How would you bring up the games?

[SimH8]

I really don't see the need for the butthurt, the OP clearly stated he likes pokemon, he isn't hating on it. He is just mentioning there are aspects that can be seen as flaws. I agree with most of the points he made. People responded to the evolution by trading by saying "it's to make people interact with each other". Well the problem he explained was that he didn't have friends that liked pokemon, so there was NO way he could get the pokemon, which is a pretty big problem.

Furthermore people misunderstood the problem with Protect spamming from NPC's. When they do it for a tactic that is fine, but it is stupid when they do it for no reason, they will lose anyway and it does't make the battle any harder, just unnecessarily longer.

And legendaries are becoming far too common imo. I'd agree that 5 was too little, but 12-14 released in DP was way too much. Legendary pokemon are meant to be some of the most memorable due to their status, but that isn't the case any more since it isn't as special to be a legendary.

For the point exclaiming how event pokemon are special because of their rarity, that is true. But I should be able to catch every legendary released in a generation with in the game itself, it's annoying that I can never get the chance to use an Arceus because I haven't been able to get one in an event.

I just think you should be able to complete the game without having the necessity for outside resources. They could always make it so interaction makes it easier, but never should you have to rely on other people to complete it.

(PS. Just to avoid further butthurt, I love pokemon and it's one of my favourite things in the world, but there are problems with the franchise )

 

[randomspot555]

Doesn't seem to be much actual discussion, just some people not contributing to the topic and just ragging on the OP. Just thought if people wanted to post they could at least be constructive to the topic rather than just telling people to get lost.

No one has told him to get lost. I'm sorry you've bought into the notion that all opinions are equal, but they aren't. Saying stuff like "Gen I Pokemon only" and "no events" (even though events have been around since Gen I and under no circumstances has any Pokemon game ever had the ability to obtain every single Pokemon within one game cart) is dumb. If these things are something you want, there are games that already meet those requirements that are already released instead of trying to fix what isn't broken and ruining the games for other fans that actually enjoy them. Many of the others are misguided such as the "power creep" and its affect on Gen I Pokemon, or SR and how it has "Harmed" the game (it hasn't).

Well the problem he explained was that he didn't have friends that liked pokemon, so there was NO way he could get the pokemon, which is a pretty big problem.

Wi-Fi.

For the point exclaiming how event pokemon are special because of their rarity, that is true. But I should be able to catch every legendary released in a generation with in the game itself, it's annoying that I can never get the chance to use an Arceus because I haven't been able to get one in an event.

In the entire history of Pokemon, that has never been possible.

I just think you should be able to complete the game without having the necessity for outside resources.

Pokemon is fully enjoyable and playable without having access to everything under the sun. If you want to "complete" the game, which isn't necessary (And IMO borders on work more than fun), then yes you might have to sink some time and resources into it.

 

[Zecaomes]

Doesn't seem to be much actual discussion, just some people not contributing to the topic and just ragging on the OP. Just thought if people wanted to post they could at least be constructive to the topic rather than just telling people to get lost.

For me, it looks like a discussion. He shows his thoughts and other people say wether or not they agree with him. It's grat that we have divergent opnions in anything, if everyone agreed with something, something would be very wrong. His topic is about thing he'd change in the Pokémon games, people have the right to asy that they don't want those certain things to change.

 

[Aegon]

I really don't see the need for the butthurt, the OP clearly stated he likes pokemon, he isn't hating on it. He is just mentioning there are aspects that can be seen as flaws. I agree with most of the points he made.

Indeed. Are we no longer allowed to criticise aspects of the games? I don't know where some people have gotten the idea that the OP is a genwunner from, either, since he expressed an issue with Gen I, too.

smh

 

[randomspot555]

Indeed. Are we no longer allowed to criticise aspects of the games? I don't know where some people have gotten the idea that the OP is a genwunner from, either, since he expressed an issue with Gen I, too.

smh

It would help if his criticisms had some thought put into them. The "power creep" and "Stealth Rock" fears are particularly misguided, and the "Gen I Pokemon only" and "introduce very few new Pokemon" are completely dumb. And there's some stuff like "no event Pokemon" which has never been true at all for Pokemon, so why would it start now? Events are now easier than ever to obtain and to end something which most fans like just because a select few can't get events seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Flying Weasel]

Wi-Fi.

You have to remember Wi-fi hasn't always been around and not everyone can get it despite being free. I know I didn't have it until Black and White. Back in the Gen 1, 2, and 3 we didn't have it and the only way to get a trade required pokemon was to either-
A) Have friends that also have the game.
B) Have two consoles and two games that you can use.

