Support NeoGAF

[Little Green Yoda]

I think a lot of people would be pissed at a true reboot. For starters, total incompatibility with 4th gen stuff is going force everybody to start from scratch. And as others have mentioned, somebody's favorite will inevitably get the shaft.

Now if only they would release a good Pokemon Box for the Wii...

 

[AKingNamedPaul]

I think a lot of people would be pissed at a true reboot. For starters, total incompatibility with 4th gen stuff is going force everybody to start from scratch. And as others have mentioned, somebody's favorite will inevitably get the shaft.

Now if only they would release a good Pokemon Box for the Wii...

As long as he keeps spore, parasect cannot possibly get the shaft any further than he has, so I would be all for it.

 

[Teknoman]

Also who decides which monsters are "crappy" or "pointless"? Farfetch'd was one of my favorites when I was 13. How arbitrary! What a load of shit!

I'm all for 493 monsters. I'm all for 1000+ monsters. No one is making you look at or use them all. Let people decide what they like. I couldn't give a shit about the metagame.

Pretty much. I like to fight against humans as much as the next person, but people are driving home tiers in everything competitive a little much these days.

 

[Shiggie]

Im pro choice. Give me more mons.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Now if only they would release a good Pokemon Box for the Wii...

Not looking forward to transferring all my shit over from Plat to HGSS. That'll take a whole day.

 

[Zilch]

Some of my favorites are from the later generations as well, but I would sacrifice them to get rid of the stupid 200+ other Pokemon that those generations brought (Corphish is pointless, we already have Krabby, Taillow and Starly are pointless we already have Pidgey, etc.).

Basically, his point was that the later generations of Pokemon weren't really churning out new Pokemon for the most part, as there is a "Caterpie" and a "Pidgey" and an "Oddish", etc. in each of the successive generations. There's no need for more than one of the same Pokemon, which is essentially what is happening in the later gens.

I'd be all for keeping the more original ones like Absol, but all of the duplicates need to be cut. And the easiest/quickest way of doing that is to just scale back to the original 151, which is what he did.

Also, Swampert is hideous. :lol

EDIT: Zilch, he was deciding whether they were pointless or not based on their usefulness in competitive battling. Farfetch'd is completely pointless in that regard.

I know what he means, but I don't care.

I'm more interested in the world than the rock-paper-scissors game.

I like variety and choice (even simply aesthetic ones) and having a bunch of different species that are essentially the same stat-wise is totally fine by me.

 

[mr_chun]

To each their own, I guess.

I'd rather have it scaled back to smaller number of unique monsters, mostly the original 151, with notable exceptions from later gens (Skarmory, Absol, etc.), and perhaps some brand new ones that aren't repeats of ones we already have.

 

[Gravijah]

Some of my favorites are from the later generations as well, but I would sacrifice them to get rid of the stupid 200+ other Pokemon that those generations brought (Corphish is pointless, we already have Krabby, Taillow and Starly are pointless we already have Pidgey, etc.).

Basically, his point was that the later generations of Pokemon weren't really churning out new Pokemon for the most part, as there is a "Caterpie" and a "Pidgey" and an "Oddish", etc. in each of the successive generations. There's no need for more than one of the same Pokemon, which is essentially what is happening in the later gens.

I'd be all for keeping the more original ones like Absol, but all of the duplicates need to be cut. And the easiest/quickest way of doing that is to just scale back to the original 151, which is what he did.

Also, Swampert is hideous. :lol

EDIT: Zilch, he was deciding whether they were pointless or not based on their usefulness in competitive battling. Farfetch'd is completely pointless in that regard.

Except Pokemon isn't just about competitive battling. It's a part of the game, but so is collecting Pokemon, etc. THAT'S WHY THERE ARE SO MANY. Many people LIKE collecting.

To each their own, I guess.

I'd rather have it scaled back to smaller number of unique monsters, mostly the original 151, with notable exceptions from later gens (Skarmory, Absol, etc.), and perhaps some brand new ones that aren't repeats of ones we already have.

