Pokemon X and Y Trailer Shows Off New Features

[CrazyBlaze]

Danm I thought this trailer was going to reveal another new Pokemon! I hoped they reveal the list before it come out as I don't like making blind decision. (X or Y?)

Well you are in luck. Despite not being in this video this pokemon was recently announced at Japan Expo

Its name is Hitosuki(Japan) or Monorpale (French),no English name for it at this time. Its a duel Steel/Ghost type. During battle it unssheates itself like this.

Source: http://www.jefusion.com/2013/07/sword-pokemon-joins-pokemon-x-y-roster..html

 

[hazydawn]

Pokémon isn't about how good the designs are, never was. Besides, Sugimori's been doing them since the beginning, and coming up with 100+ new monsters every generation isn't easy. We're lucky any of them have been good past Gen III.

Pokémon is my childhood too, but I think it's being handled pretty well.

Oh, please do tell me what Pokemon is all about. To trade them with friends? Never done that. To get them all? Why the heck would I want to collect pokemon that look like shit? What's the point in new pokemon when I only want to have the ones from the first three gen in my team? It's the same with trading card games if the design sucked nobody would want that shit. Because it's certainly not gameplay or story where Pokemon shines. It's not easy to produce 100 new Pokemon every time, I give them that, but that's no excuse. If they couldn't come up with enough new ones 30 or even less well made ones would be better and instead concentrate on gameplay and story.
But maybe I'm just to old for it anyway
A pokemon game where they look like this:
http://arvalis.deviantart.com/gallery/39915677
would be totally awesome though.

If it's true what the post above me says that would be another perfect example how unbelievably ridiculous Pokemon has become.

Yep, they are so bad. And don't forget Mr. Mime and Jynx, among the worst gen 5 designs... Wait a second!

For every shitty design and 'lacking imagination' example there are as many from other gens.

I agree that they don't all have to look good. Like I said I don't like the design of every pokemon in second or thrid gen. (almost every of the 1st though). But once the shitty, ridiculous looking ones make up more than 50% of them there's something seriously wrong.

 

[AuronFtw]

Ugh, after the third generation the design started to go out the window. I liked most of the second and third generation but there where already many which looked like shit. And then came the 4th and 5th... oh god. While there are some designs out of them which I like most of them look ridiculous and the 5th doesn't even have a single starter pokemon which looks cool. Just look at abominations like Gurdurr or Gothitelle.
This is even worse then seeing rule 34. Nintendo is the one who's raping my childhood.

Yep, they are so bad. And don't forget Mr. Mime and Jynx, among the worst gen 5 designs... Wait a second!

For every shitty design and 'lacking imagination' example there are as many from other gens.

This, basically. Yeah, gen 5 added a trash bag leaking shitwater. Yeah, gen 5 added a retarded looking ice cream cone. But mr mime existed. Hoothoot existed. Slaking was the token fat greasy uncle. Wailord was a huge blue penis. Didn't stop Typhlosion or Zapdos or Houndoom from looking like total badasses.

There are good and bad pokemon in every gen - the bigger problem is the stagnating mechanics. You can repaint the pokemon every gen, but the *games* have been the same since red/green. Gym rival gym rival gym team rocket gym team rocket rival gym gym gym rival griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind elite 4 end. Not exactly brimming with innovation over here.

More than the graphics, more than the new 100 or so pokemon, some of which will look awful, some of which might look cool... the actual mechanics of the game need updating. What happens in the game needs updating. How about a game where we don't face a crime syndicate full of retarded and comically inept adults? How about a game with more gyms? Less gyms? No gyms at all, just a continuous quest around the world to gain strength to challenge an ultimate cosmic being, like a corrupted Arceus or something? They can do anything with the series - anything at all - but they just reuse the same boring formula over and over.

Even the Zelda series, which is one of the most common targets of the Samey Gameplay Police, manages to shift focus in various games. Pokemon hasn't budged an inch. And unfortunately, 3-minute gameplay trailers won't actually show any improvement on that front.

What's there looks decent, I suppose - but who knows if it will actually shake up the series or just let it continue in the mediocrity it's been bogged down in since gen 4?

 

[The_Echo]

Oh, please do tell me what Pokemon is all about. To trade them with friends? Never done that. To get them all? Why the heck would I want to collect pokemon that look like shit? What's the point in new pokemon when I only want to have the ones from the first three gen in my team? It's the same with trading card games if the design sucked nobody would want that shit. Because it's certainly not gameplay or story where Pokemon shines. It's not easy to produce 100 new Pokemon every time, I give them that, but that's no excuse. If they couldn't come up with enough new ones 30 or even less well made ones would be better and instead concentrate on gameplay and story.
But maybe I'm just to old for it anyway
A pokemon game where they look like this:
http://arvalis.deviantart.com/gallery/39915677
would be totally awesome though.