 

[Lucario95]

Sorry, but in overall the ideas aren't good, Pokemon games still having success, even having the same ideas. The games are the main reason of their success, it what made the anime, the cards, merchandise, everything related to Pokemon which had result positively. Currently, Pokemon is the 2nd best of the Nintendo franchise. If really changing the ideas, definitely will get worse and get more bad critics, and the franchise wouldn't be the same. I rather say that Pokemon still have those ideas that were working good all the time. I know that today aren't the same as the 1st Generation, but still young children likes today's Pokemon and felt passion about it, just as we were in the first generation.

 

[Flying Weasel]

Still in my opinion at least, the legendary count per game is a bit too high now. It seems like they're also not really giving them that much background. Has heatran ever been given a story or origin other then what the pokedex says. If they made him a movie or an appearance in the anime please correct me, I really would like to know more about them other then the 2-3 sentences the pokedex gives.

P.S. I think your Lucario may have a "little" chocolate problem.

 

[randomspot555]

^^^^ Heatran appeared in a Pokemon Ranger Special episode. It had an event exclusive move and that's why the Ranger was looking for it. It was also featured in Movie 12. And oddly, a Heatran appeared under the ownership of a trainer who was entering the Sinnoh League, but it was never shown battling in the League itself. It has the same amount of "backstory" in-game as the Kanto Bird trio have.

You have to remember Wi-fi hasn't always been around and not everyone can get it despite being free. I know I didn't have it until Black and White. Back in the Gen 1, 2, and 3 we didn't have it and the only way to get a trade required pokemon was to either-
A) Have friends that also have the game.
B) Have two consoles and two games that you can use.

That is truly unfortunate, but that is no reason to change how the game works or change what one can do in the game just because a small don't have access have Wi-Fi.it is unfortunate for them but that doesn't mean the ENTIRE FRANCHISE should eliminate WI-Fi events, DW, trade evolutions and other enjoyable stuff just because a small minority don't have access to it.

Nevermind the fact that one can fully play and enjoy the game without Wi-Fi. But yes, if you want to do many other things outside of the core game, you might need Wi-Fi access for some parts.

 

[The Benmeister]

For me, it looks like a discussion. He shows his thoughts and other people say wether or not they agree with him. It's grat that we have divergent opnions in anything, if everyone agreed with something, something would be very wrong. His topic is about thing he'd change in the Pokémon games, people have the right to asy that they don't want those certain things to change.

Oh, undoubtedly true, and I'd fight that right to the bitter end, it's just that a few people in here adopted the 'if you don't like it, play something else' mentality, even though the OP clearly stated he liked the franchise as it is, but they would have done it differently.

Not to mention this topic is hypothetical of course, and I just feel it seems very close minded for people not to even try to think up how they'd rather do things regardless of the realistic effect on fans and game players. Granted, the OP's points are highly debatable. But I know I'd change a bunch of things about the games even if it was for my own personal benefit and no one elses, the games aren't perfect.

 

[SimH8]

Wi-Fi.


In the entire history of Pokemon, that has never been possible.


Pokemon is fully enjoyable and playable without having access to everything under the sun. If you want to "complete" the game, which isn't necessary (And IMO borders on work more than fun), then yes you might have to sink some time and resources into it.

1) Not everyone has access to Wi-Fi

2)Why is that an issue? Then make it possible.

3)It's not really been fully enjoyable since not everyone has access to all the pokemon so can't enjoy using every one. And I consider being able to complete the game pretty necessary.

 

[randomspot555]

1) Not everyone has access to Wi-Fi

That is truly unfortunate for those people. But instead of destroying a core aspect of the franchise, how about you recognize that more people have the ability to trade now than they did before and that it doesn't prevent people from enjoying the games just because their Haunter stays a Haunter.

2)Why is that an issue? Then make it possible.

It isn't an issue. Not everyone is as averse to *gasp* interacting with other people as you are.

Strange how this wasn't an issue in 1996 or 1999 or in 2003, but it is a BFD nowadays.

3)It's not really been fully enjoyable since not everyone has access to all the pokemon so can't enjoy using every one. And I consider being able to complete the game pretty necessary.

If your entire enjoyment of the game hinges on having access to everything by yourself and easily, then Pokemon isn't for you. It never has been. You've never been able to complete the entire dex by yourself on any game. The game specifically encourages you to go and interact with other people. If that thought makes the game suck, then I'd recommend finding another game you enjoy because clearly Pokemon ins't for you.

