Gaming Will Pokemon Incorporate Avg. Pokedex Height?

[Xzi]

Nah I don't like that and I don't think most people would. It should stay turned based. Even BotW didn't change things up that much. But even that change made the game "eh" for me in comparison to other zelda games. Putting in such a combat system would absolutely ruin the game.

It would be polarizing for sure, but hyperbole IMO to say it'd "ruin" the game. Combat is ultimately one small element, we have to see how it's implemented and what features the rest of the game has before we criticize too harshly.

Can people honestly say it's "fun" leveling/capturing Mons now? Hitting A repeatedly to skip through the attack anims and select the same attack over and over? Sure it was fun when I was playing Pokemon Red on the original Gameboy and the experience was fresh. Now I'll welcome anything that can make that grind a little more varied.

The first video isn't even reputable because at 2:10 where you told me to go is just a fake rumor/leak, if you look at the bottom it says that Blizzard is preparing a heartstone port for the swtich but Blizzard themselves said"There are no plans to move Heartston to the Nintendo Switch"
https://powerup-gaming.com/2018/02/12/hearthstone-nintendo-switch/
Dont use rumors/disproved leaks as a reputable source

I'm not claiming either as super reputable, just points to discuss. The biggest hints we have that this might be happening are Game Freak quotes.

 

[Eddypikachu]

It would be polarizing for sure, but hyperbole IMO to say it'd "ruin" the game. Combat is ultimately one small element, we have to see how it's implemented and what features the rest of the game has before we criticize too harshly.

Can people honestly say it's "fun" leveling/capturing Mons now? Hitting A repeatedly to skip through the attack anims and select the same attack over and over? Sure it was fun when I was playing Pokemon Red on the original Gameboy and the experience was fresh. Now I'll welcome anything that can make that grind a little more varied.

Umm.. yeah... it's still fun for me doing pokemon battles, that's why I play the main series pokemon games... for turn based pokemon battles . If I wanted something that changes the system I'd play a spin-off game.

 

[Thirty3Three]

Umm.. yeah... it's still fun for me doing pokemon battles, that's why I play the main series pokemon games... for turn based pokemon battles . If I wanted something that changes the system I'd play a spin-off game.

this.

 

[Xzi]

Umm.. yeah... it's still fun for me doing pokemon battles, that's why I play the main series pokemon games... for turn based pokemon battles . If I wanted something that changes the system I'd play a spin-off game.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy high-level battles with friends and stuff, but the early game trainer battles and leveling are not fun by any stretch of the imagination. Hellen Keller would be just as efficient as the rest of us when it comes to that part.

At least with a partly real-time system you have to chance for difficulty levels and/or New Game+, so that not every NPC has to be a chump with half of your Pokemon team size and mostly Rattatas. You'd also be able to improve your play and improve your efficiency in battle instead of just min-maxing IVs/EVs.

 

[gameboy]

this.

Yea but anyone whok has seen a pokemon battle in the anime has seen ash tell pikachu tobdodge every other turn, the move Doubleteam doesn't do anything in-game

 

[Thirty3Three]

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy high-level battles with friends and stuff, but the early game trainer battles and leveling are not fun by any stretch of the imagination. Hellen Keller would be just as efficient as the rest of us when it comes to that part.

At least with a partly real-time system you have to chance for difficulty levels and/or New Game+, so that not every NPC has to be a chump with half of your Pokemon team size and mostly Rattatas.

I dunno man. I know a LOT of people who love leveling. And that's the CORE mechanic of Pokemon. The battle system and the leveling. Doing arena based gameplay would be SO stupid and is almost downright idiotic. leave that to Pokken.
Pokemon sells a SHITTON as it is. If they change the core mechanic, it may still sell well, given that it holds the pokemon brand... but it just wouldn't be a pokemon game. It's a really stupid idea to change the system to a battle-esque one. That's ridiculous. It won't be happening. I can guarantee it.

Not to mention a HUGE majority of the moves would become uselss. Pokes you transfer over (which probably wouldn't even happen given the significant changes) would lose MANY of their moves. It would just be an overall dumb idea and would ruin the series.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yea but anyone whok has seen a pokemon battle in the anime has seen ash tell pikachu tobdodge every other turn, the move Doubleteam doesn't do anything in-game

You're clearly wrong. Evasive passive moves are important for some competitive builds.