Pokemon, as a series, aims to please a whole bunch of different people. What you are doing is imposing your own views of what the series should be onto it while killing what makes Pokemon Pokemon... Something for everyone.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

As long as he keeps spore, parasect cannot possibly get the shaft any further than he has, so I would be all for it.

I was talking more about the suggestions that "lesser" Pokemon be cut from a reboot version. Those "lesser" Pokemon is more than likely somebody's favorite.

 

[survivor]

So we grew up with Pidgey and he is out favourite Normal/Flying Pokemon and we think that Starly is just a clone that shouldn't exist. So what about the kids now that think Starly is the best Normal/Flying Pokemon and that Pidgey is some old ugly rip-off Pokemon? Should we just tell these kids that their views are wrong and we are right?

This is why the whole "151 is the best" is pure BS and just doesn't work.

 

[Salsa]

I dont really know how i feel about this.. no major improvements, no new engine, mmmeh.

The sad part is that if true im going to put 300 hours in this sucker anyway..

 

[upandaway]

I think I posted about it before somewhere, but the best Pokemon in my opinion are those with the best backgrounds to them. Little paragraphs that make them FIT into the whole universe of the games. You see all those huge pictures with tons of Pokemon coexisting and those are the most iconic Pokemon pictures.

In that regard, Deoxys for example is one of the worst, even though he is insanely good competitively.

 

[lyre]

There's no need for more than one of the same Pokemon, which is essentially what is happening in the later gens.

and perhaps some brand new ones that aren't repeats of ones we already have.

Spoiler

500 new pokemanz. bliev

 

[Zilch]

To each their own, I guess.

I'd rather have it scaled back to smaller number of unique monsters, mostly the original 151, with notable exceptions from later gens (Skarmory, Absol, etc.), and perhaps some brand new ones that aren't repeats of ones we already have.

What Nintendo should do, someday, when Pokemon finally has a substantial online component (and most likely a few hundred more monsters) is enforce strict guidelines on which monsters are acceptable for competitive battling. Maybe 150 or so of them, no "repeats", and periodically they could take some out and put new ones in just to keep it fresh.

So collectors and casual battlers could catch and use whatever they felt like using, and competitive battlers could focus on metagame-approved monsters and strategy. If you wanted to challenge the Gym Leaders and the Elite 4, you'd have to raise monsters that fell within those guidelines. That seems like a good compromise to me.

edit: people tend to balk at an Pokemon MMO, but I think the possibilities that that sort of game could open up are limitless and really exciting.

 

[Gravijah]

What Nintendo should do, someday, when Pokemon finally has a substantial online component (and most likely a few hundred more monsters) is enforce strict guidelines on which monsters are acceptable for competitive battling. Maybe 150 or so of them, no "repeats", and periodically they could take some out and put new ones in just to keep it fresh.

So collectors and casual battlers could catch and use whatever they felt like using, and competitive battlers could focus on metagame-approved monsters and strategy. If you wanted to challenge the Gym Leaders and the Elite 4, you'd have to raise monsters that fell within those guidelines. That seems like a good compromise to me.

I don't understand the point though. Why would they want to restrict the battling?

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

I dont really know how i feel about this.. no major improvements, no new engine, mmmeh.

The sad part is that if true im going to put 300 hours in this sucker anyway..

Not to flame you or anything but did you actually read any of the press releases? All have pointed to a "fresh start" and "many gameplay innovations". Now this could amount to nothing but that fact is that we don't know shit about this game and you're already down on it. You may be justified in the end result, but shouldn't you at least wait until we know what the fucking game is going to entail?

 

[Zilch]

For the reasons that mr_chun and the IGN poster stated.

Like I said, I don't care -- but it seems to be what people who enjoy the metagame want.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Not to flame you or anything but did you actually read any of the press releases? All have pointed to a "fresh start" and "many gameplay innovations".

You are getting hyped over empty words and marketing speak. I haven't seen anything concrete yet.

Like I said, I don't care -- but it seems to be what people who enjoy the metagame want.

