Pokemon Sun & Moon (3DS)
@SabotageTheTruth The error in your post is assuming this would improve the game, not taking development time away from other areas, not messing up the vibe of the game/setting. Could you please stop with the "unlike yourself, I still love this game" and such comments? Trying to get you to understand why they don't do something doesn't mean I hate the series. It means I've heard people make these arguments a billion times and seen the debates back and forth about the matter and am trying to share a little insight with you who might think this is a totally great idea like the people who think a Pokemon MMO is a totally great idea. Also, when people disagree with you in a matter, you don't attack them. You've put so many words in my mouth over this, I'm kinda done trying to help you understand, because you turn around as thanks and act like I'm trying to ruin Pokemon.
Yes, they removed HMs. They were universally disliked. Yes, they changed gyms to trials for this game. Who knows if that will be a permanent change, an experiment, or an Alolan Region exclusive? The showing move effectiveness is just a little quality of life thing that could also easily disappear next game, because GameFreak adds and takes away features constantly. This actually brings up an interesting point, how frustrating it is that people truly believe this game is that different from others. This game didn't "change it up" nearly as much as people talk it up. XY had a huge list of improvements, lots of which are straight up gone now, and this happens every single game. The island challenges are direct Gym replacements that aren't all that different in role and set you up for the same League at the end. HMs was the only real big change, and we've been waiting for it forever. They changed the scale of the world, which they've been experimenting with every generation since Gen 5, and removed the grid, but XY had grid breaking movement on rollerblades, and now the tradeoff is invisible walls in areas it looks like you should be able to walk.
Overall, it very much is another Pokemon game and sticks to Pokemon standards with dumbing down in certain areas. You're asking for added difficulty and praising some of this dumbing down in the same posts even. Some people are sick of the Pokemon formula and how it's basically still the same game today, even with the tons of quality of life improvements, massive number of new Pokemon, and massive changes in visuals and audio, but all I have to say to those people is stop clamoring for them to abandon the formula that makes Pokemon Pokemon and just play the spinoffs. That's where people take the setting and experiment with new gameplay alternatives. The main series is a staple. If you go changing it radically without thought, then it's no longer the game people look forward to every new release. It's a delicate balance between adding improvements and changing too much. Every new game is also inevitably someone's first Pokemon. Many young kids who have never played end up joining in when a new game releases, and even some older people who have somehow avoided it until now hop on the zeitgeist for one reason or another, just look at Jones.
Does it need to evolve? Every game needs to evolve. Luckily they have a nice big team of staff that delicately considers these changes every game. I could propose a hundred ideas I have for the franchise, but I'm not going to sit here and shove them down your throat and tell you that you don't love the series like me if you disagree with any of my fan ideas. So yeah L&R, but you need to live the creed, not just say it as a "get out of all the stuff I said and the way I acted" card.
Axel last edited by
The error in your post is assuming this would improve the game, not taking development time away from other areas, not messing up the vibe of the game/setting.
Well, his post just explained how this would not take away development time away from other areas, because it would be a very simple thing to implement. Obviously his example is over-simplified but I do agree that if they wanted to add such an option, it wouldn't be that hard.
Your only counter-argument is that they tried once and it sucked, so they won't try again. That's not exactly convincing, there's no reason why they can't try again and come up with a better solution.
Let's take a look at a series that used to have the exact opposite problem: Fire Emblem. This game was actually too hardcore to ever reach a mainstream audience, mainly because of permadeath. They then added the option to disable permadeath, and now people can play however they prefer. It didn't take anything away from purists, but the audience has expanded.
So there's no reason why Pokemon couldn't do that. A hardcore option wouldn't scare away beginners, but would satisfy veterans.
@Axel I agree. There is no reason why they couldn't and shouldn't do this for Pokemon. I think this rising internet superstar's idea is actually a really practical and achievable solution. Including a hard mode where everyone has 6 Pokemon would not be hard to implement at all, they could just throw in random Pokemon at the assigned levels and be done in an hour. Then if you want to make those special trainers more special again you give them stronger Pokemon and spend more time coming up with their team. Just because something disappeared after a single game doesn't mean it didn't work or was a bad idea. If HMs, Gyms, grids, etc. all come back Sun/Moon does that mean they didn't work or were bad ideas? Of course not.
