• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Thoughts on the Upcoming Pokemon Switch Game?

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master

One thing that I've always found interesting about this interview is how Masuda mentions that while he would love to have a Pokémon game in the likeness of The Legend of Zelda, it wouldn't be suitable with Pokémon's current gameplay style. Basically, this means where and how the Switch title ends up depends on whether or not he had decided to revamp the series' battle system.

Of course, we probably won't know anything else officially until next year around this time, unless they project the game's release to this year, which I pray they don't.


It's still an extremely drastic change that can alienate players and cause a decrease in sales.

Given that the time Game Freak announces such a change will be well before the game's actual release, potential players will have several months to process this, and likely also have a demo to test it out. Besides, it's not like the series would be shifting to open world or full real time battling. I see it more, as I've stated in the past, like Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, where the gameplay is a mix between turn-based and real time.
 
Last edited:

Blitz Lucario

Well-Known Member
Guess I'll offer a new question for everyone to discuss, with this game being a upgrade from handheld to console would you prefer it to be released as one full game or two separate versions?
 

Satoshi & Touko

Peanuts aren't just a nut.
Guess I'll offer a new question for everyone to discuss, with this game being a upgrade from handheld to console would you prefer it to be released as one full game or two separate versions?

It doesn't matter to me either way, but I expect them to release two versions like always.
 

landipan

Well-Known Member
I'd prefer it to be just one version, but I also expect they'll keep to the two version games they've been doing for decades.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
I really doubt they will change the battle system. All of their big overhauls like the Special stat split, the physical/special type split and so forth were to enhance the same battle system.

We're going by a measly rumor that isn't well grounded. I wouldn't even worry about it unless it was outright stated by official source. Even a good rumor could still be inaccurate in places, so don't rely on those even.
 

Emperor Empoleon

Honor of Kalos
Guess I'll offer a new question for everyone to discuss, with this game being a upgrade from handheld to console would you prefer it to be released as one full game or two separate versions?

It's a little hard to explain why, but I feel like having two versions of the same game in the console environment would be incredibly tacky...At $60, I would rather just have one complete experience with everything on it. Unless they justify it with more meaningful differences than Pokemon availability.

I understand that 'they want to encourage trading', but...Nothing would happen to trading if they sold Pokemon as a single game. If you go, for example, to the Pokemon Trades subreddit, most of the time people are looking for Events, Shinies, Competitive 'mons, and other rarities. Not to mention Pokemon who still require Trades for Evolution. Or Pokemon like the starters where you have to pick one, and let go of your other options. Finding the handful of Version Exclusive Pokemon that come with each game is pretty trivial when we have things like the GTS. And I hesitate to call it a selling point for the franchise anymore...
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
Guess I'll offer a new question for everyone to discuss, with this game being a upgrade from handheld to console would you prefer it to be released as one full game or two separate versions?

Two versions just wouldn't work for a home console game. I think one version will do from here on out.

Besides, it's not like having only one version will deplete the amount of sales. They'll still get their 16-20 million copies.
 

Niormon

Well-Known Member
One thing that I've always found interesting about this interview is how Masuda mentions that while he would love to have a Pokémon game in the likeness of The Legend of Zelda, it wouldn't be suitable with Pokémon's current gameplay style. Basically, this means where and how the Switch title ends up depends on whether or not he had decided to revamp the series' battle system.

Of course, we probably won't know anything else officially until next year around this time, unless they project the game's release to this year, which I pray they don't.
There is one reason why I posted Exhibit A because we are not looking at this discussion correctly so I decided to FLIP THE TABLE and look at this discussion at different an angle for example rather the talk about what the battle system is like shouldn't we be asking ourselves When the development started ? for example one could argue that the reason they have 2018 as marked date means that they already to some degree have battle system playable and if we assume they started the development around Ultra sun and Ultra moon ( maybe even earlier then that) and if we go by Masuda's words Zelda gameplay wouldn't be suitable with Pokémon's current gameplay style. I deduce he had the switch gameplay in mind when he said this which is safe to to say that the gamplay hasn't change and I'm sure the rest of you will come to the same conclusion that I did with a little investigating.


ParchedGrayCrustacean-thumb100.jpg
 
Last edited:

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Two versions just wouldn't work for a home console game. I think one version will do from here on out.

