothetical Pokémon game. Pokémon's formula, its core, would not work on the Wii U. Because that's what they would be changing. Anything they could make would be considered a spin-off, just like Colosseum, XD and Conquest.
Retro_Link Posted January 16, 2013 Author Posted January 16, 2013 Also, calling Mario 64 is a "natural" evolution of the series is misleading.I just meant no one complained that we now how both 2D and 3D Mario. Those that love 2D Mario still get that, and those that now love 3D Mario get there's too. Handheld Pokémon's would still get made, but why not Pokémon RPG's on home consoles? These games wouldn't be about trading Pokémon, as that's the handheld games. These would be beautiful story driven RPG adventures like Tales, Skies, Xenoblade Ni No Kuni, where you capture Pokémon and train them along your journey.
Jonnas Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I just meant no one complained that we now how both 2D and 3D Mario. Those that love 2D Mario still get that, and those that now love 3D Mario get there's too. Technically, there have only been 4 3D Marios since 1996. One of them was polarizing for multiple reasons, and the last 2 still don't follow Mario 64's heart of exploration. But I get your point. Also, *Theirs. I swear, I took way longer than needed to understand what you meant. Handheld Pokémon's would still get made, but why not Pokémon RPG's on home consoles? These games wouldn't be about trading Pokémon, as that's the handheld games. These would be beautiful story driven RPG adventures like Tales, Skies, Xenoblade Ni No Kuni, where you capture Pokémon and train them along your journey. Like Colosseum and XD? Definitely feasible. It just wouldn't be Game Freak doing it.
Josh64 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I would love a new Pokémon on a home console, but I can see why they won't do it. I suppose for as long as they can get away with churning out the same stuff, they will. They change a few elements, add new Pokémon and they sell millions. You can kind of see why they don't go for anything more ambitious. I still don't get why a lot of you don't think it would work though. I bet if Nintendo announced a new Pokémon RPG for Wii U at E3, you'd all be going crazy over it.
Retro_Link Posted January 16, 2013 Author Posted January 16, 2013 Technically, there have only been 4 3D Marios since 1996. One of them was polarizing for multiple reasons, and the last 2 still don't follow Mario 64's heart of exploration.But I get your point. Also, *Theirs. I swear, I took way longer than needed to understand what you meant. Like Colosseum and XD? Definitely feasible. It just wouldn't be Game Freak doing it. Sorry about that grammar. No not really, a full on, 40-80hr RPG adventure, with exploration and side quests, like Pokémon photography, trading/finding Pokémon for people, sailing over the sea on the back of your Lapras etc... Boss battles against both Pokémon you're trying to capture and the likes of Team Rocket/Trainers. Colosseum and XD were terrible half assed games, neither one thing or the other. I believe the quest was very short and linear.
Ramar Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Exactly, where are people getting the 'one or the other' idea from. Nintendo do handheld and console versions of pretty much everyone of their First Party titles, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart etc... so why not Pokémon? Fire Emblem is a brilliant example of top games on both handheld and home console.
Cube Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 How about this: A £10-£20 eShop app which essentially has enhanced graphics for the whole of Pokémon X and Y. Nothing absolutely amazing, but still better. However, it's not the whole game - you need to connect your 3DS (with X or Y) to the Wii U in order to play (and it uses the same game save).
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 Personally no, I'd much rather Nintendo put some effort in with it's franchises, and produce a full Pokémon RPG.
