Thoughts on the Upcoming Pokemon Switch Game?

[Pokegirl Fan~]

If it was a "reboot" like the first BW games, then I wouldn't mind that tbh

 

[RileyXY1]

If it was a "reboot" like the first BW games, then I wouldn't mind that tbh

That also was treated negatively by more hardcore fans, who were upset that they were forced to use the new Pokemon. This was why BW2 added so many old Pokemon to the dex.

 

[Satoshi & Touko]

If it was a "reboot" like the first BW games, then I wouldn't mind that tbh

I definitely wouldn't mind either. At least in that case it would be a new generation instead of another mothereffing Kanto remake. And since it's a new generation, trainer customization might still be a thing.

 

[Orphalesion]

If by reboot they mean returning to Kanto yet again then I have no interest in the game. Because I have no interest to return to that boring place, and if there's no new Pokemon, I'm not interested.

If by reboot they mean "erasing everything but the first Gen" then I'd be done with this franchise, since that would remove all of my favoruite Pokemon except Ninetales and Wigglytuff.

That being said, those reboot romours are old, have been claimed by many people and are mostly just the ridiculous wishes of some very, very fanatic Genwunners or the thoughts of people that because in the 2010s everything got a reboot, Pokemon needs one as well.
A franchise that doesn't have a strong, overarching narrative between the installments (which Pokemon doesn't except for some allusions, which now can be ignored whenever they want due tot he multiverse) will never need a "reboot" and especially Pokemon would gain NOTHING (except maybe the approval of a handful 20 30-something, American "hard core fans") from throwing away most of it's characters.

If it was a soft reboot like Black/White I'd be very happy, because it'd be the first time since Gen 5 that we got a decent amount of new Pokemon again and I rarely use older Pokemon in newer games. I don't care how many people would whine because they can't catch the Yellow Pissrat.

 

[pokedigijedi]

If by reboot they mean returning to Kanto yet again then I have no interest in the game. Because I have no interest to return to that boring place, and if there's no new Pokemon, I'm not interested.

If by reboot they mean "erasing everything but the first Gen" then I'd be done with this franchise, since that would remove all of my favoruite Pokemon except Ninetales and Wigglytuff.

That being said, those reboot romours are old, have been claimed by many people and are mostly just the ridiculous wishes of some very, very fanatic Genwunners or the thoughts of people that because in the 2010s everything got a reboot, Pokemon needs one as well.
A franchise that doesn't have a strong, overarching narrative between the installments (which Pokemon doesn't except for some allusions, which now can be ignored whenever they want due tot he multiverse) will never need a "reboot" and especially Pokemon would gain NOTHING (except maybe the approval of a handful 20 30-something, American "hard core fans") from throwing away most of it's characters.

If it was a soft reboot like Black/White I'd be very happy, because it'd be the first time since Gen 5 that we got a decent amount of new Pokemon again and I rarely use older Pokemon in newer games. I don't care how many people would whine because they can't catch the Yellow Pissrat.

Agreed, as much as I love Kanto a complete reboot would be suicide for the franchise, or at least do a massive amount of damage to it, a soft reboot would be much safer and give fans a fun new (or at least semi-new) challenge

 

[UltimateNinja]

Ugh. A reboot is not what I want.

Me neither and I can't understand what's the appeal of the games regressing back to feel "new". I especially don't want to live with a crappy 150 pokemon dex because that sure will happen if the regional dex is only made of new pokemon.

Fleshing out the existing features and adding new one, gyms, a big, non linear region with many places to explore, a big selection of Pokemon and a balanced gameplay is what I want personally.

 

[Satoshi & Touko]

A thought on the upcoming Pokémon Switch game? I have one that's kept growing and it has become more solid than ever: It won't be released or even revealed until 2019. I really am curious as to why they said (and still say) 2018 or later. What was the point?

 

[rocky505]

A thought on the upcoming Pokémon Switch game? I have one that's kept growing and it has become more solid than ever: It won't be released or even revealed until 2019. I really am curious as to why they said (and still say) 2018 or later. What was the point?

The "or later" part is in case they take longer than expected because of problems. They can take all the time they want. I don't want bad/annoying glitches like we had in 6/7 Gen.

 

[Niormon]

Some of you guys need to get up to date this "reboot" info has been around since November and its just as creditable as the " new battle system" rumour.

 

[Red and Blue]

What about the possibility of triple types. That could be a new mechanic introduced in Gen 8.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

What about the possibility of triple types. That could be a new mechanic introduced in Gen 8.

Too unbalanced. Image having a Rock/Ice/Steel type being weak to Fighting. Or some other combination of Steel type have no weaknesses and a crap ton of resistances (I can't go through every combination to find an example, but you get the idea). Certain type combinations would be too broken.