Besides, it's not like having only one version will deplete the amount of sales. They'll still get their 16-20 million copies.

I don't think that GF would ever abandon the two version format. It gives them more money and encourages player connectivity.
 

pokedigijedi

Saiyan Jedi
I think I heard somewhere that GameFreak/Nintendo was inspired by Mario Odyssey and Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild so that's a good sign

I just hope they bring back the walking Pokemon feature (with a few changes here and there such as making it optional), there are few other stuff I want to see but if I am not gonna list them cause it would take too long and I'd rather save it until after the titles are announced.
 

Pikachu Fan Number Nine

Don't Mess wit Texas
I'd like a darker game than past main series games for sure. We've never seen a T-rated Pokemon game (main series or otherwise).
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
There is one reason why I posted Exhibit A because we are not looking at this discussion correctly so I decided to FLIP THE TABLE and look at this discussion at different an angle for example rather the talk about what the battle system is like shouldn't we be asking ourselves When the development started ? for example one could argue that the reason they have 2018 as marked date means that they already to some degree have battle system playable and if we assume they started the development around Ultra sun and Ultra moon ( maybe even earlier then that) and if we go by Masuda's words Zelda gameplay wouldn't be suitable with Pokémon's current gameplay style. I deduce he had the switch gameplay in mind when he said this which is safe to to say that the gamplay hasn't change and I'm sure the rest of you will come to the same conclusion that I did with a little investigating.

True, and that makes a lot of sense, which is why I highly doubt we would ever see something like Legend of Zelda in a Pokémon game.

This is why I learn towards the Active Time Battle system. Before I continue, let me quote a few other folks I want to state this to directly.

I have to side with RileyXY1 on this one. People can adapt to change, but this is way too much change. You're completely getting rid of one of the core mechanics in the series and having people completely rethink their strategies. And they may not like that. It's just too much of a risk for a series that sells so well as is. Real time battling would be better explored through spinoffs where they can attract a completely new audience without alienating the fans that still like turn based battling.

I really doubt they will change the battle system. All of their big overhauls like the Special stat split, the physical/special type split and so forth were to enhance the same battle system.

Let's not go over to the deep end and assume any change to the battle system means a totally different one. To clarify, let's just list the things that would never be affected even if real time battling was to be hypothetically implemented:

- Type match ups would not be affected
- Stats would not affected
- Attack categories would not be affected
- Attack formulas would not be affected
- Entry hazards would not be affected
- Weather effects would not be affected

The only thing that would actually be affected by a real time battle system are status ailments, which depend on the turn based system to trigger infliction, but we all know real time battling isn't going to happen, so let's not freak out.


Now, in the case of the Active Time Battle system I mentioned earlier, turn based movement is not lost, and the real time aspect applies mostly to NPC opponents. Now, while the player's turn activates as soon as a decision is made, this doesn't necessarily carry over into PvP battles. Basically, the meta people are stating would be ruined would likely not even be touched, even if it were to be, it wouldn't be enough to destroy current strategies.


So, let's just relax on that. Nothing is happening to the meta.
 

Tsukuyomi56

Sky High Knight
The biggest elephant in the room regarding a potential real time battle system is how to handle Double and Triple Battles. It is pretty big ask for one person to juggle two let alone three Pokémon simultaneously in a real time setting other than having the "non-active" Pokémon handled by the AI akin to Xenoblade Chronicles which may not bode well with players.
 

Metal1990queen

New Member
Uh I have so many wishes for it

I want it to be an open game that never ends like endless post games.

New locations adding all the old ones from all the gens.

I want trails and gyms both at once and each location has its own elite four who gets stronger and stronger

I want every single legendary from all the gens to be caught in the this game and each one has its own story to be captured like the old games but with all the mythicals and legendaries that we couldn't capture.

Also bring back all the old characters and have each one with its own post game

And the harder the game the better.

OH also a real fun connection with your Pokémon like having it walk with you play with you and such
 

Metal1990queen

New Member
One more thing.. Having pokemon sounds real like Pikachu not just random noises


And for the next question, I'm with the 2019 folks or else it would feel too rushed.
 

Sceptile Leaf Blade

Nighttime Guardian
The turn-based battle system has been a part of Pokemon for over 2 decades. Changing it now may alienate older fans, especially competitive players.