With all of that being said I haven't played a Pokemon game since gen 2 so my opinion doesn't really matter. Just from a pure game design perspective they should absolutely include options for skipping tutorials and/or making the game harder.
@Axel @Tragosaurus You can't just add three times the amount of Pokemon your character faces through the game in trainer battles though. There's lots of reasons that just wouldn't work, biggest being your Pokemon would suddenly be receiving three times the normal amounts of experience they'd get, so it'd completely throw off the level balance. It's not "a very simple thing". It's something that'd have to be meticulously balanced and have all the other systems balanced around them. You also for the majority of the game as a player wouldn't have access to necessary facilities to keep up with a metagame-like atmosphere, so they'd have somehow move those around and find ways to grant you access to them sooner. It's also hard to "just give the strong trainers stronger Pokemon" when they're already using some of the strongest ones available without going into legendary territory, which further mucks up the tone and atmosphere of the game. I think it's very easy to not look at the big picture and be like "yeah, they could easily just slap some stuff in here", but you have to consider how drastically those changes would affect everything around them.
This post is deleted!
@Mbun Yeah but fixes can be made for anything. I clearly was exaggerating a bit, by saying it would only take an hour and just give those special trainers stronger Pokemon, but there are some obvious solutions to the problems you pointed out. Yes there would be some work for balancing but that's no reason to not even consider it. Like I said it's been a long time since I played a Pokemon game so I definitely can't see the big picture but I have to imagine it would not be that difficult to make a few changes to start moving in that direction. You say you're not against what was suggested and only trying to explain that its "impractical" but it doesn't have to be. And if GameFreak doesn't want to start making these changes hopefully the people that are bothered by it stop buying the games so a change will be necessary. There's nothing wrong with fans wanting more from a game they love. I love Pokemon but have no desire to play another Pokemon game that's in the same vein as they have been. I want that console action battle Pokemon game baby!
@Tragosaurus I just hope you understand it'd be like balancing a significant part of another game on top of the core game now. Pokepark has some "console action battle" Pokemon elements, but most of it is minigames and such. There's also Pokken if you like fighting games. Since Pokemon is inevitably making the Switch at the very least we can look forward to the main series hitting your television next game. I agree with you though. Would love to see a spinoff that's real time action battles like the ones in Pokepark but more in depth and controlling any Pokemon, not just Pikachu. Hopefully they'll make something like that one day.
SabotageTheTruth last edited by
@Axel Dang man, mind reader! I had difficulty in games stuck in my mind all night last night and a shining example came to me - Fire Emblem.
Also, with more fights, you scale down EXP earned. Or get really crazy and ONLY trainer battles give you experience until end game, so grinding becomes impossible and you're forced to plan on who gets what experience, akin to Fire Emblem Fates: Conquest. Not impossible and not impractical, although I am genuinely curious to see if difficulty is something the team will address. Guess we'll see!
@Tragosaurus, I was watching Did You Know Gaming? on Pokemon Stadium the other day and they pulled a quote from the head designer of the series, saying he'd only want to make another one if they had a truly innovative idea. Maybe he'll be struck with lightning and filled with brilliance.
Axel last edited by
@Mbun You're totally right about the experience distribution that would be messed up, and the solution isn't that simple, but that's not to say there aren't any solutions. Like I said earlier, at least making all the important fights (rival, gym/trial, totem, team Skull, etc.) "Lv 50 for everyone", same as playing online, would ensure interesting challenges even if you grinded too much. We're coming up with simple - imperfect - stuff by thinking about it for 2 minutes, I'm pretty sure the actual team could come up with something viable if they put their mind to it.
Anyhoo, we can only wait and see!
The long awaited Brandon Sun review! :D