I'd say the franchise has very solid RPG gameplay. Some of the best, even. The competitive scene is ridiculous. And they've started to focus on developing real plots as of Gen V. Nothing special, but they are trying.

Obvious as it may be, it should be pointed out that the quality of the designs is 100% subjective. While some dismiss entire generations of Pokémon as looking horrible, others might love every single one. Personally, I think there are more good than bad in each generation. But the bad ones are pretty bad (I mean honestly why does Jynx exist).

I wouldn't say you're too old for Pokémon, as I don't think it really has an age limit. It's probably that you sort of grew out of the kind of game it is. Which is fine. Tastes change.

What happens in the game needs updating. How about a game where we don't face a crime syndicate full of retarded and comically inept adults?

Black and White's villains were animal rights activists, who (comparatively) were actually fairly intimidating.

How about a game with more gyms? Less gyms? No gyms at all, just a continuous quest around the world to gain strength to challenge an ultimate cosmic being, like a corrupted Arceus or something?

Stuff like this tends to be quite abundant in the various spinoff series.

They can do anything with the series - anything at all - but they just reuse the same boring formula over and over.

You've gotta keep in mind that Nintendo's whole game philosophy, especially recently, is centered around the new player.

Each new game in their major franchises needs to have a base of similarity with the other titles, so new players don't have to start from the beginning, they can just hop right in. Only beyond that can they add new or different elements to their games.

This is why we don't get games like Super Mario Bros. 2, Zelda II, Super Mario Sunshine or Majora's Mask. They're quite different and if a new player picked that first, they might have false pretenses about the franchise as a whole. I don't agree with this design philosophy, but that's just kind of the way it is.

 

[Megalodon]

What's the point in new pokemon when I only want to have the ones from the first three gen in my team?

I don't mind them adding more pokemon, but what put me off later generations (apart from needing to buy a DS) is that I don't really want to use the new pokemon. I'd much rather take my Gen I/II types (mainly I) forward and start again in the new region, but still with Charmander, Nidoran, Electabuzz etc. Of course the option to use the new one's shouldn't be taken away, but I'd like the opportunity to stick with the beasties I like.

It's not easy to produce 100 new Pokemon every time, I give them that, but that's no excuse. If they couldn't come up with enough new ones 30 or even less well made ones would be better and instead concentrate on gameplay and story.

Amen to this.

A pokemon game where they look like this:
http://arvalis.deviantart.com/gallery/39915677
would be totally awesome though.

That gallery is pretty damn epic, and I would definetely buy a pokemon game using that artstyle.

 

[Megalodon]

You seem to mistake the story progression with mechanics. Because mechanics got improved and refined with every gen - Gen 5 is nowhere near as simple and tedious as gen 1 was. As an online battler since gen 4 and someone who played Pokemon since gen 1 I disagree on the mechanics part (and can elaborate) but agree on the story progression.

So what's drastically different with the mechanics? Did they improve/explain how the happiness affecting evolution works? Because when I played Gold/Silver as a kid, trying to get Umbreon/Espeon was an enormous pain.

For reference, last one I played was Emerald, and I didn't notice that much different form Gen I in it (of course, I may have been blind and stupid).

 

[hazydawn]

I'd say the franchise has very solid RPG gameplay. Some of the best, even.

Pffffff. Are you serious? I could understand it if you think it's good, just like with the design of the pokemon that's up to personal preverences, but saying it's one of the best? You might as well compare a child's drawing with one of Salvador Dali's paintings. Nonetheless as long as you enjoy it, that's fine. =]

But that's the thing: I don't agree with you that the 'shitty ones' are more than 50% of Gen 4 and 5. I like most of the designs, gen 5 has probably most of my favorites and even the ones I don't particulary like are by far better than anything gen 1 had to offer besides Nidoking. This is the problem with something entirely subjective.

Fair enough. I never claimed my taste would be obove everyone else's, altough I think a survey would reveal that the majority would agree with me.

I think you're underestimating just how complex the mechanics behind Pokémon can actually get. And the fact that the game can be played just fine without even knowing about those mechanics, let alone using them, says a lot about how well-designed it is.

Please, I'm burning to hear what those complex mechanics are.
How often an attack hits or misses, the status changes maybe? Water beats Fire, Electro beats Water and Rock beats Scissors.
...chill I know there is more to it for example the attacks the pokemon learn, but complex? Don't make me laugh. Even IF it's well balanced that doesn't equate complexity.

 

[The_Echo]

I'd say the franchise has very solid RPG gameplay. Some of the best, even.

Pffffff. Are you serious? I could understand it if you think it's good, just like with the design of the pokemon that's up to personal preverences, but saying it's one of the best? You might as well compare a child's drawing with one of Salvador Dali's paintings. Nonetheless as long as you enjoy it, that's fine. =]

I think you're underestimating just how complex the mechanics behind Pokémon can actually get. And the fact that the game can be played just fine without even knowing about those mechanics, let alone using them, says a lot about how well-designed it is.

