Topic: Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee!

@MarcelRguez Yeah, sorry - I could've written it more clearly!

I don't know whether he was alone in thinking that (he just mentioned it on an episode of their 'Game Scoop' podcast when they were dissecting the list) ..as I say, I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere - but Sam's point did make me think about how blurry that line can be at times!

You're absolutely right though - if Zelda had a sci-fi skin, it'd likely be classed more in the 'shooter' category than Action/Adventure - and they'd probably only use the term 'RPG' to describe certain elements of the game (if at all) ..the definitions are pretty loose really!

I just can't get my head around this idea that a game can be one thing and not another - ie. Pokemon is an 'RPG' so can't borrow elements from an 'Action/Adventure' game like Zelda - those games already have a lot of things in common - they're certainly not in clearly defined boxes, offering completely different experiences...what IS an RPG anyway? - I don't even think that's clear!

@NaviAndMii

Yeah, it's not worth thinking that hard about. Genres are just shorthand terms to understand what we're talking about, not a series of boxes a game has to check. I'm all for using tags like "exploration" or "third-person" instead.

What I'm saying though is that I don't really see that many similarities between Pokémon and Zelda other than "they have caves and forests". So do countless other series, so the comparison just seems arbitrary to me.

@Bolt_Strike I think you should go play BOTW lol.

@Snaplocket Those series are obscure (Trails), new (Bravely Default) or a combination of the two (Octopath).

And sure, some FF spin-off series try to cater to those that like turn-based combat, but that's only because Final Fantasy as a whole is so gargantuan that it can put out a bunch of turn-based spin-offs without putting the value of the IP at risk. The main series isn't going back to turn-based combat any time soon.

I'd say that the core experience is pretty similar, personally...you walk around, explore, collect things, chat to people, go on quests, venture in to 'dungeons', progress the story, gain abilities, strengthen your character/team, get side-tracked, solve puzzles, battle stuff - aside from one favouring a turn-based battle system to a more 'action' based variety, the main gameplay elements are essentially the same, I feel.

The main difference between the two, to me, is that turn-based games allow you to pause for thought to consider your next move (without having to physically push a 'pause' button) - and more action-based battle systems require a greater level of button coordination and 'on the fly' thinking - so one is perhaps better suited to a casual audience than the other.

In my view, if Game Freak were to borrow some elements from Breath of the Wild - so long as they kept the casual player at the forefront of their thinking when designing the game, I think that many of the mechanics would lend themselves perfectly to a Pokemon game.

@Snaplocket That's something I'd like to see, personally. Something that allows you to button-mash if you've memorised all of the moves and want a more 'fluid' battle - but also allows you to pause for thought it you favour a more considered approach - if done well, a system like that could allow for the best of both worlds

(..they could also get rid of the text boxes that tell you things like 'critical hit' and just have those messages automatically flash up on the screen instead - could help speed the battle system up a bit and further add to its fluidity)

I feel like any changes to battle system should be stuck on the spin offs, tbh.

Especially with the tournaments and such, it might work if Pokemon has always been single player games- but... Pokemon also has a really robust PVP, especially the tournaments. Changing it will really change things up and I feel it's not going for the better :X

@NaviAndMii You also do most (when not all) of those things in:

• Fallout
• Mass Effect
• Red Dead
• Bravely Default
• Tomb Raider

...to name a few. Nobody is saying "the next Pokémon should be a bit more like Mass Effect", but that's because they're very different series aesthetically, whereas Zelda is a handier comparison.

With this I'm not trying to say the Zelda comparison is stupid or anything, just that the traits from Zelda games that people want in the next Pokémon games are not intrinsical to Zelda or, more specifically, BotW. Except "climbing everything", I guess.

I think the more productive conversation would be "what elements that are associated with adventure games you would like to be implemented in the next Pokémon games", without focusing on Zelda in particular. And I say this mainly because, as these last pages show, we just end up talking about Zelda. Which hey, guilty as charged.

@darkfenrir Definitely agree with that. I also mentioned a couple of pages ago that the real problem is that we're not getting much in terms of spin-offs with their own twist in Pokémon's combat, and I would like to see more of that.

@darkfenrir It wouldn't have to change all that much though - it could still be 'turn based' under the hood, just with added fluidity.

The Switch has more buttons than the 3DS - so moves could be mapped to those additional buttons...if a player is confident enough and knows the moves inside-out, they could approach battles at a faster pace - but there could still be an indefinite delay between each move, so that if a player needs to pause for thought, or just favours a more considered approach in battles, they can still approach them in much the same way that they always have done.

I don't think it'd be a good idea for Game Freak to totally overhaul the battle system - and certainly not go 'all in' on the fluidity...but they could strike a balance so that there's the option to make it more-or-less fluid, depending on a players preference.

@MarcelRguez Haha! Yeah, that's basically what I was trying to say as well really!

@NaviAndMii You see, that's where I disagree. The core gameplay is the battles themselves (that's where the fun is IMO), and everything else is there to add a bit of substance.

@Octane Yeah, I wouldn't favour tweaking it too much - the idea I have in my mind is something like this:

Imagine if you could approach Mewtwo in Pokemon in much the same way as you approach a Lynel in Breath of the Wild...

