• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#31
GuitaristMatt posted...
A bigger competitive focus. Pokemon needs to find a way into esports.


Ewww no. A good 40% of the problems with the games currently are the fault of their already poverprevelant focus on competitive battlers.
Game Freak has been treating the game slike glorified League of legends patches since gen 5 ever since what happened with Plat and HGSS.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#32
Andrex_93 posted...
- a properly proportionate Region is key, so either go back to a mainly grid-based map and scale it up a bit accordingly (a few areas in XY and, from what we've seen, LGPE did this right, but the vast majority of the World feels too small and claustrophobic, because they kept the same proportions they had before but with now taller/3D/closer-to-reality characters) or actually learn to design an engaging 3D World;


glad you've been paying attention at least. :p
I think the vast majority of us can agree we'd much prefer the latter.

the approach of making less mons but have them all Signature Abilities and/or Moves is a design philosophy I'd rather they shy away from, considering it's not necessary and bloats things in the long run.


elaborate?

Andrex_93 posted...
- return of HMs with ameliorations to the system;


Not even gonna bother.

- return of Gyms;


I don't get this. I don't care either way, but what's wrong with something to replace gyms? It snot like trials were so far removed from them that it felt like something was missing.

- a general return on emphasizing the resource management aspect of the games;


Pokemon never did this much, but i digress.
This is just you saying bring back HMs again tbh, even tho as you know, i don't even agree that it adequately does even that to begin with..
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#33
GallantChaddymn posted...
Ewww no. A good 40% of the problems with the games currently are the fault of their already poverprevelant focus on competitive battlers.
Game Freak has been treating the game slike glorified League of legends patches since gen 5 ever since what happened with Plat and HGSS.

An interesting POV, to say the least. I guess I can sort of see what you're saying, even though I'm not sure I would call their approach "over-prevalent", but still, I don't excessively agree with Guitarist either, so heh.

GallantChaddymn posted...
glad you've been paying attention at least. :p
I think the vast majority of us can agree we'd much prefer the latter.

Always been paying attention. It's just that I trusted them more with a proper 3D world in the past, I guess, and now I'm much more disillusioned realistic, so, between the Kalos and Alola approach, I'd rather get the former, if I had to choose.

Obviously I would like a proper 3D World, too, although I'm actually not sure if I would surely prefer it, but that's besides the point.

GallantChaddymn posted...
elaborate?

I think the different permutations of what makes a Pokémon a Pokémon (combination of Stats, Abilities, Typing, Design etc.) are enough, most of the time, to make interesting Pokémon without having to add custom things; it's not like I would boycott if they kept doing it the other way or anything, but I don't think the Alola approach of being Oprah-like with "You get a custom Ability! You get a custom Ability! Everybody gets a custom Ability" and the same with Moves and so on is great, and technically contributes to the bloat (this doesn't mean that I agree with those who say Pokémon should "trim the fat", however; it's about having more of a balance, which IMO obviously tilts much more towards the "make Pokémon with what you have, and only sparingly make a custom X when it really fits).

GallantChaddymn posted...
I don't get this. I don't care either way, but what's wrong with something to replace gyms? It snot like trials were so far removed from them that it felt like something was missing.

That was pretty much a way of saying that they shouldn't change something for the sake of change, especially if they're gonna do something worse: I agree that Trials weren't too different from Gyms but, since I found them to be worse in pretty much every regard and they were IMO made for the wrong reasons, I wouldn't wanna GF to go and feel like they have to make something different and superficially unique for the sake of it every time.

Of all the things that could (and some even should) change in Pokémon, Gyms were not it, as far as I'm concerned.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Pokemon never did this much, but i digress.
This is just you saying bring back HMs again tbh, even tho as you know, i don't even agree that it adequately does even that to begin with..

Without dwelling on our HM discussion again (the main point of which, on my end, was exactly to emphasize how Rides did not have this element while HMs did), I'm not stating, like I've explained many times, that Pokémon was ever harsh with its resource management: all I'm saying is that it was there more than how it is today, and I'd rather tilt again towards that than continue down this modern path.

