drahkon Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 I dismissed all the other points because they're just buzzwords, not points. Dynamic in what way? Quests can be done on the 3DS, as can being "larger". Also note, larger != better. "Random encounters" is not a buzzword (or "buzzterm")? Dynamic: Have Pokémon run around the area, climb on trees, sneak through grass, swim underwater (real time fishing), fly through the air...approach a Pokémon and enter a battle, can be turn-based. Everything dynamic. Dynamic wheather, better day and night cycle, dynamic world, i.e. more lively, different people do different thigns at different times. 3DS has a limit to "large" and "more Quests", which is obvious and you know that. And I know that "larger" doesn't necessarily equal better, but in a series that has over 700 Pokémon (don't know how many there are) a bigger world with all of them in it would be ever gamer's dream.
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Serebii, it's not 1998 anymore. Home console online gaming is a thing. The Pokemon games don't NEED portability, especially if you tailor the game to suit the home console platform. There's enormous potential in a console openworld/MMO style Pokemon game. It's not happened because the same portable game rehashed over and over sell insane amounts, so why bother. Ok, so let's say we go to a Pokémon event and the games have shifted to home console. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. Ok, I want to meet with a friend and battle. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. The portable aspect of Pokémon is huge, especially in Japan. Removing it just with the idea "oh, online exists" is illogical. Online does exist. It is used already in Pokémon. It is not a viable replacement, it's a supplement. Yeah. He's normally off on one about how Nintendo diversify gaming, etc. But nope. Pokemon should remain exactly the same forever. (Unless it's a spin off of course). No, I endorse Pokémon changing, but fundamental shifts in the way people suggest would be damaging. Like when you go into a battle? Or hell, they could fly off, others could pop up from behind grass, out of trees etc. If you're walking through a field do you insist the animals stay in one place until you've moved out of the area? No, life goes on. You (the avatar, not you personally Serebii) are not the master of the universe but in Nintendo's games you normally are and that's the problem - the world literally revolves around you when you should be part of it. (that may not make much sense, on my way out) This is a game, not real life :p "Random encounters" is not a buzzword (or "buzzterm")? Dynamic: Have Pokémon run around the area, climb on trees, sneak through grass, swim underwater (real time fishing), fly through the air...approach a Pokémon and enter a battle, can be turn-based. Everything dynamic. Dynamic wheather, better day and night cycle, dynamic world, i.e. more lively, different people do different thigns at different times. 3DS has a limit to "large" and "more Quests", which is obvious and you know that. And I know that "larger" doesn't necessarily equal better, but in a series that has over 700 Pokémon (don't know how many there are) a bigger world with all of them in it would be ever gamer's dream. Ok, so let's say we're playing your game with the "dynamic" appearances. Let's say you need to EV train a Pokémon. Right, we go into the route to find an Oddish for its Special Attack points. We find one, we battle it, we defeat it. Now, in yours, we have to go find a completely different Oddish that may have spawned elsewhere in the area. It'd take forever compared to the step step step fight. It would elongate the process dramatically unless they severely shift and simplify the entire concept of the battle system
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 "Random encounters" is not a buzzword (or "buzzterm")? Dynamic: Have Pokémon run around the area, climb on trees, sneak through grass, swim underwater (real time fishing), fly through the air...approach a Pokémon and enter a battle, can be turn-based. Everything dynamic. Dynamic wheather, better day and night cycle, dynamic world, i.e. more lively, different people do different thigns at different times. 3DS has a limit to "large" and "more Quests", which is obvious and you know that. And I know that "larger" doesn't necessarily equal better, but in a series that has over 700 Pokémon (don't know how many there are) a bigger world with all of them in it would be ever gamer's dream. Honestly if they did it right, I'd be up for a version of this just in Kanto with he original 151 if they wanted to test it. I can see what Serebii means, Pokémon has roots, and by all means should stick to the portable side of gaming - but with waning sales figures Pokémon needs to do something outrageously righteous for the fans and themselves (MMORPG open world on UE4. Pretty please?).