Not in the least. I don't see a point in banning anything besides stuff like base 600+ legendaries. Competitive players tend to want diversity, and individual 'mons are only ever banned in order to make several others more viable.

 

[Gravijah]

For the reasons that mr_chun and the IGN poster stated.

Like I said, I don't care -- but it seems to be what people who enjoy the metagame want.

There reasons seem to boil down to "there's too many "clones"" though. That's NOT a reason, imo.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

You are getting hyped over empty words and marketing speak. I haven't seen anything concrete yet.


Not in the least. I don't see a point in banning anything besides stuff like base 600+ legendaries. Competitive players tend to want diversity, and individual 'mons are only ever banned in order to make several others more viable.

I'm sorry. How does my pointing out the details of a press release mean that I am hyped? I know nothing about this game and having nothing to be hyped over except for that fact that a new pokemon is coming out.

Edit: I didn't mean this as a personal attack or anything. God knows I hate arguing on the internet. I guess you could say that assumptions are a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Zilch]

Ok, but would limiting/focusing the number of eligible competitive monsters be easier to balance and ensure the that challenge is more about meta-strategy and less about arbitrary or aesthetic team-creating decisions?

Like I said, none of that stuff is particularly interesting to me, but I can understand why someone would say "we don't need Starly since Pidgey already exists" in the context of the metagame. I'm just thinking about how a balance can be struck between differing play-types.

edit: it seems like most competitives bans that I'm aware of are more or less agreed upon by fans/unofficially. does Nintendo ban certain monsters when they do those official Pokemon competition events (probably most legendaries)?

 

[upandaway]

You are getting hyped over empty words and marketing speak. I haven't seen anything concrete yet.

It's easy to get excited when marketers say the right words. Regardless, everyone will get more of an opinion once we get more info.

I'm going with my notion that the games will shift into having more and more Animal Crossing-like features. As far as battling goes it seems like they've tapped out with the frontier and everything, their easiest new direction is to scatter a bunch of luck-based mechanics all over the game with the incentive of collection (DPPt pushed this somewhat).

 

[Salsa]

Not to flame you or anything but did you actually read any of the press releases? All have pointed to a "fresh start" and "many gameplay innovations". Now this could amount to nothing but that fact is that we don't know shit about this game and you're already down on it. You may be justified in the end result, but shouldn't you at least wait until we know what the fucking game is going to entail?

shit man, guess im just a junior being a junior clicked the post reply button without noticing there were still a couple pages left from the thread. Now that i have, it will sure be a surprise (great surprise) if true, and i didnt want to sound so harsh either, i love me some pokemans. Having played pearl, platinum, and waitin for soulsilver, just thought it was time to move from this engine, so this is awesome news ! cant wait.

 

[Gravijah]

Ok, but would limiting/focusing the number of eligible competitive monsters be easier to balance and ensure the that challenge is more about meta-strategy and less about arbitrary or aesthetic team-creating decisions?

Like I said, none of that stuff is particularly interesting to me, but I can understand why someone would say "we don't need Starly since Pidgey already exists" in the context of the metagame. I'm just thinking about how a balance can be struck between differing play-types.

But I thought the entire point of the meta-game was having so much to choose from?

 

[survivor]

The metagame doesn't need any limiting. There is already 5 different metagames that try to make sure every Pokemon is usable. Sure there are still some that are terrible, but nothing can be done about them.

So there is no point in limiting down the number of Pokemon at all.

 

[Zilch]

Man, you are asking the wrong person! I've looked at Smogon before but I have no idea what is good or bad for the metagame. I made my suggestions purely based on a few posts on the last page of this thread! :lol

 

[Gravijah]

Man, you are asking the wrong person! I've looked at Smogon before but I have no idea what is good or bad for the metagame. I made my suggestions purely based on a few posts on the last page of this thread! :lol

I know I keep quoting you, I'm sorry, but I'm more asking the questions generally. I don't expect you specifically to answer them.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

Ok, but would limiting/focusing the number of eligible competitive monsters be easier to balance and ensure the that challenge is more about meta-strategy and less about arbitrary or aesthetic team-creating decisions?