 

[Xzi]

I dunno man. I know a LOT of people who love leveling. And that's the CORE mechanic of Pokemon. The battle system and the leveling. Doing arena based gameplay would be SO stupid and is almost downright idiotic. leave that to Pokken.
Pokemon sells a SHITTON as it is. If they change the core mechanic, it may still sell well, given that it holds the pokemon brand... but it just wouldn't be a pokemon game. It's a really stupid idea to change the system to a battle-esque one. That's ridiculous. It won't be happening. I can guarantee it.

What Game Freak has said about it leads me to believe you're wrong. If they wanted the same ol' Pokemon formula on Switch it would've been released by now, most of the 3DS textures are easy enough to up to 720p I'm sure. It's because Nintendo wants to keep 3DS alive for a little while yet that Pokemon Switch has been put in the position of doing something different so as not to step on the 3DS' toes.

Not to mention a HUGE majority of the moves would become uselss. Pokes you transfer over (which probably wouldn't even happen given the significant changes) would lose MANY of their moves. It would just be an overall dumb idea and would ruin the series.

They might remove certain moves and replace them with something else or tweak values, but that's all for the sake of balance.

 

[Thirty3Three]

What Game Freak has said about it leads me to believe you're wrong. If they wanted the same ol' Pokemon formula on Switch it would've been released by now, most of the 3DS textures are easy enough to up to 720p I'm sure. It's because Nintendo wants to keep 3DS alive for a little while yet that Pokemon Switch has been put in the position of doing something different so as not to step on the 3DS' toes.

Not necessarily.

And as far as I know, they haven't said anything at all about changing up the system.

It just won't happen. Plain and simple. There's absolutely no debating. It would be like turning Mario into a card game and calling it the next installation in the series. It just simply is not going to happen lol.

 

[Xzi]

And as far as I know, they haven't said anything at all about changing up the system.

They've said Pokemon Switch will be a "radical departure" for the series, which is hard to see as anything but changing up the combat system. No other changes would be that significant.

It just won't happen. Plain and simple. There's absolutely no debating. It would be like turning Mario into a card game and calling it the next installation in the series. It just simply is not going to happen lol.

And before Odyssey you would've said it's like putting Mario in a real world like Sonic Adventure and there's no way it'll happen. If Zelda is different from typical and Mario is different from typical, we should probably be starting to sense a pattern here for Switch games.

 

[Eddypikachu]

A comment posted accidentally for me rn I didnt mean to make a post

 

[Thirty3Three]

They've said Pokemon Switch will be a "radical departure" for the series, which is hard to see as anything but changing up the combat system. No other changes would be that significant.


And before Odyssey you would've said it's like putting Mario in a real world like Sonic Adventure and there's no way it'll happen. If Zelda is different from typical and Mario is different from typical, we should probably be starting to sense a pattern here for Switch games.

Not seeing this quote. All I'm seeing is Mesuda saying, "Don't get expectations too high". I've seen what you're talking about under one rumor. That's it. Also, there are MANY things it could mean. It will NOT be the battle system. I can guarantee that. At least not changing in the way in which you describe. That'd be silly.

 

[Xzi]

Not seeing this quote. All I'm seeing is Mesuda saying, "Don't get expectations too high". I've seen what you're talking about under one rumor. That's it. Also, there are MANY things it could mean. It will NOT be the battle system. I can guarantee that. At least not changing in the way in which you describe. That'd be silly.

Yeah and that's another quote entirely to consider, why would expectations be too high if it's just more of the same?

What's so silly about it? Rather, what's so exciting about turn-based move callouts that can't be replicated with real-time callouts? It'd be the exact same system, only with more features to occupy you between callouts.

 

[dogmarch]

what if the game style would be turnbased strategic like mario + rabbids except movement would be more free form where travel distance would be dictated by speed and terrain would actually matter.

 

[Thirty3Three]

Yeah and that's another quote entirely to consider, why would expectations be too high if it's just more of the same?

What's so silly about it? Rather, what's so exciting about turn-based move callouts that can't be replicated with real-time callouts? It'd be the exact same system, only with more features to occupy you between callouts.

To that first part, you can say the same about it being the same. Why set expectations high when it'll be the same, for example? You're reading into what you want to.

And it's just plain silly. It would radically change the game and it wouldn't even be a main core "pokemon" game anymore. It wouldn't be balanced and it would just be... silly. I can't explain it completely but it should be obvious.

 

[Xzi]

To that first part, you can say the same about it being the same. Why set expectations high when it'll be the same, for example? You're reading into what you want to.