Jonnas Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 @Ramar: I believe I read somewhere that Intelligent Systems fully believe Fire Emblem is better for handhelds (SRPGs in general, really), and only made the Tellius games to see how much they could push the presentation aspect of the game. Seeing Awakening, however, leads me to believe that there's little reason for them to return to home consoles. No not really, a full on, 40-80hr RPG adventure, with exploration and side quests, like Pokémon photography, trading/finding Pokémon for people, sailing over the sea on the back of your Lapras etc... Boss battles against both Pokémon you're trying to capture and the likes of Team Rocket/Trainers. Colosseum and XD were terrible half assed games, neither one thing or the other. I believe the quest was very short and linear. It's still the same genre, the same basic idea. Colosseum and XD may have been lacking in content, but they're still starting points for what you're asking. Now, do you really think Colosseum and XD are considered spin-offs due to quality? No, they're spin-offs because they're fundamentally different. And let's face it, what you're proposing is fundamentally different from Pokémon's main series. And it's not a bad idea by any means (the Pokémon MMO idea that gets thrown around a lot is what I think is bad), but logistically speaking, it's a big undertaking that even competent studios may struggle with (Camelot and Monolith are the only ones I could see having a shot at it, and even Camelot's RPGs have been 2D only so far). It's a pipe dream, essentially.
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 And it's not a bad idea by any means (the Pokémon MMO idea that gets thrown around a lot is what I think is bad), but logistically speaking, it's a big undertaking that even competent studios may struggle with (Camelot and Monolith are the only ones I could see having a shot at it, and even Camelot's RPGs have been 2D only so far). It's a pipe dream, essentially.Level 5 could also do it for Nintendo, especially with their experience on and engine for Ni No Kuni. I see what you mean but I still wouldn't really call it a spin-off. Pokémon is an RPG, and the home console version I envisage would be an RPG albeit on a grander scale and an emphasis on story over physically trading, but trading could still be a part of it. The stadium games were mini-game fighters really. I'm not really sure what the Colosseum XD adventure parts consisted of as I didn't play them (due to their quality).
Serebii Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Level 5 could also do it for Nintendo, especially with their experience on and engine for Ni No Kuni. I see what you mean but I still wouldn't really call it a spin-off. Pokémon is an RPG, and the home console version I envisage would be an RPG albeit on a grander scale and an emphasis on story over physically trading, but trading could still be a part of it. The stadium games were mini-game fighters really. I'm not really sure what the Colosseum XD adventure parts consisted of as I didn't play them (due to their quality). Sounds like you want a spin-off, not a main game
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 Sounds like you want a spin-off, not a main gameWhat makes it a spin-off, it would be the same genre.
Jonnas Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 What makes it a spin-off, it would be the same genre. Fundamental differences in game design. If you're not trading and catching them all, you're doing it for the adventure and exploration. Think of how Yoshi's Island, Wario Land and Super Princess Peach are Mario spin-offs, even though they're all platformers. (Also, I'm sure series like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest have RPG spin-offs somewhere in there) Or look closer, at Pokémon Colosseum and XD. They're RPGs, as linear and lacking as they are. They're quite removed from the main series (gameplay-wise), and that's why they're considered spin-offs. (Also, I'm tempted to refer the Pokémon Mystery Dungeon series, but I think "Dungeon Crawler" is kind of a sub-genre...)
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 You would be catching Pokémon and training them up, the only thing you wouldn't be doing is trading them with people in person. They could have trading via online though if they wanted too, depends how they'd want to do the game. They could have two versions of it, or they could have certain Pokémon that only evolve after trading etc...or no trading aspect at all.
Ashley Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Don't forget that the Wii U has NFC. They could always bring out a device (either attachable to the 3DS or not) that then allows you to trade. Kind of like an enhanced PokeWalker. #justthrowingoutideas
Retro_Link Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 I'd much rather hear ideas, than people just saying 'nope can't happen'.
Diageo Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 What does it matter if it's called a spin off or not. The fact of the matter is a console RPG that gets proper time, money and attention could be an absolutely fantastic game and it's a shame Nintendo don't do it. Overhaul the engine, overhaul the battling, do whatever to make it a good console experience. But still make handheld games. Everyone is happy then. Whether it is called a spin off or not it doesn't matter. Yes it is in the same vein as Colosseum, but clearly that didn't get the resources it needed to be a great game. Of course it probably won't happen, just like Super Smash Bros style Pokemon game won't happen. But it's not because they don't have the resources or the money, it's because they don't want to.
