Pokemon Sword/Shield (Switch)
El Shmiablo last edited by
Just let YoshiP go ham on a full blown Pokémon MMO.
Inflorescence last edited by Inflorescence
Well I, for one, am very excited.
I kind of get where everyone's coming from, where there's a lot of disappointment around missed opportunities to make a really big change. But in the worst case scenario, this will be the biggest, best-looking, most ambitious Pokemon game yet. It has a fantastic setting, and the Pokemon aren't furry (something I was genuinely worried about).
There's only so much Pokemon you can sacrifice before you're not Pokemon anymore, and they don't want to lose their Pokemonness, on a gameplay or meta level. I know we're all right stick pros, but don't forget how much complication that brings for people new to games, and can you definitively say this game would be better if you were a new player and fought with the camera the whole time? Can you definitively say Pokemon would be better if it were an open world? Have you ever played a bad open world game?
I'm not saying the grand Pokemon quest couldn't be a good game; I very much hope it comes soon. But this is a scary time for Pokemon, and they specifically mentioned that the formula has gone stale; I just think they're playing it safe for now. The next game might not be Grand Pokemon Quest, but I think there's a lot left to be seen in Sword and Shield, and even more to be seen in the followup generation (a spinoff?).
DIPSET last edited by
More ways to interact and use your Pokemon outside of combat, to access new areas, secrets, etc. Basically like HMs but done intelligently and interestingly. Again, not too hard to figure out way to do that.
Pokemon are basically the ultimate concept for an infinite amount of gameplay scenarios outside of battles and they've only ever been used for like CUT and SWIM since 1997.
They could have one town that is basically a puzzle game and your Pokemon gains experience by going through it. There are multiple routes depending on the type of Pokemon you have.
Eh I don't want to get too lost in thought so I don't disappoint myself. They need to show more gameplay ASAP.
I just want a Pokemon game in which you cook things. Like, random encounters are cooking battles and your goal is to get the best restaurant. Collecting Pokemon helps you make better food because they help you in the kitchen. C'mon GameFreak, what are you doing!?
Hanabi last edited by
@capnbobamous Well you can make poffins in gen 4 if that counts
@hanabi NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Yoshi last edited by
Unfortunately they don't need to worry about quality control because this is Nintendo's Call of Duty. People WILL buy it no matter what.
no that would be Zelda.
El Shmiablo last edited by El Shmiablo
@yoshi Um, no. Pokémon makes much, much more than Zelda.
Yoshi last edited by
@el-shmiablo only because they out more Pokemon games.
DIPSET last edited by
That was the whole point of the COD comparison...
Yoshi last edited by Yoshi
@dipset not everyone does go crazy about Pokemon each time they release one though. In fact you constantly hear about people saying they hate the new starters and that they've "run out of ideas" and that it's too hand holdy
new Pokemon does a bunch of stuff wrong.
Something like Zelda constantly gets pumped out and can "do no wrong" each time while still being the same basic formula. People will buy Zelda no matter what and thats a franchise that doesn't need to worry about quality control.
@yoshi Without doing anything to change the formula? Did you play Breath of the Wild?
bard91 last edited by bard91
@yoshi you are talking about a very small segment that this applies to, a lot of people do very much go crazy when new Pokemon games come out, they are just not as vocal online about it, and it is a way bigger group than the one that cares for Zelda.
The reach the franchises have is just not comparable.
Mbun last edited by Mbun
pokemon company doesn't develop games.
You're the one who implied they did.
Pokken is the first HD Pokemon game was my point.
It has nothing to do with GameFreak though, which is what the conversation was about. Pokken wasn't the first HD game Bandai Namco developed by a longshot. If you really want to draw comparisons, drag up their first HD game and compare that to this.
That was not an exciting reveal, to say the least.
They always do a first teaser. Usually we get a tiny look at the region, the starters revealed, and the titles. This time we got all that plus what we're currently assuming to be a full map of the region unobscured by clouds or ice or anything. If you really think this reveal was so bad, go back and look at Gen 6 and 7's reveals. This is the most they've ever shown for a first glance at the games, and there's clearly going to be more dripped out along the path to launch like they always do.
Remember the Mario Odyssey reveal? There was a "Wow!" or a "Wtf!" moment every 5 seconds in that one.
I think you're confusing the reveal trailer for Super Mario Odyssey with the one where they revealed his capture ability, which was much later. The big shock of Mario Odyssey's reveal trailer was just that Mario was in a "realistic" city environment with seemingly real people around and that it was back to a sandbox game after so many obstacle course Mario games. I guess there's also the rabbit dude people at the time mistook for a Rabbid with all that crossover stuff going on.