Lynel's have a exclamation mark (or something?) over their heads to indicate how close they are to engaging in battle with you...Mewtwo could have the same - but instead, engages you in a turn-based battle. You can take as long as you like between turns - but if you're super-confident and know your move-sets/team inside-out, you can hit the corresponding button to make your next move with no delay. That way, on screen, the battle could appear to be more fluid (like the anime) - but if you favour the traditional, considered approach, the game automatically caters for you through the delay between moves. (..if that makes sense? )

(..but, hey, I'm no game designer! If they decided to trial a few different things in development but found that they didn't work - or turned people off - that's totally fine! I like the Pokemon battle system as it is - but if they felt the need to tweak it, I feel that striking some kind of balance, perhaps like I suggested above, could be the way to go)

@NaviAndMii How is that different from selecting the fight button and selecting a move? If you know the Pokemon's moveset, you can do that within a second.

@Octane It's all the unnecessary delays in between: Text box: 'X used this move'. Text box: 'It was super effective!'. Text box: 'Y fained'. Text box: 'Trainer sent out Z'. Wait turn. Battle menu opens. Repeat.

...a lot of that stuff could just flash up on the screen instead (no text boxes) - and the moves could be mapped to buttons so you didn't have to enter a battle menu - but the battles could still be 'call and response', so that they can only take their turn once you've hit a button (and vice versa), to give you time to dig out a potion or something from your inventory if required (for example) - or just consider your next move

EDIT: The current system works quite well on the 3DS - partly because it has two screens. Having the battle unfold on one screen while the battle menu is always open on the other keeps things nice and tidy - but that obviously won't be possible on Switch. What they could do instead is have a 'battle HUD' - and replace the 'push to confirm' text boxes with numbered hit point indicators, speech bubbles, damage symbols (etc) automatically flashing up (and slowly fading) instead...I just think that it could make the whole thing a bit more fluid without actually changing much of what is going on under the hood

@Yorumi Yeah, that's red and blue. I want that too. The Pokemon games don't need to take inspiration from other games, they already did it better themselves 20 years ago. I definitely agree that the amount of cut-scenes and mandatory story is too much.

@Yorumi Yeah, that'd be cool - something like Skyrim perhaps, where you have the choice to just follow the main story (keeping things nice and linear, whilst still being able to go wherever you want) - or take on a whole bunch of optional side-quests and sub-stories if you'd prefer the game to be a bit more padded out? ..or go 'full on' Breath of the Wild (sorry!) and just tell players right off the bat: there's the Elite Four, challenge them when you think you're ready - and just leave it in the hands of the player to decide when they want to wrap things up?

@Yorumi Yeah, I do appreciate that liberating feeling of having the freedom to approach a game on my own terms...more exploration, more choice, less restriction - all sounds good to me!

@Yorumi I get what you mean and I completely agree. The second worst thing about Sun and Moon (the first being the linearity) is how segmented the map is. In raw surface, Alola is a pretty big region, but it feels as less than the sum of its parts because of the way it's compartmentalized. Beat island, travel to the next one, repeat. At least we can safely bet Game Freak won't do that again with the next titles.

How can the first game add or change anything to the franchise?

Thing is that BotW is not a monster battling JRPG. I don't get quite the same experience from BotW that I would get from a BotW style Pokemon game. You can have more than one game that does open world exploration, Zelda doesn't have a monopoly on that. We already have 3D Mario which is pretty close and despite being an exploration game with a ton of freedom and experimentation it's a very different experience, Mario's platforming emphasis creates a different flavor of exploration- one where you're leveraging Mario's acrobatics to figure out how to get where you want instead of items. Likewise, Pokemon being a monster battling JRPG would also lend itself towards a different exploration experience, in Pokemon's case the exploration is geared towards building up, strengthening, and bonding with a team. Exploration in Pokemon rewards you with some way to improve your team, with a new Pokemon you can obtain, an item or move that can make them stronger, etc. It's not about wanting Pokemon to copy/paste Zelda's formula. It's about wanting to adapt aspects of that formula that fit Pokemon's identity in a way that makes sense. Saying "just play Zelda" doesn't really solve the problem of wanting that distinct experience, and TBH it's actually kind of ignorant, as if Zelda is the only IP that's allowed to provide that sense of freedom.

They're both exploration drive adventure games. That's all that really needs to be similar.

This. These elements aren't unique to BotW, BotW is just the easiest and best known comparison.

Exactly. The lack of freedom in these games is extremely aggravating. This series is extremely self-driven, you progress through the game with a team that you decide on. Why shouldn't they extend that to the exploration?

And yeah, world design and story structure like RBY would be great (but obviously it should be on a MUCH larger scale). This is part of what made BotW so successful, BotW's formula is also a revisit of Zelda's roots in a modern perspective.

Any kind of boundary seems totally superfluous when Game Freak can just increase the levels of wild Pokémon in parts of the game to levels that are prohibitively difficult for unskilled trainers to beat.

High-levelled Pokémon won't always obey the trainer anyway, and perhaps they can take it a step further and prohibit any Pokémon that does not meet the obedience threshold from obeying the trainer at all (or perhaps players can speedrun the game by catching a few OP Pokémon in the wild and attempting to take on the Pokémon league with a disobedient team).

Surely that would be more logical than filling the map with stupid boundaries. There were even a few where Game Freak were obviously taking the P, such as the row of fat blokes in Gen V that were blocking one of the routes and saying something along the lines that they're standing there for some reason and eventually they'll leave for some reason. These sorts of idiotic, ill-conceived contrivances really take one out of the experience.