Has Pokemon jumped the shark?

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
Semi-DemiFiend said:
Piorn said:
I wouldn't call it jumping the shark as much as building your entire franchise in the quicksand pit of a trading card game and then desperately piling on stuff before it sinks in completely.
If any franchise needs a full, complete reboot it's pokemon.
Drop the entire turn based 4 attack system of pictures with numbers underneath. That's so 1998.
So what if it's "so 1998"? The turn based system is what made the game famous and dropping it would appeal to absolutely no one who actually plays the games.
I always liked the aspect of training and collecting Pokemon, but the battle system feels like a crutch.
It was justifiable in the Game Boy times, but now it's just genetical baggage.
 

Blaze the Dragon

New member
Jan 8, 2010
127
0
0
I personally was getting tired of Pokemon by Black and White. Even playing through the Gold/Silver remake was hard for me, and I didn't even finish Black or Black 2. However, Pokemon X did something that revitalize the series for me. I have no idea what that actually was, but I started really having fun with it again. And for the first time in awhile, I'm looking forward to the next pokemon game to come out.

Although I personally think that if they really wanted to mix it up, they should incorporate the battle system from Mystery Dungeon into one of the main series games, or something close to it. It makes battles so much more interesting in my opinion, in terms of general game play at least. I doubt it'd be as effective for competitive players, but all the same stats and move are still there, there's just more factors to take into account. The environment would depend on where you start the battle, allowing for not only normal battles and the recently introduced flying battles, but also all the logical extensions of that with water battles, lava battles, etc. They could also make sure to include some normal land for general pokemon, but they'd still be at a clear disadvantage. For instance if you have a pikachu and you fight someone in the middle of the water; the arena you get might be 90% water with only a few islands, so while you have a type advantage, they have a clear advantage in positioning since you have no means of cover. It also allows for the natural extensions of all these battle modes. 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc. You could be fighting a wild pokemon, when 2 more suddenly show up. A hoard could consist of 20 pokemon instead of 5! Bad guys could fight you 3v1, and so on. You could even have 2 entire teams go 6v6 just for the hell of it.
 

SD-Fiend

Member
Legacy
Nov 24, 2009
2,075
0
1
Country
United States
Piorn said:
Semi-DemiFiend said:
Piorn said:
I wouldn't call it jumping the shark as much as building your entire franchise in the quicksand pit of a trading card game and then desperately piling on stuff before it sinks in completely.
If any franchise needs a full, complete reboot it's pokemon.
Drop the entire turn based 4 attack system of pictures with numbers underneath. That's so 1998.
So what if it's "so 1998"? The turn based system is what made the game famous and dropping it would appeal to absolutely no one who actually plays the games.
I always liked the aspect of training and collecting Pokemon, but the battle system feels like a crutch.
It was justifiable in the Game Boy times, but now it's just genetic baggage.
I'm sorry but I fail to see why the current battle system needs to be justified. Plenty of people still enjoy turn based combat and it's still a system capable of making deep and strategic battles. Pokemon has a very big and thriving meta game that's based around the current system and it would be a completely awful idea to abandon 15 years of tweaking and refinement just because it has no "justification"
 

Gxas

New member
Sep 4, 2008
3,187
0
0
elvor0 said:
FrostDragon said:
There was hardly a shark to jump. Pokemon was always a child's thing, a weak imitation of Eastern Japanese Roleplaying classics such as EarthBound and Chrono Trigger. I assumed that only children who couldn't appreciate the sophisticated games played Pokemon, but evidently this is not the case. Perhaps you would all benefit from enriching yourselves with experiences like Final Fantasy VI and Secret Of Mana, and see what a real jRPG is.
Aw would you look at that, he thinks he's got something to be smarmy about! You have, ironically enough, supplied everyone apart from /you/, something to be smarmy about. For a start, Pokemon is primarily designed to be a multiplayer game, secondly, go check out the pokemon meta for something, sophisticated, then get back to me, kay?
It's adorable considering that I've played all of those games and still prefer Pokémon because it has a lasting multiplayer system.

What can I do with Chrono Trigger? Beat it again? Oh fun. Three more times? Nah. Not one bit.
FFVI? Same thing.

Pokémon? Well, I can rebeat the game, or I can go on Pokémon Showdown or I can breed a perfect team or I can collect every single beast or I can challenge the battle tower/subway/etc.