Given our HM discussion, I'm not surprised this isn't a huge point, for you, although, I guess to find another example more resonating with you, the TMs thing is also part of it, for example, as are EXP and money management, which IIRC are what I was mainly referring to when I made that post.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#34
Andrex_93 posted...
I'd rather get the former, if I had to choose.


Not even surprised. Just letting you know, you aren't doing the whole "you clearly are just bias to the 2D games" thing I accuse you of any favors in regards to dispelling it by saying this, lol

I think the different permutations of what makes a Pokémon a Pokémon (combination of Stats, Abilities, Typing, Design etc.) are enough, most of the time, to make interesting Pokémon without having to add custom things; it's not like I would boycott if they kept doing it the other way or anything, but I don't think the Alola approach of being Oprah-like with "You get a custom Ability! You get a custom Ability! Everybody gets a custom Ability" and the same with Moves and so on is great, and technically contributes to the bloat (this doesn't mean that I agree with those who say Pokémon should "trim the fat", however; it's about having more of a balance, which IMO obviously tilts much more towards the "make Pokémon with what you have, and only sparingly make a custom X when it really fits).


See, this is where what I said earlier comes in to play. Because of the focus on competitive battling, they HAVE to do with with Pokemon designs. If you just making them glorified stats and ability combos, you can't really add anything interesting to the competitive scene and make it have its own niche for the purpose of battling. They all just end up being weaker or stronger "already done versions" of what we have.

I fail to see how this contributes any sort of bloat tho. If anything, we have had less overall number of pokemon as a result of spending more time making each individual one more interesting.

A more accurate example of bloat would be Gen 2, with its roster of forgettable dex filler mons, and i say this as someone who considers Gen 2 his fave Gen.

The last thing I want is for us to just make rehashed pokemon for the end of time, and with 800+ mons on the list as we speak, introducing more interesting and well thought out Pokemon is kinda unavoidable at this point, regardless of the degree to which you feel it is needed. We can't just play with slightly different Pidgey clones forever.

The only way to really justify this imo is to try and justify increasing the raw number of mons by making them all less interesting, which is by and far not worth it imho.

That was pretty much a way of saying that they shouldn't change something for the sake of change,[...] I wouldn't wanna GF to go and feel like they have to make something different and superficially unique for the sake of it every time.

Of all the things that could (and some even should) change in Pokémon, Gyms were not it, as far as I'm concerned.


I don't really see how they were strictly worse than Gyms at all.
If anything, I found them better in some regards and weaker in others. But even then, it was less about the concept and more about the execution.

The trials themselves didn't feel worse than gyms in any way they didn't already feel weak in Gen 5 onward. Whereas the actual boss fights they provided were overall better in my IMO.

I'm not against the return of gyms, but I would be let down if we just went back to them instead of doing something else from now on, especially when we agree that the concept hasn't been and doesn't have to be so far removed from them that they feel like something is missing. There's only so much you can really do with the Gym concept within the restrictions of it, so changing it up every now and again IS necessary imo.

Don't wanna go down the HM convo again either, but like I said before, Rides not doing it had very little to do with Rides themselves as a concept.
I'll agree with TMs and EXP tho. Even tho i doubt we will ever see it happen.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#35
GallantChaddymn posted...
Not even surprised. Just letting you know, you aren't doing the whole "you clearly are just bias to the 2D games" thing I accuse you of any favors in regards to dispelling it by saying this, lol

How would this surprise you when we've already talked about how I prefer the Kalos approach than the Alola one, in the past, and it's pretty much what I already stated ITT, anyway.

And it's not really bias so much as is taste, but, again, I simply likely don't trust GF with true 3D, rn; I'm open to having my mind changed if they make something actually great.

GallantChaddymn posted...
See, this is where what I said earlier comes in to play. Because of the focus on competitive battling, they HAVE to do with with Pokemon designs. If you just making them glorified stats and ability combos, you can't really add anything interesting to the competitive scene and make it have its own niche for the purpose of battling. They all just end up being weaker or stronger "already done versions" of what we have.

The competitive scene sees variation in what is allowed every year (at least ideally; I pretty much only care for first pair regional dexes, which do this the best, IMO), and, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to reduce Pokémon to Stats and Abilities: that's why I also mentioned designs. It all stems on the balance of how they do this, as, of course, your simplification of "my" approach (just a slightly different Pidgey) is, well, a simplification: like, say, for example, I'm fine with Toucannon in general; it was different enough Stat-wise, it was a distinct animal, and, in this case, I'm fine with it having a custom Move; now, yes, there are arguably problems with it, and it didn't shake up the competitive scene: but that's ok, because these games are not just competitive.