Like I said, none of that stuff is particularly interesting to me, but I can understand why someone would say "we don't need Starly since Pidgey already exists" in the context of the metagame. I'm just thinking about how a balance can be struck between differing play-types.

Here in lies the problem i think. Pidgey, Tailow, and Starly are all in similar places in the pokedex and are all of the same time. When done this way, it kinda seems like nintendo is just repeatedly filling in a template in some spots (i.e. we need an early bird type pokemon of the same typing, etc). I think the issue would be resolved if the "repeats" looked different but more importantly, were of different types. Why does every early bird have to be normal/flying (or why do birds always have to be available at the beginning of the game)? Experiment with typing for christ sakes. This way both groups are satisfied. The "quantity" group gets to have its 100 plus additional monsters and if nintendo makes the new additions competitively viable, the "quality" group would be satisfied.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Like I said, none of that stuff is particularly interesting to me, but I can understand why someone would say "we don't need Starly since Pidgey already exists" in the context of the metagame. I'm just thinking about how a balance can be struck between differing play-types.

Not to pile on, but you've got that one backwards. The Starly line is way, way more effective than the Pidgey line ever was. Close Combat, Intimidate, and a much more specialized stat distribution make a pretty big difference.

I mean, I think I know what you're saying (no big reason to have two similar looking/typed birds around when you could drop one of them and not lose anything vital), but keeping the lesser of the two around doesn't hurt anything.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

It's easy to get excited when marketers say the right words. Regardless, everyone will get more of an opinion once we get more info.

I'm going with my notion that the games will shift into having more and more Animal Crossing-like features. As far as battling goes it seems like they've tapped out with the frontier and everything, their easiest new direction is to scatter a bunch of luck-based mechanics all over the game with the incentive of collection (DPPt pushed this somewhat).

What they need to do is take a page from the D/P attack split and make the battles more realistic and faster paced. I hate to say it but could you imagine if the game was able to keep its strategic element while being as dynamic as the anime? I'm expecting a move towards this in gen 5 as this was hinted at by one of the developers in a NP interview a while back.

 

[Rocksteady33]

Here in lies the problem i think. Pidgey, Tailow, and Starly are all in similar places in the pokedex and are all of the same time. When done this way, it kinda seems like nintendo is just repeatedly filling in a template in some spots (i.e. we need an early bird type pokemon of the same typing, etc). I think the issue would be resolved if the "repeats" looked different but more importantly, were of different types. Why does every early bird have to be normal/flying (or why do birds always have to be available at the beginning of the game)? Experiment with typing for christ sakes. This way both groups are satisfied. The "quantity" group gets to have its 100 plus additional monsters and if nintendo makes the new additions competitively viable, the "quality" group would be satisfied.

I think Nintendo does it out of a sense of realism. When you go outside of your house and walk down the street, what do you see? Birds and squirrels with some bugs running around as well. The same is true if you went somewhere else in the world, however they would be slightly different. So thus you have a Rattata and a Sentret. I'll agree that the lack of different types is frustrating early on. For example what's the problem with putting Murkrow in the game early on in Gold/Silver rather than Hoothoot? Or Natu? But this also makes team diversifying way too easy early on and brings down the little challenge the game offers.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

shit man, guess im just a junior being a junior clicked the post reply button without noticing there were still a couple pages left from the thread. Now that i have, it will sure be a surprise (great surprise) if true, and i didnt want to sound so harsh either, i love me some pokemans. Having played pearl, platinum, and waitin for soulsilver, just thought it was time to move from this engine, so this is awesome news ! cant wait.

Nothing about a new engine is confirmed if that's what you are implying. The only hint of news that we got is that the games are coming and that game play innovations are in store.

 

[survivor]

What they need to do is take a page from the D/P attack split and make the battles more realistic and faster paced. I hate to say it but could you imagine if the game was able to keep its strategic element while being as dynamic as the anime? I'm expecting a move towards this in gen 5 as this was hinted at by one of the developers in a NP interview a while back.