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Honestly if they did it right, I'd be up for a version of this just in Kanto with he original 151 if they wanted to test it. I can see what Serebii means, Pokémon has roots, and by all means should stick to the portable side of gaming - but with waning sales figures Pokémon needs to do something outrageously righteous for the fans and themselves (MMORPG open world on UE4. Pretty please?). That's quite an exaggeration. They're not waning. Come on man :p
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Ok, so let's say we go to a Pokémon event and the games have shifted to home console. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. Ok, I want to meet with a friend and battle. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. The portable aspect of Pokémon is huge, especially in Japan. Removing it just with the idea "oh, online exists" is illogical. Online does exist. It is used already in Pokémon. It is not a viable replacement, it's a supplement. No, I endorse Pokémon changing, but fundamental shifts in the way people suggest would be damaging. This is a game, not real life :p Ok, so let's say we're playing your game with the "dynamic" appearances. Let's say you need to EV train a Pokémon. Right, we go into the route to find an Oddish for its Special Attack points. We find one, we battle it, we defeat it. Now, in yours, we have to go find a completely different Oddish that may have spawned elsewhere in the area. It'd take forever compared to the step step step fight. It would elongate the process dramatically unless they severely shift and simplify the entire concept of the battle system YES BUT @Serebii BANK IS ALREADY PLANNED TO BE MULTIGENERATIONAL AND MULTIPLATFORM!
Retro_Link Posted April 6, 2016 Author Posted April 6, 2016 I'm not being narrow minded. Everything that people propose that would make a home console game great is doable on a portable device without the loss of the portable aspect.What's the percentage of Pokémon users that buy a Pokémon game purely because they have the option to take it out of their house? Hopefully you can provide me with that statistic... but personally I would think it's incredibly small. As in, if they could still buy a Pokémon game, but they would have to play the whole thing at home, they would still do so. And of those that do use the portable aspect, I would have thought a large percentage of those would sacrifice it to have a different, more story driven experience with Pokémon, once every... say, 5 years.
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 That's quite an exaggeration. They're not waning. Okay, okay, not waning. There's just a definite negative correlation in sales which has been apparent since the dawn of the franchise and only challenged by the release of Diamond and Pearl in terms of opening pairs for a generation.
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 YES BUT @Serebii BANK IS ALREADY PLANNED TO BE MULTIGENERATIONAL AND MULTIPLATFORM! Yes it is, but you need to log in with your NNID, it doesn't store items, it's locked to devices and is separate to the games themselves. It'd be a very, slapdash and poorly constructed way of getting around that issue
Kav Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Ok, so let's say we go to a Pokémon event and the games have shifted to home console. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. Ok, I want to meet with a friend and battle. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there. The portable aspect of Pokémon is huge, especially in Japan. Removing it just with the idea "oh, online exists" is illogical. Online does exist. It is used already in Pokémon. It is not a viable replacement, it's a supplement... You do realise they could do a home console game AND a portable game, right? Like with Smash. Also, even if that didn't happen and just a home console game came out, events would adapt and change. Consoles would be brought in if people cared that much. Stop being so narrow-minded Serebii, are you that stuck in your ways?
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Okay, okay, not waning. There's just a definite negative correlation in sales which has been apparent since the dawn of the franchise and only challenged by the release of Diamond and Pearl in terms of opening pairs for a generation. Most franchises would kill for that level of hold, though. We're talking like a 2m sales fluctuation over 10 years between a console that ended up selling 150m units and one selling 60m units. It's nowhere near the point that they have to think "shit, we really need to alter this drastically" What's the percentage of Pokémon users that buy a Pokémon game purely because they have the option to take it out of their house? Hopefully you can provide me with that statistic... but personally I would think it's incredibly small. As in, if they could still buy a Pokémon game, but they would have to play the whole thing at home, they would still do so. And of those that do use the portable aspect, I would have thought a large percentage of those would sacrifice it to have a different, more story driven experience with Pokémon, once every... say, 5 years. There's a difference between purely buy for and use. I'll speak to my contacts at TPCi and try and get some figures, but I have no idea how they'd actually exist outside of surveys. You do realise they could do a home console game AND a portable game, right? Like with Smash. Also, even if that didn't happen and just a home console game came out, events would adapt and change. Consoles would be brought in if people cared that much. Stop being so narrow-minded Serebii, are you that stuck in your ways? That'd be completely ridiculous. This isn't like Smash or Halo where everything is either unlocked or not, this is something where you heavily personalise and to expect people to bring their console is ridiculous. A home console and a separate portable game still wouldn't negate the major issue with this.