These "real" jrpgs can only do so much. Pokémon has kept me playing since 1998.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
This is from the perspective of someone who has an average of 5 years between each time he plays a new pokemon-game:

Are you fucking kidding me? I bought X last week, with my last game being Platinum, and X is superior in almost every single way. It looks and sounds better(duh), has more variety and is mechanically far more solid. It has something resembling characters now, and feels far more vibrant and alive due to that. All while retaining the solid core of exploration and discovery that made the series so addictive to begin with.

Oh, and Wonder Trade is pretty much the best thing ever.

I do think Mega Evolution is silly, though, and somehow my entire team is so overleveled that I seldom get a pokemon knocked out even if I fuck up. I still thoroughly enjoy the game, however, although I'm well aware that after I'm done with this, I'll probably be skipping a generation or three before I decide to pick up the series again.
 

Divine Retribution

New member
Feb 12, 2013
9
0
0
@MarsAtlas

Your picture is a freakin' Raltz, I don't think you're in much of a position to complain about bad pokemon designs.

As for the whole legendary overload thing, I think how they're implemented into the games is a more important factor than quantity. Example, Gen 5 had a ton of legendaries, but Reshiram and Zekrom felt far more important than any of the gen 1 or 2 legendaries, given that in their games, you could go all the way to the champion without even hearing about them.

However, I do agree with you on seeing recycled ideas as the biggest problem. Gen 6 was especially bad with a copy-paste Viridian Forest, snorlax blocking the road (woken up by a pokeflute AGAIN), guy who gives you Lapras, gen 1 starters, roaming legendary birds in lieu of a new legendary trio, and so on. As for designs, the worst offenders are the pikachu clones, with eeveelutions coming in right behind them. Sure, it's a tradition, but it's a tradition that needs to die.
 

Spartan448

New member
Apr 2, 2011
539
0
0
Let me try to respond to each of these...

TMs being reusable: WHY??? Part of what made TMs unique was that they could only be used ONCE. It kept down the amount of spam in competative - your opponent couldn't have five Earthquake sweepers, so your Pokemon with TMs had to be well guarded or able to take hits or dish damage effectively.

Triple Battles/Rotation Battles: Triple Battles were actually kind of neat, but I think the appropriate place for them would have been to use them when you fight the bad guys. When you are dealing with criminals who want to kill literally everyone, there is no justification for facing your opponent one-on-one instead of sending your whole team against them. Triple Battles could have been used in this way. Rotation Battles are just wierd.

Megas/Powercreep: First of all, they have altered base stats in the past. Second of all, Megas are designed to fill niches and add a new level of play. Megas are designed to take Pokemon and expand on their strengths. Blaziken (which was already OP), simply gains more stopping power from his Mega. In Ubers tier, he needs it, as many teams simply wall away Blaziken with Giratina or Kyogre, rendering Blaziken nearly useless unless those two can be killed off. His Mega allows him to wallbreak more efficiently. The key with Megas is that every Mega puts the user into a niche, where as the base Pokemon are more flexible. Mega Swampert for example is looking like it will be a fast physical sweeper (one that will be VERY efficient at its job), but it's not going to be as useful in its utility role. Base Swampert can go Offensive Support, Offensive Pivot, Defensive Assault, Full-on Assault, or Offensive Utility.

Megas for Pokemon that otherwise don't evolve: The reason for this (and actually the reason for some of the Megas for evolved Pokemon as well) was to give not-widely-used Pokemon a niche to work on a team. I can't recall ANYONE using absol before X/Y, but Mega Absol changed things so that Absol was now much more viable. It can actually dish decent damage now, and Magic Bounce fouls up anyone trying to run a Prankster set.

Sky Battles: I liked them, could be expanded on. Essentially it's a way to introduce people to the concept of Monotype teams, a competitive bracket that gets unfortunately little attention. I would like to see versions for the other types as well.

