Pokémon Direct 6/6 at 7 am Pacific

  • @supermaxio Yeah it definitely seems like Necrozma.

  • Ultra Sun/Moon? Really?

  • Banned

    You will NEVER have a mainline fully 3D Pokemon RPG adventure on a Nintendo console.

  • They literally can't keep making 3DS games forever, but that's not to say the console Pokemon peoples' wishes will be fulfilled. Pokemon will obviously be on Switch once the install base is large enough to support a mainline Pokemon game, it just won't be as people hoped.

    First off, if Pokemon didn't evolve on the 3DS when it switched to 3D there's no reason it would on the Switch. Monster Hunter maintained and expanded its gameplay style on the system, and Pokemon remained a top-down turn-based RPG. The Switch is a lot more powerful than the 3DS, but that doesn't make Pokemon =/= Pokemon. It's a status quo series.

    Not to mention that asking for the 'first console Pokemon game' makes no freaking sense because they already made two of those on Gamecube, to say nothing of the much more limited Stadium and Battle Revolution.

  • @Art I'd like to see a BotW approach with Pokemon, as I think that open world concept would fit better with that than with Zelda.

  • @supermaxio feels popplio man..

  • @Haru17 said:

    First off, if Pokemon didn't evolve on the 3DS

    Oh boy, here comes this again...

    @Haru17 said:

    Monster Hunter maintained and expanded its gameplay style on the system, and Pokemon remained a top-down turn-based RPG.

    Really? You're really doing this? Monster Hunter is still just a game where you kill the same monsters over and over solo or with friends and grind for materials to make better gear so you can move up and kill stronger monsters! The core concept of Monster Hunter is still the exact same! Nothing has changed! See how easy that is to apply to just about any franchise there is? That's exactly what you're doing with Pokemon.

    Pokemon has been evolving whether or not you choose to acknowledge the changes it's made. It's done things like completely dropping the grid-based movement that was vital to the series before and dropping sprites for 3D modeled Pokemon. XY introduced a way of evolution beyond the 3-stage staple that was as far as Pokemon could go for the longest. Sun/Moon introduced regional variant Pokemon, not simply color swaps, but Pokemon that changed type and appearance due to living in a different, isolated environment. Sun/Moon also heavily pushed story as a focus with a heavy emphasis on in-game cutscenes, imo to a fault in ruining lots of what made the series great before, but there's still a huge audience that seems to enjoy the change. XY also added customization clothing options, so the player character of the games can now be personalized to greater reflect the person controlling them or built into a character the player wants to control. Sun/Moon also added quality of life improvements for people new to the series and added strange "not Pokemon" called Ultra Beasts.

    But you know, please continue to push this stupid meme narrative that Pokemon never evolves or changes simply cause it's not radically altering it's core gameplay to the point of becoming a spinoff of itself. Just don't stay something stupid like Monster Hunter has been doing this while Pokemon hasn't, because Monster Hunter is still just a game about hunting monsters over and over until you have the experience, materials, and access to hunt stronger monsters. You can just now play as Palico, there's some new fighting arts and styles, and various other not core gameplay altering additions. Unless you're talking about Stories, which is a spinoff.

    @Haru17 said:

    Not to mention that asking for the 'first console Pokemon game' makes no freaking sense because they already made two of those on Gamecube, to say nothing of the much more limited Stadium and Battle Revolution.

    What people mean when they say that is the first CORE Pokemon game built for console. Those games you listed are spinoffs, games not treated with the same level of care as the main series.

  • @Haru17 Pokemon is that one franchise, that one where the install base does not need to be present for it to be considered. Pokemon is what brings the install base. They are currently working on the Switch game. There was that post from Gamefreak or whoever about hiring. That's very little to go on but to me it's enough to say that hopefully they will do more with the Switch title. Also those other console games are spinoffs, most if not all made by developers that are not Gamefreak. These days I wouldn't mind another team stepping in to help GF with a mainline title though.

  • @Musou-Tensei YES. This is what I've been saying now that they have the Switch power to do so. It won't be as big as BotW's Hyrule though as most of the console's memory would go to the 800+ Pokemon character models and animations but it could still work in a big way.

  • @Art Are you from the future? Or just naturally that pessimistic?

  • Banned

    @RayneSol Both

  • @Art I knew it! I hear you though.

  • There's simply too many 3DS's sold. The Pokemon Company counted on those sales when making their FY2017 financial preparations.

    There's only what, 4m Switches in the world? They can't keep them in stock throughout the rest of the year anyway. Where's the benefit on Nintendo's side or the Pokemon companies side sales wise?

    They'll have 16 million more units next year. They're putting Fire Emblem on the switch next year, so I think it'll be the year of the 3DS ports. Monster Hunter XX is next year right?

  • Banned

    @Stormcrownn What's the benefit?

    Remember when the 3DS originally launched and it had shitty numbers until Pokemon released?

    Nintendo could exponentially increase their console hardware numbers because Pokemon is a hardware seller. That's the benefit.

  • @Art You realize they are selling out of Switches right?

    Releasing Pokemon this year wouldn't increase their hardware sales at all.

  • Banned

    @Stormcrownn And they could be selling even more.

  • @Art I mean...no. They couldn't. They literally don't have them on shelves, and won't get many more on shelves soon. Japan is basically being told wait until next year.

    Side note, the Pokemon company doesn't care about selling switches. they care about selling copies of pokemon.

  • @Art they really couldn't there was even a report recently mentioning that they couldn't increase the production yield, since one of their chip suppliers is unable to meet an increase in demand for a particular part, and they are prioritizing Apple as a buyer of this chip since they use it for Iphones, so it seems like there's literally no way to increase their supply.

  • @Art Exactly. That's what I'm saying. I specifically remember the 3DS not doing well before 2013. I bought one early that year after the announcement of XY. As for the stock issue, that's straight up a Nintendo problem that they shouldn't have from the get go.

  • @RayneSol Comes down to the costs initially. Lots of businessy stuff, but if scaling up production early costs them a premium when making contracts with the factories (rushing the equipment, getting the supplies/etc) then even the loss of not having enough at launch could be very profitable for them.

    The parts for things like the Switch are in stupid high demand anyway right now. If they're really making a profit off of the hardware, then they would care a lot about keeping those production costs down.

    Also, they know no one will care once they get their hands on one.