Expectations are always going to be high for a Pokemon game, but people also know what to expect by now. They also said it's "very challenging" making this game, which wouldn't be the case if they were re-using the old formula. A 3DS-style Pokemon game would be easy to make with all of Switch's extra power.

And it's just plain silly. It would radically change the game and it wouldn't even be a main core "pokemon" game anymore. It wouldn't be balanced and it would just be... silly. I can't explain it completely but it should be obvious.

Literally the only reason it seems "too radical" is because they've stuck with a single combat system for too long. That doesn't mean the changes will actually be as significant as you're imagining, it just means that Pokemon might not be a DOS game any more. There would still be plenty of complaints even if the combat system comes out perfect, ofc, because people are too enamored with boring repetition. Just look at yearly Call of Duty sales.

It is a risk to change things, but that's why I'm glad Nintendo is in a position to take risks. We've got 99% of developers/publishers playing it safe already.

And the balance thing isn't a guarantee either way, it's still a Pokemon game. IMO balance would be better than previous entries by mixing real-time combat in, but still not perfect because of the huge scope of Pokemon.

 

[Thirty3Three]

Expectations are always going to be high for a Pokemon game, but people also know what to expect by now. They also said it's "very challenging" making this game, which wouldn't be the case if they were re-using the old formula. A 3DS-style Pokemon game would be easy to make with all of Switch's extra power.


Literally the only reason it seems "too radical" is because they've stuck with a single combat system for too long. That doesn't mean the changes will actually be as significant as you're imagining, it just means that Pokemon might not be a DOS game any more. There would still be plenty of complaints even if the combat system comes out perfect, ofc, because people are too enamored with boring repetition. Just look at yearly Call of Duty sales.

It is a risk to change things, but that's why I'm glad Nintendo is in a position to take risks. We've got 99% of developers/publishers playing it safe already.

And the balance thing isn't a guarantee either way, it's still a Pokemon game. IMO balance would be better than previous entries by mixing real-time combat in, but still not perfect because of the huge scope of Pokemon.

Stop assuming with rose-coloured glasses. Please. It's really annoying, man. Very challenging could mean many things. That doesn't automatically equate to new battle system.

They just won't do it. It would be silly and you'd have to change literally SO many things about pokemon. Movesets, how you catch, etc. Literally it would ruin the entire game, even outside of the battles. It would change things so drastically in such a negative light. It's just not going to happen. It's a silly idea.

 

[Xzi]

It would be silly and you'd have to change literally SO many things about pokemon. Movesets, how you catch, etc. Literally it would ruin the entire game, even outside of the battles.

I know it's easy to be reactionary, but this simply isn't the case. Catching would be the exact same. Widdle 'em down, throw the ball. Outside of combat would be whatever they want it to be, probably the same endless exposition that people seem to love.

Stop assuming with rose-coloured glasses. Please. It's really annoying, man. Very challenging could mean many things. That doesn't automatically equate to new battle system.

I'm assuming both for the sake of discussion and because it seems the most likely conclusion. If I had a better theory I'd share it.

 

[pedro702]

they probably just gonna change the way you progress like open world go to whenever you want and the trainers/gymleaers have levels acordingly, a simple radical change does not mean change the entire battle system lol, pokemon being turn based strategy is what atrackts people, we already have way too many jrpgs around, turn based ones you can count with your fingers.

 

[Xzi]

they probably just gonna change the way you progress like open world go to whenever you want and the trainers/gymleaers have levels acordingly, a simple radical change does not mean change the entire battle system lol, pokemon being turn based strategy is what atrackts people, we already have way too many jrpgs around, turn based ones you can count with your fingers.

If there was more depth to the turn-based system I'd be fine with it, but it hit its limit a while ago. Now it's just pick the best moves, pick Pokemon with the most type advantages and fewest disadvantages, rinse and repeat. I'm not surprised that people are so opposed to the thought of real-time battles, but I am surprised that people don't want to see more surprise outcomes in fights. Or wider viability for movesets and Pokemon with many type disadvantages. As it is we're nearing like a thousand Pokemon, and maybe fifty are good enough for high-level competitive play.

 

[Thirty3Three]

If there was more depth to the turn-based system I'd be fine with it, but it hit its limit a while ago. Now it's just pick the best moves, pick Pokemon with the most type advantages and fewest disadvantages, rinse and repeat. I'm not surprised that people are so opposed to the thought of real-time battles, but I am surprised that people don't want to see more surprise outcomes in fights. Or wider viability for movesets and Pokemon with many type disadvantages.

What you described is literally the appeal of the game. It's probably just not for you.