What I meant by fully being able to enjoy and play is that at no point in time in the game does Pokemon force you to have a specific Pokemon to complete a necessary goal. The main game, that is the eight gyms and the E4, can be fully played and enjoyed without ever interacting with another game cart or attending an event. What is preventing you from enjoying the game, exactly? Not having Charmander available at the start?

 

[Zazie]

I would bring up the games by putting some extra care into the single player game:

Diamond and Pearl had gym leaders who trained pokemon outside their type. Black and White had a three type gym leader. This gets me thinking. Why not give gym leaders other themes besides training X type ? Perhaps you could have a gym leader who likes to focus on status ailments, or who has a rain dance team, or is a pirate etc. You can still keep gym leaders focused on a particular type but you don't have to be slave to it.

Gen V also removed some of the focus away from the the gyms and elite four towards Team Plasma a bit. Why not keep this focus shift, but try to make the plot a little different from bad guys take over the world. Team Aqua and Magma in Emerald was a good example, you got to fight two teams who also fought each other.

More emphasis on the pokedex. Back in gen 1 you got rewards for catching x pokemon. In gen 4 they seemed to focus on seeing all the pokemon as well. I would like to see a continuation of these themes. Catching them all at this point is pretty tough, but you can still at least put an emphasis on catching and/or seeing as many of them as you can.

More emphasis on Contest type-stuff. Ruby and Sapphire made contests a pretty decent sub-game to the point of having a lot of towns whose main purpose was housing the next contest rank. Later games had contest like features, but they didn't seem as important and were stuck in one city. I would like to go back how Ruby and Sapphire did it, making it feel like part of the quest a bit. And just like with the pokedex, reward the player for spending time on the subquest.

More Triple, Roatation and Multi-battles. Because they are awesome. Gen 4 did a pretty good job with giving you some team ups with NPCs. I have yet to see much in game support for triple or rotation battles yet. (though I haven't finished white 2)

Be a little more loose with the in game pokemon. Why not let trainers, especially gym leaders and other important ones use pokemon that can't be natiely found in that region. If gives you more freedom to create interesting opponents without bombarding players with too many catchable pokemon at once.

Random-ish weather. You've already got weather mechanics, why not try to fit them into the game a little better like day/night or seasons rather than have them be route exclusive traits.

Try to give the single player a little but more polish. This is a little more vague and involves little things that make the whole single player quest feel a little more fun and memorable and to possibly give you more of a reason to want play through it again. I would take a lot of time going into this , so I will leave it open ended.

 

[TheOriginalOne]

I wouldn't leave Generation V too soon, and after it I would bring an end to the concept of generation (because the remakes, re-remakes and so on would keep accumulating, and because the number of pokémon can't keep increasing this way), with the beggining of the making of many games, mixed with remakes, between which the differences would only be an increase of quality (without EVER giving up on pokémon). Speaking of quality, I wouldn't make games as SIMS-like as X and Y. Also, repeating the events after a while, and continuing them for generations that are not the most recent one.

 

[SimH8]

That is truly unfortunate for those people. But instead of destroying a core aspect of the franchise, how about you recognize that more people have the ability to trade now than they did before and that it doesn't prevent people from enjoying the games just because their Haunter stays a Haunter.

I doubt changing it so a pokemon doesn't require trading to evolve would stop people enjoying the games either. In fact far less than preventing people getting certain pokemon. And I agree more people who have access to trading, still not everyone. Also can you explain how people needing others for a certain pokemon is so important.

It isn't an issue. Not everyone is as averse to *gasp* interacting with other people as you are.

Strange how this wasn't an issue in 1996 or 1999 or in 2003, but it is a BFD nowadays.

Well you mentioned the fact "It's never been done before" in response to my idea about putting all legendaries in a gen into that gen's game, so I assumed "It's never been done before" was your argument. And it's not about being "averse to interacting with others". It's about convenience and availability.

If your entire enjoyment of the game hinges on having access to everything by yourself and easily, then Pokemon isn't for you. It never has been. You've never been able to complete the entire dex by yourself on any game. The game specifically encourages you to go and interact with other people. If that thought makes the game suck, then I'd recommend finding another game you enjoy because clearly Pokemon ins't for you.

What I meant by fully being able to enjoy and play is that at no point in time in the game does Pokemon force you to have a specific Pokemon to complete a necessary goal. The main game, that is the eight gyms and the E4, can be fully played and enjoyed without ever interacting with another game cart or attending an event. What is preventing you from enjoying the game, exactly? Not having Charmander available at the start?