Horde Battles: Right now they're XP buffets, but I could see them working as a way of adding a sense of dynamics to the Pokemon world. One of the things the Pokedex always mentions for example are the occasional natural predator. In one set of Horde battles for example, and group of four Seviper will gang up on a Zangoose, and will actually kill it and ignore you, robbing you the chance for a rare catch (The numbers are swapped depending on the version). I would love to see more things like this - say a Swellow attacking a bunch of Wurmpule.
 

kilenem

New member
Jul 21, 2013
903
0
0
Pokemon jumped the shark when they released a video game based on a trading card game based on a video game, twice if you count the one that didn't reach the states and three times if you count the online TCG.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Spartan448 said:
TMs being reusable: WHY??? Part of what made TMs unique was that they could only be used ONCE. It kept down the amount of spam in competative - your opponent couldn't have five Earthquake sweepers, so your Pokemon with TMs had to be well guarded or able to take hits or dish damage effectively.
Wait, what? Couldn't you just get the TM from another game and get five sweepers that way? I get that it's impractical and time-consuming to do it that way, but considering how many hours you have to invest just to get a good team in the first place, I didn't think anyone would care about that.

As someone who's not interested in playing the game competitively (too much grinding before I get to play, wah wah), I thought the reusable TMs were one of the best of the newer features.
 

suntt123

New member
Jun 3, 2013
189
0
0
Spartan448 said:
Let me try to respond to each of these...

TMs being reusable: WHY??? Part of what made TMs unique was that they could only be used ONCE. It kept down the amount of spam in competative - your opponent couldn't have five Earthquake sweepers, so your Pokemon with TMs had to be well guarded or able to take hits or dish damage effectively.
TMs and HMs used to be passed down from male parent to child (removed in gen VI because it would have been redundant), so it was always perfectly possible to have multiple competitive pokemon with TM moves.
(ie: Female Empoleon + Girafarig with Grass Knot= Piplup with Lv1 moves and Grass Knot)
EDIT: This only works if the offspring learns the TM, I believe Piplup can't learn EQ, so it wouldn't be passed down, not usually much of an issue since most pokemon have similar TM/HM moves as their evolved forms >_>

It's just that it was just an enormous pain in the ass since a pokemon can only have four moves at once and they couldn't relearn egg moves back then so you had to be totally 100% certain of a pokemon's competitve moveset right from the beginning, or else you waste a load of time hatching the same pokemon just for different moves.
 

FrostDragon

New member
Jul 28, 2014
8
0
0
elvor0 said:
Aw would you look at that, he thinks he's got something to be smarmy about! You have, ironically enough, supplied everyone apart from /you/, something to be smarmy about. For a start, Pokemon is primarily designed to be a multiplayer game, secondly, go check out the pokemon meta for something sophisticated, then get back to me, kay?
Please, calm yourself before you make yourself look even more foolish. There is nothing wrong with you enjoying a child's game, so long as you abandon your delusions that it is anything more than just that.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
rosac said:
I was recently playing pokemon Heartgold and Pokemon Black, and an interesting thought came up: Has Pokemon actually jumped the shark?

Every generation has it's fair share of mechanical updates that are useful (TMs being reusable in Black/White, The physical/Special split which was a godsend) but also some... less necessary changes. I enjoyed doubles battles in ruby/sapphire, but Black/White introduced triple battles which to me seem a bit excessive, and I didn't actually enjoy playing.

Then X and Y introduced mega evolutions, which I can't really agree with.If powercreep is an issue, would it be such blasphemy to alter older pokemons stats? Some mega evolutions are pretty OP (Blaziken, seeing as many can't get Dreamworld Non-mega Blaziken) and some are actually seen as worse than the original (Garchomp). The fact that some pokemon receiving megas don't have any evolutionary relatives, so could actually evolve normally also gets on my nerves. X and Y also introduced Sky battles and horde encounters... Was fighting one on one or two on two really not enough?

So, what are your thoughts? Is pokemon starting to get more and more gimmicky just to keep going, or is it a genuine progression.

Disclaimer: Everything posted above is my opinion. I am not stating it to be fact, just my thoughts.
Well, as someone whose gone through every generation and has also taken great pleasure in the remakes, I'll try to go over each point and provide my own feedback.

Triple/Rotation battles weren't really introduced in Black & White so much as they were 'teased.' I mean, there are literally only 3 trainers in which you will ever engage in these types of battles (each battle type being exclusive to their version and 2 of these trainers being available after the main campaign). I do admit that Rotation Battles are a little more original than Triple Battles and Black & White missed many opportunities to introduce it throughout the game (i.e. the first gym has 3 gym leaders).