Now, what I'm saying they shouldn't do is do what they did (and more) with Toucannon for every mon, which is kind of what Alola did: a lot of mons either had a custom Ability or a Move or both, which is what I'm referring to with the bloat. If we have to have bloat on something, I'd rather it be Pokémon themselves, rather than Moves and Abilities, as they're usually virtually more interesting, serve better the franchise by making every Region feel unique (especially/at least when enough per Region are introduced), etc...

GallantChaddymn posted...
I fail to see how this contributes any sort of bloat tho. If anything, we have had less overall number of pokemon as a result of spending more time making each individual one more interesting.

Hopefully I've explained this above; to comment on the addition to the point, I don't necessarily find Pokémon with custom gimmicks virtually more interesting, let alone better, than other ones, even if they're simpler.

GallantChaddymn posted...
The only way to really justify this imo is to try and justify increasing the raw number of mons by making them all less interesting, which is by and far not worth it imho.

I don't think one goes along with the other, and I really feel like a certain amount of new mons is needed to make each Region feel unique, give enough new tools to players and casuals alike, fill in every/most of the collectathlon gimmicks etc.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#36
GallantChaddymn posted...
Trials bit

I disagree about them not feeling worse overall, as they definitely felt rushed/under-cooked (as later confirmed by the description of their development by Ohmori himself) and, again, it's more about not wanting the need of change for the sake of change to permeate that aspect: they can do more varied things while still using the concept of Gyms. The bosses, purely gameplay-wise, where indeed more challenging, but I don't even agree with the fact that they're necessarily better than Gym Leaders as a whole.

Really, the crux is that they need to put more effort in general to try and ameliorate what is there, rather than stagnate and not put effort in, but that would also likely have to go along with a more stretched release schedule, with less games etc.. And this latter element is certainly not gonna happen, I fear; so, if we assume they can't do something truly better with what they have, I'd rather them not stray too far off the path at all and make something "new" purely for the sake of change, at least in this aspect, is all.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I'm not against the return of gyms, but I would be let down if we just went back to them instead of doing something else from now on, especially when we agree that the concept hasn't been and doesn't have to be so far removed from them that they feel like something is missing. There's only so much you can really do with the Gym concept within the restrictions of it, so changing it up every now and again IS necessary imo.

Heh, see, I'm of a different opinion, or at least I would not go as far as to say that it's necessary to change them.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Don't wanna go down the HM convo again either, but like I said before, Rides not doing it had very little to do with Rides themselves as a concept.

Indeed, my main point of contention in that was the statement that Rides did the same thing HMs did on the same levels, which you later (like, in a different topic, sometime after that whole debacle, IIRC) agreed with; our actual difference of opinion is how much that actually influenced the games in a good way and how much in a bad way, which I can already see the point of, even if I still ultimately disagree with it.

I guess this can be the same as above, here: I'd rather them try to make it better, rather than change it outright.

Anyway..
GallantChaddymn posted...
I'll agree with TMs and EXP tho. Even tho i doubt we will ever see it happen.

Yeah.. going by how they're streamlining things even more, nowadays to bring in immediate sense of reward for the most menial of tasks... Well, let's just say that I'm really curious how they'll differentiate the LG series (if they manage to launch it off beyond LGPE) and the 2019 games, but I don't have high hopes, either.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#37
Andrex_93 posted...
The competitive scene sees variation in what is allowed every year


because Pokemon game shave been yearly releases as of late, each game introducing clear additions and changes geared towards changing/shaking up the competitive meta.

, and, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to reduce Pokémon to Stats and Abilities: that's why I also mentioned designs.


Competitive battlers don't care about designs tho. And for SinglepLayer, designs while nice, don't by themselves make the game more fun or engaging. You need something to back it up to properly deliver and solidify the identity of the pokemon the design is attached to. It's why pokemon like Blaziken were such a stand out. It's not just a Fire Fighting starter. It's the one you remembered for having Flaming Kick attacks, and naturally learned the move Blaze Kick as a validation of that.