I actually think they will do both. I don't think they really want to get rid of the turn based because that's the bread and butter of competitive battling. Maybe they will add another battle system that is more dynamic but only usable in-game or say co-op. Like you know how we have Contests and Pokethlon? They could easily make something similar to those but focuses less on turn based battles and more on a different battle system.

 

[Salsa]

Nothing about a new engine is confirmed if that's what you are implying. The only hint of news that we got is that the games are coming and that game play innovations are in store.

yeah i guess so, ill try crossing fingers then : (

 

[Zilch]

Not to pile on, but you've got that one backwards. The Starly line is way, way more effective than the Pidgey line ever was. Close Combat, Intimidate, and a much more specialized stat distribution make a pretty big difference.

I mean, I think I know what you're saying (no big reason to have two similar looking/typed birds around when you could drop one of them and not lose anything vital), but keeping the lesser of the two around doesn't hurt anything.

Yeah, I agree with you in that regard. I was just trying to figure out why someone would actually want to take those "redundant" monsters out of the game for the sake of the metagame.

Thinking about all this stuff really makes me want an MMO version someday...

 

[Rpgmonkey]

These are some very high expectations.

You mean him wanting to surpass D/P?

Yeah it does seem pretty high. Its sales aren't something you can just scoff at. :lol

STOP THE PRESSES!

Yeah I'm wondering what he meant by that.

I assuming he just means they're trying to significantly change the series from Gens 1-4, but I dunno.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

I think Nintendo does it out of a sense of realism. When you go outside of your house and walk down the street, what do you see? Birds and squirrels with some bugs running around as well. The same is true if you went somewhere else in the world, however they would be slightly different. So thus you have a Rattata and a Sentret. I'll agree that the lack of different types is frustrating early on. For example what's the problem with putting Murkrow in the game early on in Gold/Silver rather than Hoothoot? Or Natu? But this also makes team diversifying way too easy early on and brings down the little challenge the game offers.

This is a good way to think of things but i covered my bases in my post. I said that gamefreak could also do more to make them look different. I completely forgot that hoot hoot was the "bird" repeat in gen 2. Why? Because it looked drastically different from Pidgey and its various forms. Gamefreak should try to diversity the designs more (pidgey, tailow, and starly are all raptors) if they are going to follow a template while making any new additions competitively viable. Lastly, each "repeat" should have specific moveset options that sets it apart from its neighbor. In other words, the bird in gen 5 shouldn't automatically make the birds in gen 4 and 3 obselete.

 

[Cromat]

I like new pokemon, but I wish they would focus on closing existing evolution lines and giving evolutions to pokemon such as Unown, Farfetched, Pinsir, Luvdisc etc....

I really think they might add an element of 'fusing' or 'merging' two or more pokemon to evolve them to a new kind.

 

[Boney]

Oops, wrong thread...

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

I actually think they will do both. I don't think they really want to get rid of the turn based because that's the bread and butter of competitive battling. Maybe they will add another battle system that is more dynamic but only usable in-game or say co-op. Like you know how we have Contests and Pokethlon? They could easily make something similar to those but focuses less on turn based battles and more on a different battle system.

But see, your only saying this because this is the foundation that gamefreak has built the games on. I'm expecting a sqaure approach to the battle system. Each successive final fantasy game shares the same core battles mechanics. Specifically speaking, the ones in recent years (ffx, ffx-2, ff12, and ff13) have been about taking simple turn based mechanics and making them dynamic and exciting to watch at the same time. It is important to note that in each of these titles, the turned based combat was not lost.

 

[Rocksteady33]

This is a good way to think of things but i covered my bases in my post. I said that gamefreak could also do more to make them look different. I completely forgot that hoot hoot was the "bird" repeat in gen 2. Why? Because it looked drastically different from Pidgey and its various forms. Gamefreak should try to diversity the designs more (pidgey, tailow, and starly are all raptors) if they are going to follow a template while making any new additions competitively viable. Lastly, each "repeat" should have specific moveset options that sets it apart from its neighbor. In other words, the bird in gen 5 shouldn't automatically make the birds in gen 4 and 3 obselete.