 

[RileyXY1]

What about the possibility of triple types. That could be a new mechanic introduced in Gen 8.

It would seriously create balancing issues. Triple types are never happening.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

I thought about triple types a lot too and I like the idea. But I don't think it'd happen primarily because it might be too difficult for kids to keep track of the type chart in that case (although it can be argued that the game telling you whether or not something is super effective in the move select screen covers that). I don't think it'd be unbalanced or anything, not more unbalanced than dual types are (see Heatran, two x2 weaknesses, one x4 weakness, two immunities, five x4 resistances, and four x2 resistances to a total of 11 types it takes reduced damage from). I don't think you can actually find better triple types than that, and even if you could, just don't give a pokémon that particular type combination or balance it around it.

Let's take a look at Flygon. What if it was Bug/Ground/Dragon with Levitate? Compared to what it is now, it'd gain Bug STAB for U-Turn and Bug Buzz. And it'd gain a resistance to fighting and grass, but also gain a weakness to flying and lose its resistances to fire and rock.

 

[Sαpphire]

The "or later" part is in case they take longer than expected because of problems. They can take all the time they want. I don't want bad/annoying glitches like we had in 6/7 Gen.

I'm not sure I follow. The sixth and seventh generations were some of the most streamlined experiences in the entire series when comparing quality at the time of launch. The fifth generation was more prone to glitches than either one, even if it didn't have a widely-reported game breaker like X and Y did. The fourth generation launched with quite a lot of messiness, not the least being the "tweaking" glitch that could accomplish anything from catching legendaries by the third town all the way to entering the hall of fame. And, well, let's not even start on the first few generations.

I think it may be fair to hypothesize that the phraseology chosen is to give them leeway for development time, but that's probably more about this being their first step into mainline console territory and less about relative glitchiness.

If by reboot they mean returning to Kanto yet again then I have no interest in the game. Because I have no interest to return to that boring place, and if there's no new Pokemon, I'm not interested.

We haven't seen any "new" Kanto story content since we had 16-bit sprite graphics, limited overworld mechanics, less than half the species count we have now, and less processing power than some modern kitchen appliances - and it was fourteen years ago. We haven't seen the region at all since the turn of the decade, in what were quite faithful remakes of a pair of games into which Kanto literally had to be stuffed, and reduced in complexity just to fit.

I think it's fair to say that Kanto, as a place and as a concept, may have evolved significantly since then. I'd reserve judgment until content is revealed, even if it's announced that the next games will indeed be in Kanto.

If by reboot they mean "erasing everything but the first Gen" then I'd be done with this franchise, since that would remove all of my favoruite Pokemon except Ninetales and Wigglytuff.

There's absolutely no reason that would ever even be considered; the people in charge would be erasing two decades of their own hard work and two decades of formative fan experience. Even if we forget their personal dedication to the series, they're too invested in making more money off this franchise to let that kind of marketing suicide happen.

That also was treated negatively by more hardcore fans, who were upset that they were forced to use the new Pokemon. This was why BW2 added so many old Pokemon to the dex.

Well, a lot of long time fans also thought that the new species introduced in Gen 5 really sucked, in general. There's a decent segment of the fanbase that probably was more salty about being forced to use what they perceived as terrible designs than they were about not having their favorites before the post-game.

I thought about triple types a lot too and I like the idea. But I don't think it'd happen primarily because it might be too difficult for kids to keep track of the type chart in that case (although it can be argued that the game telling you whether or not something is super effective in the move select screen covers that). I don't think it'd be unbalanced or anything, not more unbalanced than dual types are (see Heatran, two x2 weaknesses, one x4 weakness, two immunities, five x4 resistances, and four x2 resistances to a total of 11 types it takes reduced damage from). I don't think you can actually find better triple types than that, and even if you could, just don't give a pokémon that particular type combination or balance it around it.

Let's take a look at Flygon. What if it was Bug/Ground/Dragon with Levitate? Compared to what it is now, it'd gain Bug STAB for U-Turn and Bug Buzz. And it'd gain a resistance to fighting and grass, but also gain a weakness to flying and lose its resistances to fire and rock.

I think the biggest balancing issue with triple types is that they'd have to rework the entire damage mechanic to make battles truly viable. Triple types would open up the possibility of frequent 8x damage - meaning something that would damage as little as a poison effect under neutral conditions would KO a target - or even the occasional 16x damage (think about a theoretical Ice/Steel/Bug or Dragon/Flying/Ground that is targeted by Forest's Curse and then a Fire-type move). That's a little bit insane - and totally reworking damage calculation would easily be the biggest shift to gameplay since the physical-special split.