That's why I suggested keeping the old system for single and double battles, but invoke a new turn-based battle system for triple, quadruple, quintuple, and maybe even sextuple battles. You're never going to get quadruple battles or beyond working in the old system without any kind of positioning effects, the field just becomes too wide.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Let's not go over to the deep end and assume any change to the battle system means a totally different one. To clarify, let's just list the things that would never be affected even if real time battling was to be hypothetically implemented:

- Type match ups would not be affected
- Stats would not affected
- Attack categories would not be affected
- Attack formulas would not be affected
- Entry hazards would not be affected
- Weather effects would not be affected

The only thing that would actually be affected by a real time battle system are status ailments, which depend on the turn based system to trigger infliction, but we all know real time battling isn't going to happen, so let's not freak out.


Now, in the case of the Active Time Battle system I mentioned earlier, turn based movement is not lost, and the real time aspect applies mostly to NPC opponents. Now, while the player's turn activates as soon as a decision is made, this doesn't necessarily carry over into PvP battles. Basically, the meta people are stating would be ruined would likely not even be touched, even if it were to be, it wouldn't be enough to destroy current strategies.


So, let's just relax on that. Nothing is happening to the meta.

The issue with switching to real time has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the mechanics. In fact, you could apply those mechanics to multiple different genres and gameplay styles. The issue is that the different battling styles is with how the fighters take damage. Turn based battling is more cerebral, you have to take whatever your opponent is doing and so you have to plan around that. Whereas with real time you can dodge, block, or counter your opponents so it's more reflex based. If you switched from turn based to real time you'll lose players that like/are good at the planning ahead and hate/aren't good with reflexes. Imagine if you tried to turn chess into a LARP, you got rid of the turns in that game and the different pieces could move anytime they wanted. Then the game becomes more a matter of athleticism than careful scheming and the game would lose its identity and turn people off who aren't athletic. It's the same with Pokemon going from turn based to real time, even though mechanically it'd be mostly the same, it wouldn't feel the same because the two styles require completely different skills to be successful. So again, it'd be better to address this with a spinoff than the main game.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
The issue with switching to real time has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the mechanics. In fact, you could apply those mechanics to multiple different genres and gameplay styles. The issue is that the different battling styles is with how the fighters take damage. Turn based battling is more cerebral, you have to take whatever your opponent is doing and so you have to plan around that. Whereas with real time you can dodge, block, or counter your opponents so it's more reflex based. If you switched from turn based to real time you'll lose players that like/are good at the planning ahead and hate/aren't good with reflexes. Imagine if you tried to turn chess into a LARP, you got rid of the turns in that game and the different pieces could move anytime they wanted. Then the game becomes more a matter of athleticism than careful scheming and the game would lose its identity and turn people off who aren't athletic. It's the same with Pokemon going from turn based to real time, even though mechanically it'd be mostly the same, it wouldn't feel the same because the two styles require completely different skills to be successful. So again, it'd be better to address this with a spinoff than the main game.

It seems you did not fully read the post of mine you quoted, because in that post I was mainly discussing the Active Time Battle system, and rejected real time battling as a possible outcome in that same post.

If you'd like to voice your opinions on Pokémon having a system similar to Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, I'm all ears, but I thought we've all agreed real time battling is not happening. There's no need to debate about that system any longer.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Making the Switch game have a real time battling system would make Pokken worthless. Why port Pokken to the Switch and support it with DLC when the main series is going to be similar?
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
It seems you did not fully read the post of mine you quoted, because in that post I was mainly discussing the Active Time Battle system, and rejected real time battling as a possible outcome in that same post.

If you'd like to voice your opinions on Pokémon having a system similar to Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle system, I'm all ears, but I thought we've all agreed real time battling is not happening. There's no need to debate about that system any longer.

I mean, I haven't played Final Fantasy so I don't know a whole lot about its ATB system, but it doesn't really sound like a good compromise because you don't really have full control over the Pokemon. It just sounds like turn based with more loosely defined turns. If I wanted a real time battling system, I'd want to be able to run around and fire off attacks whenever I want like you can in Pokken and Pokepark. If somehow you can do that with the ATB, then fine, but I don't think you can really reconcile that with the turn based systems.
 
Top