News Article

Pokémon Art Director Would Like to Simplify the Next Generation of the Franchise

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

So many 'mon

Pokémon X & Y on 3DS may be an entry in the series that's arguably a solid entry point for newcomers, but with each new Pokémon and type the franchise steps up the level of content to digest. It seems that series art director Ken Sugimori feels that way, as he's expressed a desire to see the games take a step back to simpler designs and mechanics in future generations.

Speaking to the "We Love Pokémon" magazine (and translated by Siliconera), Sugimori-san expressed a desire for the next entry to step back to a simpler approach, citing the original Pokémon Red and Blue as an example. The art director reportedly also feels that move-sets, abilities and items could be scaled back, while he's keen to test out simplified 'mon designs on the public — some of this is apparently based on feedback from Pokémon fans. Naturally, the views of one member of the team won't necessarily bring a simplified next generation in the series.

Sugimori-san also confirmed that his favourite 'mon, to this day, is Gengar, while Venusaur is his least favourite.

Do you feel that the next generation of Pokémon would benefit from a simpler approach? Let us know in the comments below.

[via siliconera.com]

More Stories

Related Games

User Comments (97)

Morphbug

#3

Morphbug said:

No need to get rid of them... Just make the damn moves removeable like normal moves, seriously.

Rock smash went from annoying HM to super useful TM.

Yamitora1

#4

Yamitora1 said:

I think it doesn't matter. While some of the features might be hard to keep up with, newer players will come into, learn and master everything we older players might struggle with. I struggle with the ins and outs of the type match ups now since the fairy intro, I am over coming that, but a new younger player likely has already beaten me to master it all.

DarkKirby

#5

DarkKirby said:

No wonder Mega Gengar didn't get any throwaway stats into Attack while Mega Gardevoir did and Venusaur's Mega is basically just a flower on its forehead.

At any rate while I read this news a while ago, the idea is ridiculous. If you mean "simplify" by removing IVs, that's great, if you mean making the battle mechanics simpler, they are very simple already, and reducing it more would be disastrous.

Games advance by evolving, not going backwards and simplifying things "for the heck of it) when they weren't too complex to begin with, and are arguably too simple already (bar specific situations where unusual EV spreads are required to survive attacks for a specific threat).

Sad thing is the balance decisions, seemed to be entirely based off of off the official tournament format which is Ubers, Kyogre making permanent rain, and Spore spam, so they don't even understand how the game they developed is played by most people (while to be fair, most developers fall into this category, but that doesn't make it okay).

Stuff like Pokemon Amie allowing you to interact with your Pokemon? That's freaking great, stuff like that has to be improved, NOT REMOVED.

Sugimori sounds like a freaking Genwunner in this article.

WildMan

#7

WildMan said:

I already feel like they kinda simplified with X&Y. Not as many Pokemon, simplified story, not as many legendaries..

Kiokothepirate

#8

Kiokothepirate said:

If the next pokemon games were simplified back to the level of the original Red and Blue games I might look into playing them again. The latest games seem like too much work to get a strong pokemon. Then again, I was one of those players that assembled a team based on how cool they looked rather than any sort of strategy. Probably why I never made it past the pokemon league in any of my games.

Aaronzord

#9

Aaronzord said:

I agree with him. I'm not interested in stuff like Amie, mega evolution, super training, hordes or those rubbish sky battles. X just felt really bloated with features I just don't care about...so many new features battling for attention, but I was left indifferent to them all. Keep it simple.

Prof_Elvin_Gadd

#10

Prof_Elvin_Gadd said:

@Aaronzord Mega Evolutions are awesome, but I have to agree on Amie. It's just super cheesy and reminds me of that silly mini game in the 3DS version of Harvest Moon: A Tale of Two Towns. I had to do it to get Sylveon, but I won't ever do it again lol.

Sam_Loser2

#12

Sam_Loser2 said:

I am good with less pokemon each gen. Catching them all is getting harder and harder, I would like it to get harder less quickly.