Well I'm pretty sure pokemon is for me since I been playing and enjoying it for a very long time. This is mainly because of the designs, the concept of the series, the region and a lot more appeal to me so much. So to say pokemon isn't for me is wrong. "You've never been able to complete the entire dex by yourself on any game". That's not a reason why you never should be able to, they can always change that. I never said that made the games suck, because if I thought the games sucked I wouldn't be playing them, I just think it's a flaw. Yes, the main story has always been possible to complete by yourself, but personally I'd find it more enjoyable without necessity for trading for pokemon, since I would have a larger variety of pokemon to choose from since the ones you'd have to trade for would be available. And I once again I never mentioned anything about it stopping me enjoying the game, I just think availability to every pokemon would make it more fun.

 

[Flying Weasel]

More emphasis on Contest type-stuff. Ruby and Sapphire made contests a pretty decent sub-game to the point of having a lot of towns whose main purpose was housing the next contest rank. Later games had contest like features, but they didn't seem as important and were stuck in one city. I would like to go back how Ruby and Sapphire did it, making it feel like part of the quest a bit. And just like with the pokedex, reward the player for spending time on the subquest.

Don't forget about those battle tent things from emerald, you know the ones that replaced most of the contest locations. They were pretty fun. I'd like to see more in-game events that keep you coming back to older towns. Plus they can give you more to do in a city before you continue onto the next one. Most of the towns really don't give you any reasons to come back to them unless you need to level up a really low level.

 

[randomspot555]

I doubt changing it so a pokemon doesn't require trading to evolve would stop people enjoying the games either. In fact far less than preventing people getting certain pokemon. And I agree more people who have access to trading, still not everyone. Also can you explain how people needing others for a certain pokemon is so important.







Well you mentioned the fact "It's never been done before" in response to my idea about putting all legendaries in a gen into that gen's game, so I assumed "It's never been done before" was your argument. And it's not about being "averse to interacting with others". It's about convenience and availability.






Well I'm pretty sure pokemon is for me since I been playing and enjoying it for a very long time. This is mainly because of the designs, the concept of the series, the region and a lot more appeal to me so much. So to say pokemon isn't for me is wrong. "You've never been able to complete the entire dex by yourself on any game". That's not a reason why you never should be able to, they can always change that. I never said that made the games suck, because if I thought the games sucked I wouldn't be playing them, I just think it's a flaw. Yes, the main story has always been possible to complete by yourself, but personally I'd find it more enjoyable without necessity for trading for pokemon, since I would have a larger variety of pokemon to choose from since the ones you'd have to trade for would be available. And I once again I never mentioned anything about it stopping me enjoying the game, I just think availability to every pokemon would make it more fun.

If you think Pokemon should move away from encouraging players to interact with eachother, that certainly is a core aspect of the games and something I'd never advocate for. Its great that you're still buying the games even though you're only "partially enjoying" them. I'm just letting you know Pokemon isn't going to change something that's been around since the beginning. There will always be encouragement to interact with other players and incentives, such as trade evolution and events. What you see as a problem I see as a positive trait of the games.

 

[Zachmac]

1. Stop releasing so many pokemon in each generation. Gen 2 was the first generation to bring us new pokemon outside the original 151, and it added only 100 new ones, with every new gen adding more and more. I would make each new gen introduce around 50 new ones, not more. The world would seem more in focus to me, and only the very best of designs will make the final cut. Quality over quantity.

I guess, but this wouldn't mix with your "less legendaries" idea very well, since they'll probably add 5 or 6 new legendaries each gen.

Also, just because I don't like Garbodor or Vanilish doesn't mean that some people don't. From my understanding, even some of gen 5's "worst" are still semi-popular. But too many pokemon could be a pain....so, instead, why not put larger gaps between generations?

2. Make Gen 1 claim the original 151 pokemons are the only ones in the region rather than the world. Seriously. Even if you don't have a sequel in mind, make the possible consequences make sense. "Oh, look at all these species we never noticed because we are dumb!"

This doesn't really hurt any, so why not, I guess.

3. Stop the trade-evolutions. I hate trade evolutions, because none of my friends like pokemon. As a kid, I could never had Gengar, Alakazam or Mechamp. In a world-building sort of way, it makes no sense. Just let them evolve normally.

This is supposed to promote the social aspect of pokemon, so I doubt they'll remove it. Though they could add some other method along with it.

4. Stop the crazy evolution trees and method. Pokemon are creature of nature, they should be able to evolve by themselves, or maybe if they happen to come across a stone. Let it be natural.

