Topic: Games you don't want to see

I don't know why you're making it so complicated. The jump between generations of games is different than the jump between console generations. You're conflating the two. I don't see any reason why the 3DS can't talk to the Switch. It's just WiFi and if its the same generation of games all the Pokemon will be the same. Plus unlike previous generations they can patch in support on the 3DS and worst case scenario just use Pokemon Bank.

And what about this year? Nothing for this year? A remake of Diamond/Pearl on the 3DS for this year? A third version on 3DS? Do you think the series will implode if their first release on the Switch is "just" a higher resolution version of the 3DS game? And even if you're right, even if nobody buys a Switch for that game. A lot of people who have a Switch will buy the game just to have Pokemon in HD and with the option to play it on their TV. A Switch version of Sun/Moon will sell far better than a 7th Pokemon game on the 3DS. The smartest move for a game publisher is always to release something new. Pokemon on Switch is something new

@Bolt_Strike Honestly I think there's no chance of GameFreak giving us the game we all wish Pokémon could be.

Even if they had the real will to rock the boat ('radical' to them is either ultra fan stuff like detaching move typing from physical/special, ultimately superficial stuff like mega evolutions or changing gyms into trials - the series may be too big and too successful to change anything big at this point) I'd question whether they have the capability to do so.

They've had a lot of extra power but the games still stick rigidly to the red&blueprint. It's not even like, say, Zelda - another series straightjacketed by tradition at times - because a. It's far more successful and b. The Zelda team is far bigger and has a bigger history of technical & creative ambition.

So the dream of a massive open world, free form, online integrated (even MMO lite) Pokémon wil probably always be a dream. I'm certainly not expecting the first Switch game to be anything revolutionary if only because 'it's on TV & in HD now too' will be enough for them to sell 10 million copies.

The funny thing about that statement is that Pokemon has changed a lot over the years. These days you play Pokemon and every battle is a fully animated battle with 3D models. You don't have to walk to a certain spot on the map to trade or battle someone you just pull up a menu. Hell, you can trade and battle people online almost as easily. Pokemon is the game I want it to be.

If you ask me what I want Pokemon to be is the same game it has always been just done better. Not something different. Something better. And if that means porting the game to Switch so it now runs at 720p/60fps with higher levels of detail, near-instant loading, a handful of new things to do and a perhaps bigger map? Then I'm down for that. That's one step closer to the Pokemon game I want.

I have to agree that I'd rather not see Pokemon Stars on Switch. In fact I'd rather not even have Stars at all, and instead have Gamefreak devote their energy to making an all-new Pokemon built for Switch from the ground up. The 3DS has enough Pokemon in my opinion. And the games are still great, but I think it's time for a real evolution. I'm not expecting Pokemon BOTW, but something different that takes advantage of the Switch's power and hybrid nature.

Seems like it's happening on Switch too. I didn't buy a new (2017) console to play a bunch of old Neo Geo games.

Source? Because Wi-Fi = Wi-Fi, and those devices can communicate if they want to. The problem, as skywake already pointed out, was the difference between generations. A new generation has always been on new hardware (except for B&W), so it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact reason why trading between generations is always so complicated. However, if I have a copy of Black on a DS and a copy of White on a 3DS, I can battle and trade without any issues. That kinda proves the point that the hardware isn't the issue at all.

Game Freak's been expanding their staff lately, larger worlds could be part of the reason why in addition to HD. They may be big enough to make a larger scale game now. As far as willingness, Game Freak has been a late adopter to certain trends but again, they have made leaps in certain areas when handheld technology allows it. 3D graphics have been around for years, but once the 3DS became capable of providing N64/GC level graphics, Game Freak followed suit. Now that the handheld market is now capable of console scale games, Game Freak is probably going to be willing to make a larger game. And they did say that they had to change their approach on consoles if you remember. If they're not making larger worlds for a more exploration oriented market, what are they changing?

Additionally, like I said earlier I don't expect Pokemon to go full on BotW. Game Freak probably doesn't want to stray too far from their casual audience, so they'd probably keep it linear and easy to follow. So maybe level design like say, Bob-omb Battlefield, Bianco Hills, Hyrule Castle, or Zora's Domain would be more appropriate for Pokemon.

Easing up on the railroading would also help. Pokemon's been giving players less and less choice now, in some of the past regions we've had some choice in how to progress and gave you some freedom in which areas to visit and what order to challenge gyms. Bringing back that sense of freedom, maybe now letting you challenge gyms in ANY order, would also help the game feel more exploration friendly.