 

[Headsprouter]

That first attack sounded so Gold and Silver! Dat nostalgic beam attack sound!

Seriously, everything else has been said before or was to be expected.

 

[Megalodon]

One beauty of the game is that you don't need to understand the deeper mechanics while playing solo. You don't need to know EVs and IVs (EV training got improved in Gen 5 [after the major overwork in gen 3], breeding for IVs is done better). You can read up on the happiness mechanic (though there are indicators how much your Pokemon likes you - this is a way to determine how many steps you still need). There are ways to artificially increase it.

In gen 4 came the big seperation of special and physical moves. In emerald you had that one type was only of physical or special type. This changed in gen 4 which made many Pokes better / rebalanced older Pokemon.

I can work out a list of when what changed, it is a lot of work since you don't see many of the changes by playing the games in order (but by replaying after you played gen 4 or 5).

Prehaps emphasising you intial comment about not needing to understand the deeper mechanics, but what are EV and IVs?

 

[Scarim Coral]

Snip

snip

Yeah my mate show me that a couple of hours ago. Sure I got what I wanted (it's look alright and I'm fine with its design seeing how possess weapons is nothing new) but it isn't that new mystery Popkemon Orotto/ Aulotte that was reveal in that trailer shown in the Pokemon movie.

 

[Madmanonfire]

<
...which has been using 2D sprites since it's inception.

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty sure Pokemon isn't Inception.
Why is it that most escapists don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"?

OT: I skipped a few generations because I started to lose motivation during Pearl, but this game looks different enough to get me back into Pokemon.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Even though this was basically the E3 Nintendo direct trailer, I'm still pretty excited for this game.

OT: I skipped a few generations because I started to lose motivation during Pearl, but this game looks different enough to get me back into Pokemon.

I would really recommend the Gen V games, the ones that it sounds like you skipped. For me they brought some much needed freshness back into the series, and despite what a lot of people say, it has lots of great Pokemon designs and an interesting story too.

 

[Raine_sage]

One beauty of the game is that you don't need to understand the deeper mechanics while playing solo. You don't need to know EVs and IVs (EV training got improved in Gen 5 [after the major overwork in gen 3], breeding for IVs is done better). You can read up on the happiness mechanic (though there are indicators how much your Pokemon likes you - this is a way to determine how many steps you still need). There are ways to artificially increase it.

In gen 4 came the big seperation of special and physical moves. In emerald you had that one type was only of physical or special type. This changed in gen 4 which made many Pokes better / rebalanced older Pokemon.

I can work out a list of when what changed, it is a lot of work since you don't see many of the changes by playing the games in order (but by replaying after you played gen 4 or 5).

Prehaps emphasising you intial comment about not needing to understand the deeper mechanics, but what are EV and IVs?

Ev's are effort values, they're points each pokemon are assigned and you gain them when you battle that pokemon. For example patrat has an attack EV value of one. When a pokemon in your party battles patrat they gain one attack ev. When they gain 4 attack EVs their attack stat goes up by one. Vitamins like calcium and protien raise the relevant EV value by 10, but cap out at 100. Basically its a system that ensures your pokemon get better via battle than they would if you just stuffed them with rare candies until level 100. In the solo game it's just a nice little boost to your stats as you play through. Competitve players use them in order to build very specialized teams (for example a pokemon like Mew that has similar base stats for all its stats can be built into a tank, speedster, sweeper, etc based on EVs).

IVs are trickier, they're an inborn value given to a pokemon's stats the moment you catch them. The highest an IV can be is 31, and I might be wrong about this but they're essentially more extra stat points. Mostly ignored by casual players, competitive players like to breed perfect 31's across the board to give them an edge against other players. A lot of people like to make this out to be harder than it actually is.

 

[thesilentman]

<
...which has been using 2D sprites since it's inception.

Now, I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty sure Pokemon isn't Inception.
Why is it that most escapists don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"?

No, it's fine. It's is a contraction for "it is" here in the States. It's odd, but that's our English for you.

(Not that I agree with this as I like and prefer a lot of British conventions when it comes to English, but I'm unsure how that's handled over there.)

OT- Alright Nintendo, you have won next generation for me. Can I save my money now? I've got this and Lost World(s) to pick up when they're released.

 

[Olrod]

Why is it that most escapists don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"?

It's because we're constantly being "corrected" that an apostrophe denotes possession.
Bird's wings = the wings of a bird. Fish's scales = the scales of a fish. Flower's petals = the petals of a flower. It's inception = the inception of an "it".

That's where the confusion comes from when the only time an apostrophe can't be used to denote possession is when the thing doing the possession is an "it".

When the possessing word is an "it" the apostrophe shouldn't be used, in that case "it's" can only be used as a contraction of "it is".