Ramar Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 What does it matter if it's called a spin off or not. The fact of the matter is a console RPG that gets proper time, money and attention could be an absolutely fantastic game and it's a shame Nintendo don't do it. Overhaul the engine, overhaul the battling, do whatever to make it a good console experience. But still make handheld games. Everyone is happy then. Whether it is called a spin off or not it doesn't matter. Yes it is in the same vein as Colosseum, but clearly that didn't get the resources it needed to be a great game. Of course it probably won't happen, just like Super Smash Bros style Pokemon game won't happen. But it's not because they don't have the resources or the money, it's because they don't want to. Hit the nail on the head.
Fused King Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I wonder what would happen if a 'spin-off' would grant one a far superior Pokémon experience than the experience one gets on a handheld. The day the spin-off became the main series :3
Serebii Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I wonder what would happen if a 'spin-off' would grant one a far superior Pokémon experience than the experience one gets on a handheld. The day the spin-off became the main series :3 Well it'd never replace it :p A lot of people felt Pokémon Conquest was better than Black & White, but I personally think those people are crazy. I also know of many who prefer the Dungeon games to the main series What does it matter if it's called a spin off or not. The fact of the matter is a console RPG that gets proper time, money and attention could be an absolutely fantastic game and it's a shame Nintendo don't do it. Overhaul the engine, overhaul the battling, do whatever to make it a good console experience. But still make handheld games. Everyone is happy then. Whether it is called a spin off or not it doesn't matter. Yes it is in the same vein as Colosseum, but clearly that didn't get the resources it needed to be a great game. Of course it probably won't happen, just like Super Smash Bros style Pokemon game won't happen. But it's not because they don't have the resources or the money, it's because they don't want to. Because it could damage the view of Pokémon. Seriously, spin-off games will work and will likely happen. The battle system in PokéPark 2, for example. If they fully enhanced that, added more moves and more usable Pokémon, a game like that would be amazing I thnk that'd sell. Nuts to trainers. That's how a spin-off should be
RedShell Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Imagine a new, more advanced type of Pokéwalker, that allows you to sync your game data from the Wii U game (Pokémon U ), and lets you trade or battle others, perhaps even feature some kind of StreetPass functionality! ... Don't forget that the Wii U has NFC. They could always bring out a device (either attachable to the 3DS or not) that then allows you to trade. Kind of like an enhanced PokeWalker. #justthrowingoutideas #juststealingideas more like it.
Diageo Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Well it'd never replace it :p A lot of people felt Pokémon Conquest was better than Black & White, but I personally think those people are crazy. I also know of many who prefer the Dungeon games to the main series Because it could damage the view of Pokémon. Seriously, spin-off games will work and will likely happen. The battle system in PokéPark 2, for example. If they fully enhanced that, added more moves and more usable Pokémon, a game like that would be amazing I thnk that'd sell. Nuts to trainers. That's how a spin-off should be Damage it more than Collosseum or Pokemon Dash or the myriad of other shite spin offs?
Sheikah Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 With a game series that is so conservative, always having the same 3 types of starter Pokemon for instance, I can't see them trying to make a console version. They have a formula and people continue to buy it in droves so they're not going to change it.
Zell Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 That's one thing that always gets me. It's always Grass/Fire/Water. Why not have a Pokemon game where the starters are Dark/Psychic/Fighting or Ground/Electric/Flying? Also, does there have to be 8 gym leaders followed by an elite 4 and champion? Does there have to be gym leaders at all? I would love to see a more story driven experience, it would make a change from the tried and tested "10 year old seeks to become world's best trainer while single-handedly bring down an evil terrorist organisation".
Serebii Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 That's one thing that always gets me. It's always Grass/Fire/Water. Why not have a Pokemon game where the starters are Dark/Psychic/Fighting or Ground/Electric/Flying? Also, does there have to be 8 gym leaders followed by an elite 4 and champion? Does there have to be gym leaders at all? I would love to see a more story driven experience, it would make a change from the tried and tested "10 year old seeks to become world's best trainer while single-handedly bring down an evil terrorist organisation". Black & White changed that a little. During your Elite Four challenge, it gets interrupted by story stuff.
Recommended Posts