This was... what? Oh hey the textures are slightly more detailed than Let's Go. Hmm the camera seems to tilt a little sometimes. There's large audiences watching gym battles, I guess? And it's in the UK.
Yes, the point was to show that they made a region based on the UK, and the games would have a heavy sports theme going on.
and Grookey is a Pansage clone echo
I don't know if you're just parroting influencer Kyle Bosman's hatred of monkey Pokemon, but they look distinctly different:
They don't stand or move the same. Their color palettes are completely different. Grookey has the stick, which it bangs to make noise like a sports fan. Grookey has a different kind of face and nose. Ears and tails are distinctly different from one another. It is also a starter, meaning it will evolve twice into something probably very different from Pansage's single evolution.
Like Kyle said, where's the ambition? Why does every game have to stick so closely to the formula?
They haven't shown all their cards with this game yet. You just saw a reveal trailer. They stick closely to the same formula, because that's what a large portion of the audience wants, why the games sell so consistently well, and because they can do crazier stuff through spinoffs if they want to. Also, we JUST got Let's Go, which was nothing but a bunch of crazy ideas that kind of broke the core mechanics of Pokemon for the sole sake of "ambition". Fans want to get back to a game that's actually balanced again.
Why 2 versions, in our day and age, what does that bring?
The same thing it has always been about since Pokemon began, Trading! That's one of the core pillars of Pokemon meant to encourage people to talk and play with one another, to help each other fill out their Pokedex. I don't know why 2 versions even bothers people. You don't have to and aren't intended to buy both.
Why 3 starters, and why fire, water and grass (I know, they're the most obvious rock-paper-scissors to understand as a new player)?
You answered yourself, but yes it is to teach players the basic mechanic of types being super effective against one another. This might not be our first Pokemon game, but there's a generation of kids who are jumping in with this. I do think there's other triangles they could go with just as effectively, but maybe they stick to this one since fire types are always on the rare side and water types you usually can't get for awhile either. It could also just be them wanting to maintain tradition. Either way, it isn't a huge deal, as long as they evolve into cool stuff with cool typings.
Why always be a kid who leaves home to become the champion?
That's the classic basis for starting your Pokemon adventure, but you can't say ALWAYS when Gen 7 wasn't that at all.
But imagine if the entire Mario series only consisted of the "New Super Mario Bros" games. That's what Pokémon feels like.
Okay, this is super fucking hyperbolic dude. Go look at Red / Blue/ Green again right now, and come back and tell me Sword and Shield look like tiny iterations on those games. No point in Pokemon's history has done the NSMB thing where it sticks to an identical art style and cookie cutter recycled worlds. Even Let's Go had a pretty different art style for its characters than Sword and Shield has. The fashion in Sword and Shield is completely different from the fashion in Alola Region, which was completely different from the fashion in Kalos.
Pokémon is like the genius kid at school who does just enough to get a passing grade even though if he tried his hardest he would be top of the class.
No, Pokémon is like the genius kid at school who was thrown into more classes than they can feasibly handle and has more expectations placed on them than anyone can possibly satisfy and is doing their best just to pass as many as they can, knowing there's no way to ace one without failing another in the process. So they try to split their classes into two distinct piles per semester to better handle them both, except every semester they're sharked by the classes they aren't taking for "wasting time" with the other classes.
There's so much more that could be done with these games.
And no time to do it. Gotta finish the game and start the next game.
maybe Sword and Shield will blow me away next time they're shown
If it doesn't nobody is forcing you to buy it either. Let's Go clearly wasn't for me, so I skipped it. I was waiting for them to make a game that looked appealing to me, and Sword and Shield is finally it. New Pokemon to discover, new region to explore, no gimmicks holding it back, and that's just the beginning!
Unfortunately they don't need to worry about quality control because this is Nintendo's Call of Duty. People WILL buy it no matter what.
I'd love to say you're wrong, but way too many people bought Let's Go for how dog rough gutter trash those games were. I don't mean just the people playing with younger family the games were directly targeting either. People couldn't wait for their fix of Pokemon, and I always get worried when that sends GameFreak the wrong message.
yeah just looking at all of my coworkers reaction it seems pretty clear theee's no need for any more effort, mediocre as it looked, people thought I was crazy when I mentioned it wasnt anything impressive
This is how I felt about Let's Go when I was passionately trying to explain all the underlying flaws of those games' "innovation" to people who acted like I was just hating for the sake of hating. Welcome to my world. Clearly we all just want different things and just need to accept when a game or two doesn't cater explicitly to us as GameFreak has entered this balancing act of trying to release something for everyone.