Ultimately, I don't think any of this is too outrageous a change for Pokemon, but it'd be enough of an improvement for the game to feel like an evolved, console quality experience.

It was in the E3 2013 Q&A. Before Bank was announced, they revealed they were working on a way to transfer Pokemon from 5th gen games to XY, but it was physically impossible for them to do it in the same way they've done before.

http://www.gamertagradio.com/2013/06/e3-2013-pokemon-x-pokemo...

Skip to 50:36 for the question about transfers.

You're missing the point. It's not about the hardware, it's about the software, DS games cannot communicate with the 3DS games. Using your 3DS to play BW is not the same thing, in that scenario the 3DS is emulating DS hardware to run a DS game, so it's a DS game communicating with another DS game. What can't be done is a DS game communicating with a 3DS game, and there is no game that does that. It's the same situation as GB/GBC -> GBA, a GBA can run the 1st and 2nd gen games but it's physically impossible for those games to send data to the 3rd gen games because of the differences in how those games send data to other games.

In other words, a DS with Black in it can communicate with a 3DS with White in it, but a 3DS with White in it cannot communicate with a 3DS with X in it. The games are the problem, not the system itself.

Never going to happen. Dual versions are a business gimmick that allows them to sell basically the same game twice, there's no incentive for them to do away with that business model.

Consumers can really suck in cases such as that. The whole dual release strategy is pretty stupid in today's day and age, imo. I understand the premise of it encouraging players from separate games to trade with one another but as mentioned before it really just seems like a way to sell the same game twice with hardly any difference.

@Bolt_Strike
Why do you keep bringing up GBA -> DS as if that's some kind of good counter point. The DS had no link port and most of the GBA Pokemon games used that exclusively for transferring Pokemon. It's not at all like the entirely WiFi world we have for portables now. And in any case I'm not sure what your argument here actually is. WiFi is WiFi, the 3DS can talk to the Switch in the same way that the 3DS could connect to the Wii U.

And unlike the DS games if there's something about the way that communications were implemented on the 3DS that makes it not work? They can patch the 3DS version or they can use Pokemon bank for transfers. Just face it, there's no technical reason why Stars can't exist. The only reason you have for not wanting it is that you'd rather have a 3DS game this year.

Why do you guys keep bringing up Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi has nothing to do with this, it's about how the data is formatted. And considering that the Switch uses an entirely different system architecture, an entirely different processor and internal hardware, and isn't BC with other Nintendo systems, it's unlikely that the data can transfer directly between the two devices. Bank support yes, but that would be an awkward solution that would require you to have an internet connection and a Bank subscription to trade between the two, and Game Freak wouldn't make trading that inaccessible.

I wouldn't mind having the rumored Stars come to the Switch. I always buy the third version of each Gen and it'd be nice if they could take advantage of the Switch's advantages.

We keep mentioning WiFi because it's a standardised communications technology. Given both the 3DS and Switch have it and given they can patch the games on both sides? There's no reason why they can't get this working. It's not at all like previous jumps between hardware generations for Pokemon. For a start there hasn't really been a jump between hardware generations that didn't also have a jump in generation of game. But also because the DS physically couldn't talk with consoles before it and its games couldn't be patched to support games after it.

What we have with the 3DS and Switch is fundamentally different than any generational leap before it. Because of the standardised nature of WiFi, the fact that the games can be patched and the fact that we're talking about a Pokemon game of the same generation. You talking about previous generation limitations isn't a counter point. All you're doing is highlighting what's different about the transition from 3DS to Switch.

@skywake Patching isn't going to be the game changer you think it is. For one, the ability to patch games didn't make 360 and PS3 games any more compatible with 8th gen. Second, Game Freak has displayed no interest in patching their games beyond bug fixes and they'd rather implement limited compatibility with past games instead of full communication. They've never done a mid gen transition because of the complications surrounding this and because it's overall just a smarter business decision to transition to new hardware with a brand new experience built around the new hardware with a new engine that can sell much more than the mid gen games which are meant to reuse assets for cheap. And since the fanbase will simply go wherever the series is there's really no point in rushing onto new hardware prematurely, so Pokemon has no incentive to port their games to new hardware. It's a huge risk with little payoff.

Well there weren't that many games where that would have made sense. But in any case the ability to have multiplayer across platforms does exist. There are some games where you can go online with PC/XBOne/PS4 in the same lobby. Obviously local communications aren't a thing but ad-hoc WiFi isn't really a thing between home consoles anyways. The 3DS/Switch and Pokemon specifically is fairly unique in this respect.

