Topic: Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee!

@Ralizah I'm not even rushing them. I think my first playthrough may have been a bit longer, but most Pokemon games don't take long at all. I think I play through either Sold, Silver, Ruby or Sapphire once a year, and I beat them in a day, they're somewhere between 8 to 10 hours.

Speedrunners can do those games in under 2 hours! So, don't worry, I'm taking my time

@Octane I mean, people can also speedrun Dark Souls 3 in under 2 hours as well. Most games with any level of design freedom can be beaten in an absurdly limited amount of time.

According to howlongtobeat.com, for example, the average playtime for just the main story in Pokemon Ruby is 36 hours (source: https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=7170) The average for story + extras in 72 hours. Even the average rushed playthrough for the main story is around 25 hours. I think the only conclusion one can come to is that you're bum-rushing these games.

@Ralizah What are you people doing in those games that takes so long? I swear I'm not rushing them at all.

@DarthNocturnal Not as far as I know, just a vanilla speedrun, no assistance, no bugs. It means skipping most trainers and relying on just one or two Pokemon to do the job, but it's certainly possible.

I have to side with @Octane on this, I usually take my time on my first play-through of any Pokémon game, and I explore about all there is to explore, and I can't ever remember spending more than 25 hours on the first time through the main campaign. When I re-play the games I usually finish in between 10-15 hours, in some games even shorter. I cannot comprehend how you can spend more time playing these games unless you make sure to step on every tile possible and really suck at battling (or prefer stall play).

Pokémon games are about 20 hours? Well for casual players probably.
But if I'm playing Pokémon I always try to catch em all.
And I think every Pokémon main game is around 60 hours if you really want to get them all.
I'm just saying that's the shortest length I'd expect from another main series Pokémon game that's appearing on a home console for the first time.

Most RPGs in general tend to take me a little while. I tend to do a lot of exploring and some side stuff on my first playthrough of a Pokemon game. The worst part is that I'm still in the habit of talking to everyone I come up to and battling everyone I meet for the experience and Dex entries.

@Octane Except it wouldn't make sense on multiple levels for them to make a statement like that for it to not be taken seriously. There's a reason why PR statements tend not to be definitive, it's because they don't want to promise anything they won't be able to fulfill or else the fans will get angry at them and be less inclined to buy the next game. So if they're saying yes to console scale, open world gameplay they need to put their money where their mouth is or else they'll lose fans that want that kind of experience. And if they're looking at fan comments this closely, then they know they won't be able to get away with the same thing but in HD. Even if they're not going to be capable of the large scale, BotW-esque open world game some of us want, they should at the very least show that they're heading in that direction. That's why I'm thinking more Mario 64/OoT, it would provide enough of a step up from 7th gen to provide that console experience without being too radically different and overwhelming for Game Freak.

@Bolt_Strike Define open world. The Zelda-go-anywhere structure won't happen. It will be similar to previous entries. You open up more of the world as you progress.

That's one thing that needs to change yeah. It's not going to be much of an open adventure if you're being railroaded down a single path. I can live with the game still being a network of routes with a few open areas thrown in (Twilight Princess is probably the closest comparison to this kind of world design), but one thing they need to do is let you challenge gyms in any order. And that much is definitely feasible with a level scaling system (which they've kind of already done in the past with the Vs. Seeker and other rematch systems).

You know tbh I probably should've paid more attention to the video, but it's possible when they were saying yes to everything, they were referring to the general sentiment all of the comments had and didn't pay that much attention to that specific comment.

@Bolt_Strike BOTW-style shouldn't happen either. Pokemon is an turn-based RPG first and foremost. The focus should be on battles, catching and training. I don't think it needs camera controls, I don't think you shouls be able to scale every mountain either.

In regards to the progression system. I'm a bit skeptical. How does it work for routes? Do the levels of wild Pokemon go up too? Are they permanently raised if you progress far enough? I think the current linear structure is fine, have a designated first gym and last gym for sure. Maybe let the player choose between 4 and 5, and 6 and 7 for example. Add branching paths, optional areas, caves, etc. Just don't make it feel like an on-rails RPG.

I think a good example is Snorlax. Remember him in gen 1? It was something special, it was a blokade and up to you to figure out how to get past him. In X&Y? You rncounter him and you're told where to get the flute in order to progress.

And another thing, don't hand out rare and/or legendary Pokemon for free. That's just cheap. The games are easy enough already.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can have open world while still making it turn based.

Now this is just ridiculous, of course camera controls would be helpful, regardless of whether or not it's linear or open world. Camera controls can only help make exploring easier.