 

[Dragalge]

I'm not sure I follow. The sixth and seventh generations were some of the most streamlined experiences in the entire series when comparing quality at the time of launch. The fifth generation was more prone to glitches than either one, even if it didn't have a widely-reported game breaker like X and Y did. The fourth generation launched with quite a lot of messiness, not the least being the "tweaking" glitch that could accomplish anything from catching legendaries by the third town all the way to entering the hall of fame. And, well, let's not even start on the first few generations.

I think it may be fair to hypothesize that the phraseology chosen is to give them leeway for development time, but that's probably more about this being their first step into mainline console territory and less about relative glitchiness.

XY had a glitch where your game would freeze if you saved in certain parts of Lumiose City.

ORAS would sometimes freeze when you're about to go through the Hall of Fame and thus screwing your progress.

SM had a glitch where if you used Parting Shot/Memento and the corresponding Z-move online, it would force a disconnect in the battle.

USUM had two notable glitches where choosing Litten would freeze your game and Ion Deluge would just not work.

Gen 5 didn't have these kind of glitches compared to Gen VI/VII lmao. Whatever glitches Gen V had would not crash or freeze your game like these two generations did. I hope Gen VIII doesn't have any glitches that may screw the game up or at least little of them to begin with.

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

Gen 5 didn't have these kind of glitches compared to Gen VI/VII lmao.

Zoroark glitch is pretty comparable, actually. But that was Japan only.

 

[Orphalesion]

There's absolutely no reason that would ever even be considered; the people in charge would be erasing two decades of their own hard work and two decades of formative fan experience. Even if we forget their personal dedication to the series, they're too invested in making more money off this franchise to let that kind of marketing suicide happen.

I know, which is why I wrote that it would be ridiculous. Yet a very small subset of people are asking for exactly that. And I really don't know what else a "reboot" in Pokemon would constitute. Kanto but with all the Pokemon we currently have?

On Kanto in genral:
I can accept a Kanto game...if we get new Pokemon. If we don't get new Pokemon, I'm not interested in a Kanto game.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Kanto itself really hasn't been overdone to the degree the anti-Kanto camp act like it has. I mean sure, it's mean in 4 games, but two of them were remakes and they were all at least 8-9 years ago. We've been to 4 other regions more recently than Kanto. What's been overdone about Kanto is its Pokemon and characters, they've crammed them into completely unrelated regions like Kalos and Unova and given them an absurd amount of attention. But the locations themselves really haven't had the same kind of love. I would be fully in favor of a BW2 esque Kanto sequel that makes legitimately constructive changes to its region design, Pokedex, storyline, gameplay features, and so on. Kanto's never really gotten that kind of treatment for as long as they've focused on it and there's a lot they could do with the region to really make it feel fresh and modern.

All that being said, I don't think now is the time for that. Kanto might be better for the 25th anniversary in 2021, that would be a worthy anniversary celebration IMO (better than SM at least, which doesn't exactly scream "anniversary game"). Right now we have a new system that is capable of much more than any past handheld and it needs a new game to mark a new era for the series. This situation absolutely calls for a new generation set in a new region.

 

[M.P.]

I'm personally hoping that the game will be more plot-driven, like Black & White were.

I also don't want the gyms to return. If I'm really honest, I wouldn't mind if they moved further away from the tradition and ditched the whole "become the region's champion" goal as well.

Also, I really, really hope they make the tutorials skippable. Sun & Moon were great, but the beginning was sooo dire due to constant tutorials.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

I think the biggest balancing issue with triple types is that they'd have to rework the entire damage mechanic to make battles truly viable. Triple types would open up the possibility of frequent 8x damage - meaning something that would damage as little as a poison effect under neutral conditions would KO a target - or even the occasional 16x damage (think about a theoretical Ice/Steel/Bug or Dragon/Flying/Ground that is targeted by Forest's Curse and then a Fire-type move). That's a little bit insane - and totally reworking damage calculation would easily be the biggest shift to gameplay since the physical-special split.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think 8x weaknesses would suddenly be common with triple types, it'd only exist for specific combinations (the Bug/Dragon/Ground Flygon for instance doesn't have any, worst is the 4x Ice weakness that it already has). And besides that, in practice most 4x super effective moves are already KOs regardless. If you go to multipliers beyond that you're just not gaining that much more. Just like you should keep your Garchomp away from Ice moves because pretty much any Ice Beam is going to KO it, you've got to keep pokémon away from their 8x weaknesses. Currently I think Dry Skin Parasect is the pokémon with the worst natural weakness, a 5x weakness to fire, and it simply goes down if you hit it with any fire move stronger than Ember. I don't think there'd be much difference in a practical sense between a x4 and a x8 weakness, unless you're talking about very defensive walls. I just don't see triple typings unbalancing things more than the vast difference in type effectiveness we already have with dual typings (compare Aurorus with Heatran)