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 What's the percentage of Pokémon users that buy a Pokémon game purely because they have the option to take it out of their house? Hopefully you can provide me with that statistic... but personally I would think it's incredibly small. As in, if they could still buy a Pokémon game, but they would have to play the whole thing at home, they would still do so. And of those that do use the portable aspect, I would have thought a large percentage of those would sacrifice it to have a different, more story driven experience with Pokémon, once every... say, 5 years. Yes it is, but you need to log in with your NNID, it doesn't store items, it's locked to devices and is separate to the games themselves. It'd be a very, slapdash and poorly constructed way of getting around that issue ...a supplementary Bank system for items which limits each game to one of a certain item (such as a Master Ball and your special Legendary specific items, such as the Adamant, Lustrous and Griseous Orbs)?
drahkon Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Ok, so let's say we're playing your game with the "dynamic" appearances. Let's say you need to EV train a Pokémon. Right, we go into the route to find an Oddish for its Special Attack points. We find one, we battle it, we defeat it. Now, in yours, we have to go find a completely different Oddish that may have spawned elsewhere in the area. It'd take forever compared to the step step step fight. It would elongate the process dramatically unless they severely shift and simplify the entire concept of the battle system Let's say that I assume Nintendo and the developers are capable of figuring out a way to make this not tiresome or simplify. And if they can't then I'm sure they can find a way to make this slightly different but enjoyable.
somme Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 As @kav82 said, you can still have a portable version alongside a home console version if you really must insist on going outside to meet your friends and battle. Though outside of Japan and children how often does this actually happen? And if they didn't have a portable version a companion app for trading would work. Maybe not battling but I imagine most of that would be done online anyway.
Retro_Link Posted April 6, 2016 Author Posted April 6, 2016 There's a difference between purely buy for and use.There is. But until you know how many people only buy Pokémon because it's portable, you have no argument for the loss of portability affecting sales.
Ashley Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 I can't be bothered to pick out the quotes on my phone so... The ability to transfer data to a separate mini game on a mobile phone exists and is used by other consoles. You could transfer your Pokémon to your phone, battle others, go to events etc with a phone. It won't be the full game, sure. But that wouldn't be the intention anyway. And yes well done it's a game. That's an astute observation. Games also have this thing called 'game logic' so if I can find ways it happens in real life you can bet your bottom dollar you could put it in a game and people would buy it. You completely ignored my valid point with a non-response and I'd appreciate if you could actually address the point. You absolutely do not have to move out and back into an area to refresh the Pokémon. I gave some ways it could work and I'm sure other people could think of more.
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Wow that exploded FAST. @Retro_Link great discussion to start. I honestly don't see the problem with a separate open world MMORPG on something like the UE4, using Bank to transport Pokémon between the games. An argument for items could be made, but like I've said, an Item Bank could be implemented which limits users to not having more than one of certain items in a game (such as Master Balls and Legendary specific items), and to transfer items from game to game.
Kav Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 ...That'd be completely ridiculous. This isn't like Smash or Halo where everything is either unlocked or not, this is something where you heavily personalise and to expect people to bring their console is ridiculous. A home console and a separate portable game still wouldn't negate the major issue with this. What would it not negate? If you could transfer data between systems, or if they both cloud saved and synced, what's not then possible?