There's also the elephant in the room that you keep ignoring. The transition from GB -> GBA was a huge graphical leap so it demanded a new generation of game. The jump from GBA to DS gave us WiFi and internet connectivity as well as significantly improved visuals. It demanded a new generation of game. DS to 3DS? Well now the console can be online all the time and you can have fully 3D everything with GC era visuals. So it demanded a new generation of game.

3DS to Switch? A huge amount of extra horsepower. That's it.

According to you. I'd argue that porting the 3DS game that already exists and improving the visual quality? That's pretty low risk. And the payoff would be having a Pokemon game available for the ~15mill or so people who will have a Switch by this time next year. As opposed to releasing a third game on the 3DS this year which I either don't care about because I got Sun/Moon or I don't care about because I have a Switch now.

PC/XBO/PS4 cross compatibility only works because they share the x86 system architecture. The 3DS and Switch do not, 3DS and Switch have entirely different processors (3DS having ARM11 and Switch having TegraX1).

Not really relevant. They've made new generations on same generation hardware and that's not really based on any kind of necessity for a graphical leap. They just make new generations when they have the opportunity and the technical ability to significantly improve the game's performance and when they feel like the series needs a significant change. Huge amount of extra horsepower is enough to warrant a new generation, especially on a system that runs on entirely different specs and brings with it a completely new audience for the series that demands an entirely different gameplay philosophy than what they currently have.

You're not looking at this in terms of sales and profitability. What you have to keep in mind is that third versions are fairly low selling by Pokemon standards. New generations tend to sell about 15-18 million, but third versions only sell about 6-8 million. So already you're getting much less sales from a third version, but now you're upping the visual quality? That makes the game more expensive to make, which defeats the entire purpose of a third version. Additionally, you're looking at a ~15 million userbase by the end of the year vs. a 60 million userbase right now. So you're looking at higher spending and lower sales putting Pokemon on the Switch vs. staying put and putting it on the 3DS. So it's pretty clear what the best decision is at this point.

I want a FF sequel for the switch, showed lots of promise.

This might sound controversial but it is more a concern I have for the franchise. I would not want to see Phoenix Wright on the Switch. Here is why why.

For the record, I just found my love for the series from playing Professor Layton v Phoenix Wright and I can not wait to play the original games once I am done. But what dawned on me is how touchscreen reliant these games are.

Of course, the Switch does indeed have touchscreen support but imagine how clunky that could make investigations and court trials. It could make you accidentally press the wrong option and damage your case. Also, having your fingers on the screen will prevent you seeing what you are doing.

I do know originally they were released on the Game Boy Advance and that was great. But when they went to touchscreen that was when the series really hit the sweet spot. Going back would feel like a massive fall on their face.

So no, I would not want Phoenix Wright on the Switch. But only in its current state. If they can fix that concern I mentioned and make it feel right for the Switch, I will welcome Phoenix with open arms

But there are possibly other influencing factors. If Pokemon Stars on Switch sells, say, 2 million users who may be on the fence or waiting to buy a couple of years from now on the idea of buying a Switch today then that's 2 million users invested in the future of Nintendo rather than the past.

Those 2 million sales could be worth far more to Nintendo going forwards than a much bigger number of sales on the 3DS.

You've said this a few times and I just let it slide because I just assumed you misspoke. Now you've actually spelt it out like this I think it's pretty clear you're just making it up as you go along. You have zero idea what you're talking about if you think that CPU architecture makes it harder for systems to talk to each other. By its very nature the architecture of a device does not matter when talking over a network. That's the defining feature of computer networks. Devices don't care how it's done as long as the packets flow.

When you open up a link on your 3DS for communication it creates a fairly standard WiFi network. Like a mini access point. Checking Pokemon Moon now it creates a hidden WiFi network with WEP on wireless g. And sure WEP is pretty average but I'm actually surprised there's any security at all TBH. Anyway, when the two link up? It'd be like when any two networked devices connect. Some ports are opened and packets are exchanged. The devices couldn't care less what the machine on the other end is. A packet is a packet. As long as the software on each end knows what packets to send and receive they can talk. Gamefreak knows what packets it expects, they wrote the software!

It's like when you buy an internet of things style device like a Sonos or a Chromecast. With developer support they can have any device talk to them with no issue. They know what language those devices speak. You can have your phone tell your Sonos to grab a song from your PC. The devices couldn't care less about CPU architecture. The fact that you think it does only highlights your ignorance.