Well maybe not that much but you should be able to go just about anywhere on the map from the start (except of course, the Pokemon League).

First of all, they couldn't really do routes in the traditional sense anymore, since routes require a sense of linearity. As for the wild levels, there's a couple of options. They could raise them temporarily depending on the level of your current party, or they could be kept low and give you options to make it easier to train the new Pokemon up. Either way, having them permanently raised is a bad idea.

They can still do that. Being open world doesn't necessarily mean that the game is totally blockade free. They could have the Snorlax block the way to one of the towns and you'd have to find someone with the Poke Flute to get in for example, but you could go to that town at any point you want in the game.

Who said anything about that? Rare Pokemon could still be rare, you would just have to hunt for them. Putting them in hard to reach places and/or giving them low encounter rates could still keep them rare. If you want to go out and find the rarer Pokemon, that's your choice, you can make the game as easy or hard as you want to. And legendaries could be blocked off until later, maybe after a certain amount of gym badges are collected. You definitely shouldn't be able to find those easily.

I don't get why suddenly every game needs to be open-world. It is fine for some games, but I would like to have some diversity. An open world-game for Zelda makes a lot of sense, for Pokémon it would turn into a different kind of game. Sure they could make an open world game for Pokémon, but to make that fun they would need to change a lot, trying to keep both the pokémon game we know and like and make it open world would not turn out into something nice. It could turn out in something nice if they do not try to keep the old linear gameplay, however is that something that most pokémon fans would want for a core pokémon game?

It's not about an open world, but having more than a static blocky 5 generations old world where Pokémon triggers are only land, high grass, water, or caves!

It's not about making an open world, but beautiful big enough landscapes where Pokémon can behave and interact with their environments in a realistic way, and bringing the gameplay away from the old unfun invisible random encounters. Once you discover a Pokémon you can interact with them in various ways by using items and Pokémon skills, (also things learnt from other Pokémon "adventure" games like Poképark and Pokémon Snap can be included here). Then when you lure them into battle you can still have the old trusted roundbased battles, no problem.

I also see it being more like TP than BotW in world design.

If the game is anything like the story mode in Pokémon Colosseum or Pokémon XD Gale of Darkness I'll be very disappointed.

I'm curious as to why you feel this way. I haven't played either of those games (never owned a GameCube), but they always looked like fun spinoffs to me. They seem darker than the main series, at any rate.

Pokemon Colosseum is actually one of the better Pokemon games.

Because they felt clunky in comparison with other RPGs/adventures of the time. They also had some last gen issues. Moving around felt stiff, the animations were lame. The collision detection was wonky and there were invisible walls. The areas felt cluttered. The world design was just mediocre, when compared to Poképark where everything is rather vivid. It felt like the dev Genius Sonority wasn't very good in making 3D games and animation. They just took the Game Boy Pokémon, added 360° movement and low-poly 3D environments. Yes, they're well-designed, bugless, Nintendo quality games. But as for RPGs they were on the lower end of the Gamecube spectrum. I remember completing Gamecube RPGs like Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, Tales of Symphonia, Skies of Arcadia Legends, Baten Kaitos, Phantasy Star Online, Summoner 2: A Goddess Reborn, Lost Kingdom, etc. and having a great time with those. I put some hours into Colosseum and the only thing standing out was how slow and boring it was compared to the many other Gamecube RPGs I played before.

For me those two games were not the way home console Pokémon RPGs should be, and since they disappeared after Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness and Pokémon Battle Revolution (which managed to be the worst of the bunch, scrapping all that made Pokémon Stadium good, and Pokémon Colosseum decent) I believe Nintendo and The Pokémon Company thought the same. Genius Sonority then started to make much better Pokémon games for the DS and 3DS and left home console Pokémon development for others.

After that period of weaker home-console Pokémon games, two Poképark games for the Wii started to turn the franchise around. They brought the adventure and charm and the 3D world and animations that a home console Pokémon game should have as a standard. Weren't there rumours about Poképark 3 once? What happened to that game?

Thing is that open world is pretty much the ultimate form of exploration gameplay. It's exploration with no limits and no boundaries. So for any game that features exploration as part of its gameplay, making the game open world fully realizes that aspect of the game for them.

Speak for yourself. I don't really care about interacting with Pokemon in real time, I just want to explore. And there's not much exploring to be done if the game is forcing you in a particular direction.

I will agree about Battle Revolution being rather mediocre. It wasn't so bad if you could import your Pokemon from the games, but your options were very limited otherwise. It was my first Stadium-esque game that I ever owned; after playing Pokemon Stadium 2 on a demo unit years before, needless to say I was disappointed.