Just more challenging options for experienced players
I'd like this too, but that's 100% not something they'd announce when they first reveal the games, so stay tuned to see if that actually happens. Only Gen 5 has played with the idea, and the implementation of enabling it for those games was so atrocious most people don't even know it existed. Even worse is them on record now saying no more challenging post-game facilities, because only a small percentage of players touch those.
Again, not too hard to figure out way to do that.
I think that's harder than you give it credit for, because not everyone is going to have the same Pokemon, so you either have to have multiple solutions or force people to use the same or very similar Pokemon capable of performing the needed actions. That's why traditionally the majority of those kinds of areas are completely optional. People used to complain constantly about having to go back and get a Pokemon with Cut or Rock Smash to advance. Alola solved it for good hopefully. I guess we just need the concept of "Ride Pokemon" to continue and expand. Let's Go did a twist on the old HM way for the sake of maintaining the feel of the originals, but I'm sure that's going to be retired now or at least kept only within the Let's Go series.
Just something else than go from Town A to B, defeat Gym Leader, go from Town B to C, defeat Gym Leader, without any serious challenge at any point as long as you don't purposely hamper your own team.
This formula doesn't bother me too much, but I personally think it'd be a good idea to do more like Dragon Quest does and have story arcs for each area you visit that you clear before leaving. Like there's a larger problem preventing you from advancing each time, but you're not forced like in Alola to immediately go solve that to progress, instead there's also lots of optional side areas to explore, maybe with their own little side quests to unlock new areas with other Pokemon or various other things that could power you and your team up. Just little adventures like episodes of the anime. That's what I've been wanting. I think the older games had some of these kinds of things without a quest popping up and announcing it like solving Pokemon Tower in Lavender Town, but as Pokemon has marched forward towards presenting a grand story, they've lost the touch with filling the world with a bunch of smaller stories. I'm tired of just saving the world.
the Pokemon aren't furry (something I was genuinely worried about).
haha omg I would be so upset
I know we're all right stick pros, but don't forget how much complication that brings for people new to games, and can you definitively say this game would be better if you were a new player and fought with the camera the whole time?
I agree with where you're coming from, but I'm also just going to be real. Pokemon isn't a FPS. There's nothing dire threatening you as you move through the environments. I think people inexperienced with games have plenty time to work their camera as they explore. That said, I remember back in the day people talking about getting trapped inside the house in the first Pokemon game, because they couldn't figure out they should walk towards where the door mat is to leave it, so maybe the fixed camera angles are best for stringing people along so they don't get lost?
Years ago, I was adamantly against the idea of having to cater to people who couldn't figure obvious stuff out, but then I watched Damiani play Uncharted 4, and everything I complained was too obvious in that game I saw him still somehow get stuck on. That game isn't even for children, just nongamers. As much as we love Pokemon for growing up with it, it is still also made for a new generation of children getting into it for the first time. There's got to be a way around it though, like Halo's camera tutorial. Do something like that inside the starting room to teach new players.
They could have one town that is basically a puzzle game
Po Town in Alola was kind of that, and it was glorious, but it also only worked because the town had been taken over by Team Skull, and that made it no longer a functional town. Maybe they could do a temporary event that turns a town into something like that which you eventually resolve though. Thinking of BW2 when shit happens and a town gets frozen solid.
I just want a Pokemon game in which you cook things. Like, random encounters are cooking battles and your goal is to get the best restaurant.
Wasn't there recently a game like that? Battle Chef Brigade or something? I'd love a more comprehensive cooking system in a Pokemon game where you can make more treats for your Pokemon though. Having a Pokemon picnic sounds super comfy.
Something like Zelda constantly gets pumped out and can "do no wrong" each time while still being the same basic formula.
Unless you're Windwaker, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword, Triforce Heroes, or Link's Awakening Remake.
iboshow last edited by
@mbun My point is you kept making excuses as they're not familiar with making HD games/Switch. This isn't their first HD game and not their first Switch game. The Pokémon Company has the power to bring in support for Gamefreak to develop games as what Nintendo did with Breath of the Wild which is why I brought up Pokken. People like to make fun of COD but COD does way more in 2/3 years then Pokémon would ever do.
Mbun last edited by
My point is you kept making excuses as they're not familiar with making HD games/Switch.
My point is an HD game Bandai Namco made with the Pokemon property has nothing to do with GameFreak having experience with making an HD game.