And in regards to balance, you can't too drastically shake up the types of pokemon distributed, so "different pidgeys" isn't so much a simplification as an observation of the inevitable end result of this practice.

Like, out of all the regional birds, the only ones pre-Gen 6 that were interesting or different was hoothoot line, and only because Gen 2 still had Pidgey to fulfill its original intended role.

it didn't shake up the competitive scene: but that's ok, because these games are not just competitive.


I agree that they don't. again, if we decide to do that, 80% of the pokemon couldn't and shouldn't exist.
Whatsmore is that you would create all kinds of balance issues for the single player.

Now, what I'm saying they shouldn't do is do what they did (and more) with Toucannon for every mon, which is kind of what Alola did: a lot of mons either had a custom Ability or a Move or both, which is what I'm referring to with the bloat.


I don't see how this is "bloat" really. You are gonna have to be less nebulous if you wanna properly convey why this is "too much". Not saying i I think it is or isn't. im saying your argument isn't really substantive here.

. If we have to have bloat on something, I'd rather it be Pokémon themselves,


so i was spot on with my assessment then? This is about justifying adding 120+ mons instead of 80ish.

Hopefully I've explained this above; to comment on the addition to the point, I don't necessarily find Pokémon with custom gimmicks virtually more interesting, let alone better, than other ones, even if they're simpler.


Well we are gonna have to disagree on this one, because I don't think it really can be argued against.
Even if a pokemon doesn't appeal to me specifically, I can very easily admit to it being more interesting if, well, they gave it an interesting attributes that make it stand out and memorable among its peers.
I think you are conflating "being more interesting" with "i like it", which i trust you can make the distinction between. This in turn would explain your previous stances. You care more about the designs of the creatures, and thus would rather more raw number of monsters to increase the probability of you liking more of them, rather than having a low amount of ones that, while more thought out, you probably wouldn't personally care about regardless by virtue of it simply not appealing to you.

While i think it can be argued that this position is kinda selfish, I can't say I see this position as necessarily wrong. I do think it would serve us both to frame them more clearly and honestly tho. Would save u and me on time and character space in any case, lol.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#38
Andrex_93 posted...
I don't think one goes along with the other, and I really feel like a certain amount of new mons is needed to make each Region feel unique, give enough new tools to players and casuals alike, fill in every/most of the collectathlon gimmicks etc.


As i've said in the past, the raw number of new pokemon isn't as important to making the region feel new and unique. Its all about the distribution.
Gen 2 suffered similar problems in regards to feeling unique, despite having 100 mons because of its poor distribution. most of the old mons dominated while the newer ones were relegated to rarer areas or post game.
Despite this, it is regarded as one of if not the best generation by a lot of the player base. Myself included.
As for options, this is only true if the pokemon is actually a real opinion as opposed to dex filler.
saying you have 120 new mons and therefore 120 options is quite the misnomer.

Accounting for legendaries and evolutions alone cuts that down considerably, and after that, you have to account for pokemon with the express purpose of being early game fodder for the enemies to use, as well as which ones end up box fodder for the pokedex.

Now you just said that you don't believe that the quality and quantity are anti proportional, but this simply can't be taken seriously. There Is at the end of the day only a finite amount of dev time that goes into any given game. Moreso, there is only a finite amount that goes into it before it stops being worth it as well. There is an adage about making content most your playerbase will actually never enjoy, and while
I don't strictly adhere to it, it does have merit.
All this is compounded to the undeniably enormous amount of creatures we are starting to reach, which regardless of if or I have issues with creates issues for gamefreak themselves as time goes on, as well as other developers that have to manage the Pokemon series.
i've spent enough time on this small bit alone so ill leave it at that for the time being.

I disagree about them not feeling worse overall, as they definitely felt rushed/under-cooked (as later confirmed by the description of their development by Ohmori himself) and, again, it's more about not wanting the need of change for the sake of change to permeate that aspect: they can do more varied things while still using the concept of Gyms. The bosses, purely gameplay-wise, where indeed more challenging, but I don't even agree with the fact that they're necessarily better than Gym Leaders as a whole.