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 ...a supplementary Bank system for items which limits each game to one of a certain item (such as a Master Ball and your special Legendary specific items, such as the Adamant, Lustrous and Griseous Orbs)? That'd be a bit cumbersome, though, especially if separate. Plus that still doesn't counter the main issue As @kav82 said, you can still have a portable version alongside a home console version if you really must insist on going outside to meet your friends and battle. Though outside of Japan and children how often does this actually happen? And if they didn't have a portable version a companion app for trading would work. Maybe not battling but I imagine most of that would be done online anyway. At least three times a week, globally, there is a Play! Pokémon event somewhere in the world. People go with their games to battle, trade etc.. Many of these are Premier Challenges, Midseason Showdowns or even Regional Championships which give players a chance to earn points to go to Worlds and many which do not. Thousands upon thousands of people attend these events. I can't be bothered to pick out the quotes on my phone so... The ability to transfer data to a separate mini game on a mobile phone exists and is used by other consoles. You could transfer your Pokémon to your phone, battle others, go to events etc with a phone. It won't be the full game, sure. But that wouldn't be the intention anyway. That'd be a terrible idea. Why the hell would Nintendo do that when they have, you know, a portable device and a game series which is, you know, portable so much it's in the name. And yes well done it's a game. That's an astute observation. Games also have this thing called 'game logic' so if I can find ways it happens in real life you can bet your bottom dollar you could put it in a game and people would buy it. You completely ignored my valid point with a non-response and I'd appreciate if you could actually address the point. You absolutely do not have to move out and back into an area to refresh the Pokémon. I gave some ways it could work and I'm sure other people could think of more. Your point was illogical.
Retro_Link Posted April 6, 2016 Author Posted April 6, 2016 At least three times a week, globally, there is a Play! Pokémon event somewhere in the world. People go with their games to battle, trade etc.. Many of these are Premier Challenges, Midseason Showdowns or even Regional Championships which give players a chance to earn points to go to Worlds and many which do not. Thousands upon thousands of people attend these events.What would be keeping them from continuing to go?
drahkon Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 What would be keeping them from continuing to go? They'll probably like "Uh a home console Pokémon, I will stop attending those events that I enjoy so much". :p
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 What would be keeping them from continuing to go? Having to lug a home console so that they can continue to use their Pokémon because the games are now on home console? Thus needing multiple tvs at the events, too. It'd be a great hurdle of entry.
drahkon Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Having to lug a home console so that they can continue to use their Pokémon because the games are now on home console? No one said all the future Pokémon games will be on home consoles. ONE game would be enough.
Ashley Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 That'd be a terrible idea. Why the hell would Nintendo do that when they have, you know, a portable device and a game series which is, you know, portable so much it's in the name. Your point was illogical. You said home consoles couldn't work. I gave a way it could. As others have pointed out, the handheld console could do the same thing. You're quick at dismissing ideas but slow at following up conversations. And let's not let a 20 year old title define what a game should be. The title could just as easily refer to the size of Pokemon in a pokeball. My point was illogical? Great. Thanks. Want to elaborate on why you feel that way? On why you're just willing to dismiss? Or are you just going to insult and ignore? I often find your opinions baseless but I try and at last engage you in conversation to give yourself the chance to explain. Would be polite to do the same.
Julius Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Having to lug a home console so that they can continue to use their Pokémon because the games are now on home console? Except with Bank they could transport those Pokémon from home console to portable and vice versa. I don't recall anyone saying that the series would shift from being portable to home only? That'd be a bit cumbersome, though, especially if separate. Plus that still doesn't counter the main issue. Can you please define the main issue/s you have with a home console Pokémon game which could potentially revitalise the franchise? I'm intrigued.
Serebii Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Except with Bank they could transport those Pokémon from home console to portable and vice versa. I don't recall anyone saying that the series would shift from being portable to home only? Can you please define the main issue/s you have with a home console Pokémon game which could potentially revitalise the franchise? I'm intrigued. I fail to see how it can revitalise the franchise, though. All the ideas and suggestions are largely aesthetic. Are we really that shallow that it is all we need to revitalise a franchise? No one said all the future Pokémon games will be on home consoles. ONE game would be enough. We've had that, twice. It did not sell well. That's another thing that is pushing my argument.
Recommended Posts