This isn't their first HD game
Tembo is a 2D side scrolling platformer.
and not their first Switch game
Hard to say how many of the Sword and Shield team worked on Quest and Let's Go. Let's Go was at least mostly the second team, not the one who worked on Sword and Shield. Their experience with Let's Go wouldn't pay off until we get Let's Go Johto. Then you can judge them.
The Pokémon Company has the power to bring in support for Gamefreak to develop games as what Nintendo did with Breath of the Wild
GameFreak doesn't own pocket studios like Nintendo does. They'd have to pay outside studios to assist them, which could lead to all sorts of problems. Look at what just happened with Metroid Prime 4 with Nintendo trying to split it between too many hands. Pokemon can't handle having to cancel a game like that. It would cost them so much with also losing the planned anime and TCG and merch around it. GameFreak has to prioritize consistency over all else. Traditionally TPC licenses Pokemon out to other developers to do spinoffs (like Pokken) to give people different experiences with the brand.
People like to make fun of COD but COD does way more in 2/3 years then Pokémon would ever do.
CoD isn't balancing an entire multimedia franchise around their game releases. They're free to take risks.
Capnbobamous last edited by Capnbobamous
@mbun Battle Chef Brigade was fun, but it was far too linear. It felt like a forced progression rather than progression I achieved on my own. Plus it doesn't have Pokemon in it.
SabotageTheTruth last edited by
This might be the worst game reveal I've seen where I'm still going to buy the game regardless. It's Pokemon - it's going to have a lot of things that annoy me and make me wish for more but the core formula does still work and I'm okay with it. I may be part of the problem in "rewarding" GameFreak with my cash... but I can't honestly look at a new core Pokemon game these days and not want to play it.
Mbun last edited by
Axel last edited by
@mbun I'm not going to quote your quotes because it would become hard to follow, but I appreciate your detailed reply!
Yes, I am being hyperbolic for sure, I was just hoping for at least one feature, one little thing in the reveal that would make me go "Oh? What's this? Interesting!" and there just wasn't any. You're right that they never do that in their reveal trailers so I probably shouldn't have expected that much (and you're right about Mario Odyssey I think), and like I said it's still very possible that future trailers will show cool stuff that will make me want to jump in.
And I really want to jump in because I love Pokémon so it won't take much, this could still very well be my GOTY when all is said and done!
For difficulty settings, I'd be happy with something that was already used in the post-game of... X/Y? Maybe others too, can't remember.
The simple fact of setting your Pokémon and your opponent's to the same level. At least for Gyms and important battles. Let's say an enemy has Level 30 Pokémon: if yours are under Level 30, maybe you can still beat him, or you can grind a bit. If your Pokémon are over level 30 though (Brandon Jones style), they are brought down to Level 30, forcing you to defeat your opponent through strategy rather than brute force. If this was a setting I could toggle on or off, I'd already be very happy.
As for environmental challenges and whatnot, imagine each Pokémon has an innate ability (Fire Pokémon can light fires, Electric Pokémon can power up machines, Ghost Pokémon can move through certain things, Flying Pokémon can produce wind, etc.). Doesn't matter which moves they have or which level they are, they all have their Type's ability. Then in every cave or dungeon or anywhere really, there could be mini puzzles or simply obstacles that require you to have a Pokémon of the right type in order to proceed. More complex ones could require multiple types, or several Pokémon of one type (need 3 Flying Pokémon at once to power up this wind turbine, plus an Electric one to activate it).
This would encourage you to switch up your party regularly, experiment with new Pokémon, in turn making fights more challenging because you wouldn't have the same over-leveled team of 6 all the time. And if you're missing a Fire type and don't want to backtrack to the town to change your team, you can capture one on the fly just for this one obstacle and let it go afterwards if you want. That's just one idea that I'm sure isn't flawless but could be expanded upon. It's basically HMs with more potential and less annoyance, kids would understand it too, and their devs should be able to handle such a feature.
It's things like that I'd love to see from Pokémon, not a Breath of the Wild open world or a Dark Souls difficulty (although I'd take that as a spin-off!). Just something that stimulates me as a more experienced player.
That's why I complain about the series staples like the same 3 starters and so on. I know why they're there and I wouldn't mind them if there were other innovations on the side, but when there aren't, they become more glaring and make me believe Game Freak really don't know what else to do. So hopefully Sword and Shield will have some interesting concepts, but I can only judge what they've shown me, and so far it's New Pokémon U Deluxe.
Looking forward to E3 so I can look back on this post and mock my past self for being so skeptical!
Also I remember arguing with you about Let's Go, you hated it and I was trying to stay optimistic, and now the roles are totally reversed, so that's funny! ;)
Let's hope we all end up loving this game and trading and battling each other!