Really, the crux is that they need to put more effort in general to try and ameliorate what is there, rather than stagnate and not put effort in, but that would also likely have to go along with a more stretched release schedule, with less games etc.. And this latter element is certainly not gonna happen, I fear; so, if we assume they can't do something truly better with what they have, I'd rather them not stray too far off the path at all and make something "new" purely for the sake of change, at least in this aspect, is all.


Well, as i've said, there is only so much you CAN do with gyms, and while i don't think we necessarily have reached the absolute limit, my point is if we keep this up we are gonna hit it sooner than later, and at that point we will have to deal with a more jarring transition period of which I'd like to avoid.
I'm not saying we have to get rid of gyms. What i find necessary is to not strictly stick to them. We should play a Pokemon game and question whether gyms will be wut we do as opposed to expecting them, is what i am saying. That's what i find necessary if only because it will not only open up the game sin a non intrusive way, but prevent long term disaster from occurring in the future. Its less about it being necessary to change gyms, as it is necessary to not stick to them exclusively.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#39
Andrex_93 posted...
I'd rather them try to make it better, rather than change it outright.


And as i've said, everything intrinsic to the system leads me to the conclusion that it simply can't be made sufficiently better to justify the negatives that also are intrinsically the result of it.

but enough of that...

Yeah.. going by how they're streamlining things even more, nowadays to bring in immediate sense of reward for the most menial of tasks... Well, let's just say that I'm really curious how they'll differentiate the LG series (if they manage to launch it off beyond LGPE) and the 2019 games, but I don't have high hopes, either.


Glad we agree on something, lol. All we can hope is that LG is in fact their way of shoveling all that nonsense somewhere else so that gen 8 can actually fix the series' problems.
But as ive said, Ill believe it when i see it.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#40
GallantChaddymn posted...
because Pokemon game shave been yearly releases as of late, each game introducing clear additions and changes geared towards changing/shaking up the competitive meta.

And I have my issues with that, too (as I said when I mentioned my issue with the "yearly" releases thing), and a few ideas on how they could approach that; but this is another discourse that IMO does not strictly relate to the number of Pokémon nor how they special they're made, even though I understand what you're saying.

So, I don't necessarily believe that's the only way, nor do I believe that making special Pokémon is the only way to make a meta interesting. Heck, I'd argue that is looking at it too much from a competitive perspective.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Competitive battlers don't care about designs tho.

Well, not strictly for the gampeplay competence they're looking for, but design is appreciated.. Well, I know what you were trying to say, here, but, again, it's not like competitive players are automatically less engaged if there are less new special Pokémon.

GallantChaddymn posted...
And for SinglepLayer, designs while nice, don't by themselves make the game more fun or engaging. You need something to back it up to properly deliver and solidify the identity of the pokemon the design is attached to. It's why pokemon like Blaziken were such a stand out. It's not just a Fire Fighting starter. It's the one you remembered for having Flaming Kick attacks, and naturally learned the move Blaze Kick as a validation of that.

Again, it's all about balance: I'm not saying "don't make any more custom Moves and Abilities, we have enough", I'm saying that they have to have a bit more restrain with it, especially if they keep introducing so few new mons; having such custom things is not necessary for the casual player to have engaging in-game experiences; heck, I'd argue they're mostly marginal, or certainly not the main element, anyway. Again, not in the context of "let's not make any", but more in "if everything's special, nothing is" sort of thing.

GallantChaddymn posted...
And in regards to balance, you can't too drastically shake up the types of pokemon distributed, so "different pidgeys" isn't so much a simplification as an observation of the inevitable end result of this practice.

Like, out of all the regional birds, the only ones pre-Gen 6 that were interesting or different was hoothoot line, and only because Gen 2 still had Pidgey to fulfill its original intended role.

I don't really agree with this: they can very well create a good deal of variety without having to resort to having custom things for the Pokémon. Having the regional Type be not /Normal when it fits in the Region, for example, is a good way to spin the trope, but it's far from the only way.

That's why I talked about a simplification; at best you can argue that Pokémon didn't strain too far from Pidgey in the past, but, even if that was true, I wouldn't say that's automatically a bad thing but I'm also not saying that I'd do that.

Again, it's a matter of balance, not either one or the other.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?
  • Topic Archived