Mega Evolutions serve to both strengthen older/past Gen Pokemon and allow them to be used competitively; the fact that they need a held item seems to serve as a fair trade off to the boost in stats. Likewise, there are new items in X & Y that also manipulate the user at the cost of using an item (i.e. Ability Capsule). Also, only one Pokemon is allowed to use a Mega Evolution per match, so you will never be up against a of team of Megas. Overall, Mega Evolution is a way to provide a new form for older Pokemon without the need of some unnecessary end evolution (i.e. Magmortar) or baby stage (i.e. Magby).

Sky Battles provided a little diversity and challenge to standard battles and Horde Battles are usually a means to find certain Pokemon in general or in Shiny form.

Furthermore, each innovation is meant to spice up a rather routine and tired out formula; Some elements work (i.e. physical/special attack types) while others were just a fun idea (i.e. Rotation Battles). I hope that they continue to throw more ideas at us in future Gens and that some of the better ones manage to stick without ruining the core experience.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
FrostDragon said:
elvor0 said:
Aw would you look at that, he thinks he's got something to be smarmy about! You have, ironically enough, supplied everyone apart from /you/, something to be smarmy about. For a start, Pokemon is primarily designed to be a multiplayer game, secondly, go check out the pokemon meta for something sophisticated, then get back to me, kay?
Please, calm yourself before you make yourself look even more foolish. There is nothing wrong with you enjoying a child's game, so long as you abandon your delusions that it is anything more than just that.
Hey, he was the one being condescending in the first place, look at his post. I just wanted to point out the irony of his unfounded condescention. I never said it wasn't first and foremost a childrens game, doesn't take away how complex the game is though, in terms of "deepness", as much as I love FF6 and Chrono Trigger, Pokemon outdoes both of them in terms of sheer mechanical variance and deepness, of course FF6 and Chrono Trigger have deeper stories, but pokemon isn't a story focused game, it's a gameplay focused game. Calling it a "weak immitation" of a JRPG is complete fallacy.

Had his post not been so far up his own arse, I would have been polite, as it was, I see no reason not to be equally smarmy just to make my point.
 

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,118
0
41
I don't like the new battle types as part of the main game. Custom games and stuff sure, its a nice touch for those who want it.
I don't like fairy type. I feel like it butchered the type effectiveness chart quite a bit. Ice types are more irrelevant than ever.
And while I can't pinpoint anything wrong with the current pokemon games, I enjoyed the previous ones and the fanmade Zeta/Omicron a lot more. Perhaps they are just too easy for me now? I know Pokemon isn't meant to be some sort of incredible challenge, but I sure got a rush out of barely beating one of the bosses in Omicron, with the winner coming down to if he could tank my last hit.
I was obviously worse at the game when I was younger which made it harder, but in Black and White for example I got through the game easily, without ever having to grind or use revives or anything. Krookodile who I caught because he looked cool almost soloed the elite four despite being a few levels lower than them.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Divine Retribution said:
Your picture is a freakin' Raltz, I don't think you're in much of a position to complain about bad pokemon designs.
You making fun of my favorite Pokemon? You want to go? :p

Divine Retribution said:
@MarsAtlas
However, I do agree with you on seeing recycled ideas as the biggest problem. Gen 6 was especially bad with a copy-paste Viridian Forest, snorlax blocking the road (woken up by a pokeflute AGAIN), guy who gives you Lapras, gen 1 starters, roaming legendary birds in lieu of a new legendary trio, and so on. As for designs, the worst offenders are the pikachu clones, with eeveelutions coming in right behind them. Sure, it's a tradition, but it's a tradition that needs to die.
Eh, I think X and Y was a deliberate callback to the Red/Green/Blue games. I don't think it was just simple copy-pasting but X and Y did feel to me like a revamp that focused more on the old than on the new. That isn't bad, but I can see why others wouldn't like it.
 

Kingjackl

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,041
0
0
I personally think the games are better than ever. I can't really judge the effect of Mega evolutions in competitive play because I keep well away from that side of things, but I think the idea is to shake up the balance and make some underused fan-favourites like Charizard, Aggron & Absol more viable. I personally think they just look cool.
 

kilenem

New member
Jul 21, 2013
903
0
0
Do you mean the main series of Pokemon games because pokemon games jumped the shark when they released the Pokemon TCG video game. I sim of a card game that is a sim of a videogame.