i agree with a lot of this point, and nintendo definitely has the funding for it.acillies45 said:1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).
Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.
I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they
When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.
As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.
Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.
i dont think it should be completely moved to console though. i think an amazing 3D world combining all the regions into one massive adventure would be amazing, and have DLCs to add the new gens when they appear, and integrate a system to link with the handheld games too, but i also think keep it on handheld too. it has always been the only game series i have liked for DS (evident by not noticing when the counter of time played on save menu leapt from 52 hours after 3rd time beating champion to 1300ish hours), and without it, i would be very bored, as my life takes me on A LOT of travelling with nothing to do on the road.
i think a controllable battle situation would be very useful on maybe a computer or console based version, but there is a reason they never moved to it from turn by turn (apart from the actual concept of way easier to program). With each generation, the online features become more and more necessary, and from observing the trend of games also utilizing online in the same way, eventually the game will not even have a single player. Battling is a main part of this, and with the battling of people all over the world, a lag of up to several seconds can happen, and in a mode where you can control pokemon, servers would have a lot of trouble working out damage etc, because one person in england may dodge to the right and use hyper beam. on their display this hits a korean player in the face, however, the korean player has just dug underground, so on their screen, the english has just finished dodging. servers then compete as to which event happened, the hit or the dig, ending in a crash and a lot of complaints.
i do think the core mechanics could be given space to move and change, but with change comes hate. for example, my friend only started playing pokemon a couple of weeks ago, and he is still trying to perfect his style of game and strategy(mine is speed and power, but at the cost of low PP), whereas he just uses his highest levels. with a new combat system, all players would have to completely rethink their battle style, and i know i would hate that, because i would often come up against players who would dodge me down to low PP, meaning id have to change my strategy to high pp fast hit moves, as well as a lot of others too, meaning teams and battle styles would eventually become identical.
i believe this is two of many good reasons, although i do agree that i wish there was more difference in me using ice beam 15 times in a row and getting the same message and animation "glaceon used ice beam. its super effective!" and statistically, once every 30 times used, "its a critical hit!" and once every 40, "**wild pokemon** is frozen!".I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?