But what does changing the look accomplish? At the end of the day they are still very similar. If anything they should refocus their stats. For example Pidgeot could focus heavily on physical attacks, Taillow could be geared towards special attacks and Staraptor could be a mix of both attack and special attack. And then say the Hoothoot chain and Spearow family could have a type change (Psychic/Flying and Ground/Flying respectively). This would allow people to actually decide which one they would want on their teams on a different level.

 

[Gravijah]

But see, your only saying this because this is the foundation that gamefreak has built the games on. I'm expecting a sqaure approach to the battle system. Each successive final fantasy game shares the same core battles mechanics. Specifically speaking, the ones in recent years (ffx, ffx-2, ff12, and ff13) have been about taking simple turn based mechanics and making them dynamic and exciting to watch at the same time. It is important to note that in each of these titles, the turned based combat was not lost.

See... Pokemon isn't like Final Fantasy. It's like Dragon Quest!

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

You mean a series afraid of change?

 

[jman2050]

But see, your only saying this because this is the foundation that gamefreak has built the games on. I'm expecting a sqaure approach to the battle system. Each successive final fantasy game shares the same core battles mechanics. Specifically speaking, the ones in recent years (ffx, ffx-2, ff12, and ff13) have been about taking simple turn based mechanics and making them dynamic and exciting to watch at the same time. It is important to note that in each of these titles, the turned based combat was not lost.

The fundamental problem I have with this is that introducing any sort of twitch to the game is going to significantly alter the competitive game from what it was before, no matter how faithful it would be to the previous turn-based system. Not only that, it'd significantly reduce the accessibility of the game's multiplayer element to its target audience.

On a more general level, I'm decidedly in the camp of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

 

[Gravijah]

You mean a series afraid of change?

You can call it fear if you want, but what are the two most popular JRPG series in Japan?

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

But what does changing the look accomplish? At the end of the day they are still very similar. If anything they should refocus their stats. For example Pidgeot could focus heavily on physical attacks, Taillow could be geared towards special attacks and Staraptor could be a mix of both attack and special attack. And then say the Hoothoot chain and Spearow family could have a type change (Psychic/Flying and Ground/Flying respectively). This would allow people to actually decide which one they would want on their teams on a different level.

I think it was Zilch who asked how gamefreak could satisfy players who only cared about collecting, and players who only cared about battling. By changing the look, gamefreak could also satisfy the players who claim the gamefreak is just rehasing pokemon again and again.

The rest of your post is exactly what i think and hope Freak does. Right now, each successive addtion just make the older versions obselete.

 

[jman2050]

You mean a series afraid of change?

A series that got it right the first time and focused its efforts on refinement instead of needless experimentation.

 

["IAMBEEFLESS"]

You can call it fear if you want, but what are the two most popular JRPG series in Japan?

I don't see how this helps your point. The two are DQ and Final Fantasy. Every time a new iteration of each respective franchise is announced, they always top the famitsu most wanted poll. One series doesn't change, while the other has always been changing.

 

[Zilch]

As big a fan I am of the progressive nature of FF's battle system, I think Pokemon would really lose something essential if it stopped being turn-based.

Also, FFXII and XIII don't even have the option for the battles to be TRULY turn-based. The most you can do is turn the battle speed down.

 

[Gravijah]

A series that got it right the first time and focused its efforts on refinement instead of needless experimentation.

See, people want revolution in every single game. But it's OK to have a series that doesn't throw everything out with every iteration. It's OK to have a Dragon Quest or a Pokemon, familiar games with simple mechanics.

I don't see how this helps your point. The two are DQ and Final Fantasy. Every time a new iteration of each respective franchise is announced, they always top the famitsu most wanted poll. One series doesn't change, while the other has aways been changing.

... In what universe is a FAMITSU MOST WANTED POLL the barometer for how popular something is? Pokemon and Dragon Quest are the two highest selling JRPGs in Japan. FF, on the other hand, is trending downward.