Nah. I am actually a fan of unique evolution methods. I say it spices up the game a little. And evolution branches are rare enough that I think they're still pretty cool.

5. Leave old pokemon alone. They don't need new evolutions. If you didn't think of Magmortar back in gen 1 or 2, leave Magmar alone.

I really disagree. It'd be unfair not to let Magmar evolve. Even compared to some of the other older pokemon, Magmar and Electabuzz had underwhelming stats. And now, with the eviolite, Magmar and Electabuzz can still be used casually to the same effect as their evolutions.

6. Enough with the power creep. I am not even talking competitively about this one, I just don't like how older pokemon are left behind with poorer stats. You don't need such over-the-top stats to mix things up- you have abilities, you have type combinations and many more.

Agreed. Though boosted the defenses of some new pokemon would be nice to make the power creep more fair competitively.

7. Balance the types. You did it with psychic because it was too strong, but other are too weak. It isn't fair that some types have very few weaknesses and are very effective against other while other have the opposite schema.

I really agree with this one. Poor ice type...

8. Focus on the world you are creating rather than gimmicks. Instead of things like the dream world or others that are not naturally in-game-world, I would like to see more innovations in game (but not contests). Minigames, new challenges, new ideas for areas, etc. Focus on the world.

Nah, they don't focus on gimmicks too much. The DW is nice, but it's a different projects. I don't really think it slowed down to B/W world all that much at all.

9. Stop making NPCs use protect / detect. They don't have a strategy in mind; they are only postponing the inevitable in a very annoying manner.

Not that important, but yeah, it is annoying...

10. Don't invent Stealth Rock, or any other type-associated entry hazard. If your entry hazard can erase half of the pokemon's HP in an instance, something is wrong with it.

I think we have enough hazards as well. SR is fine alone, but right now, spikes and stealth rock stacked are scary enough. I think any more hazards would be unreasonable, unless they're more like toxic spikes and don't directly deal damage.

11. Create less legendries. Legendaries make 7.24% of the pokedex. Ghost type pokemon make 4.16% and ice type make 4.78%. This is absurd- even dragon or steel types are less common than legendaries. They are supposed to be special and, well, legendary, so keep them that way.

I agree. Unova does have a few too many legendaries...but it's not that crazy. We don't even have a real poison type legendary yet.

12. Enough with event pokemon. You don't let everyone a chance to obtain such pokemon, so simply don't do them.

You mean event legendaries, like Genesect? Fine, I guess....though ones like the shiny beast I think are fine from a business perspective, since they help advertise for movies and such.

 

[Bluelatios*]

This is a discussion forum where people discuss. If someone feels an OP's ideas are dumb, they should feel free to say so. And yes, stuff like using only Gen I Pokemon in a new gen is dumb.

Dude, I think you are misunderstanding what the OP said. I think he was talking about Gen 1 Pokemon being indigenous to Kanto, gen 2 indigenous to Johto, and so on. No offense, but I can't help but feel you're being a tad too aggressive in your responses, as quite a few have been in here. Now, I'd rather they include both old and new Pokemon each generation, which leads me to another previously mentioned point.

I strongly agree with releasing less new Pokemon each generation, as at this point Gamefreak already has a gigantic pool of marketable Pokemon that appeal to any kind of fan. They have so many Pokemon that were and still are popular in the community, or could use a chance to shine that they didn't get before. Market the heck out of them Gamefreak, in addition to the new 'mons! 50 new ones per gen may seem low on paper, but I'd say that's a pretty safe number when combined with the existing hundreds and it really does help ensure that quality takes precedence over quantity.

This also goes along with the idea of less legendaries too. Simply put, if legendaries are to be more story/lore involved, then why are there still legendaries with minimal to no plot added just to up the number of "cool" Pokemon? There are so many legendaries introduced in the past 2 generations that had minimal background depth, some even disproportionate between games and anime. ex; Kyurem only had a lot after BW2, and little in the newest film. The musketeer trio had little in the games, even less in the same movie. The typical rare and powerful model worked only in the early days, not so much with how the standards have changed today. Again, quality over quantity is something I and many people desire.

 

[Hilda]

You are a true genwunner aren't you? Have you even played any games after Gold/Silver? Hoenn, Sinnoh and Unova are beautiful.

Even though I disagree with the thread starters post, how the hell do you come up with the conclusion of Genwunner? You can't even say 1 thing against the newer gens.
No, he is not a genwunner, you are a NEWGENNER.