ShadJV

#14

ShadJV said:

@Wonder_Mask and how would you manage that? You still have the HMs and the pokemon that used the move, can't you just teach the pokemon the move again?

TruenoGT

#15

TruenoGT said:

I really enjoyed red and blue way back in the day, but to be honest the series almost seems intimidating to me now with so many monsters and features. I understand making it more accessible would probably tick people off, so maybe they should make a spin-off RPG series that simplifies things to work people back into the main series.

ShadJV

#17

ShadJV said:

X and Y are already simple compared to other recent titles, at least from my point of you. All we got were 69 new Pokemon, 3 new legendaries, and hardly any post game content. Sure, they added Mega evolutions (though it's limited to one per team for obvious reasons, so it's not really that complicated), a new type (which we haven't gotten since Gold and Silver and was sorely needed for balance, but honestly there isn't a lot of useful new fairies yet), Pokemon Amie (which is optionally save for Sylveon), Super Training (which actually SIMPLIFIES EVs), the Friend Safari (which actually simplifies getting good IVs)... Wonder trades and O-powers are optional (though I enjoy them)... X and Y didn't add much more depth to the series; to be honest, it simplified some things. And I love these games so much but still am disappointed by the lack of new content compared to previous gens. Simplifying is not the right option in my opinion, not at this point.

OracleOfTruth

#18

OracleOfTruth said:

@ShadJV #15 - Not necessarily. If you deleted Waterfall from the Pokemon who used it, you could potentially trade it. If you had no other Pokemon who could use Waterfall with you, you'd be well and truly stuck.

Justaguest

#19

Justaguest said:

noooo noo noo. thats such a bad idea. so is this franchise becoming rock paper scissors kinda thing? Thats boring! I love the diversity when it comes to pokémon. If you want to appeal to everyone leave everything in. I am not going to play an easy game like pokémon X again. By the way has anyone played through the game without EXP share? I need to know if it makes it a lot harder

Xaltheron

#20

Xaltheron said:

"The art director reportedly also feels that move-sets, abilities and items could be scaled back"

This worries me tbh, X and Y are already the easiest games in the series, and now they want to simplify the mechanics too?
Having plenty of moves to choose from makes customising and team building more fun, and abillties make pokemon more unique, I don't see how cutting back on them benefits anyone other than making a pokemon for dummies.

BakaKnight

#21

BakaKnight said:

Simpler Pokemon...
I guess I can agree on the design, while there are many good looking pokemon in all generations, there was something charming in the original style; you could totally distinguish a Pokemon from a Digimon or any monster of other franchises while many new pokemon could perfectly fit in any random monster franchise >.>;

About the mechanics it's clear how pokemon is still evolving under many aspects, while some things never changed each generation had something in the control or extra functions that got changed in the sequels. Amie and super training looks like the typical thing that won't reach the next games for example ^^; (althought I personally liked Amie, if only it had mechanics deeper than a puddle it would have make a awesome extra thing. Personally I totally hope they will update it seriously in future games, not dump it :) )

Maybe Sugimori is right and the right changes for evolve the franchise is think simpler, to polish and remove, not to add, but I personally like to see all the experiments game freak is doing, really wonder what they will try next ^_^

OracleOfTruth

#22

OracleOfTruth said:

@Justaguest - I played through the game without it. It did make it quite a bit more difficult. There were times when normal trainers gave me trouble. I even had to do a bit of extra grinding at one point.

GamerZack87

#23

GamerZack87 said:

Well, how about that? Sugimori-sama's favourite Pokémon is the shadow of my favourite Generation I Fairy-type Pokémon's evolved form! :O

PrincessSugoi

#24

PrincessSugoi said:

Simplified in art designs? I can dig that. But the game itself does not need to be simplified at all. For a first timer like me, even I found it too easy how fast the mon I kept on my team could level up due to exp. share and the Elite 4 were some of the easiest battles in the game. I haven't picked up the game in days because there is very little for me to do in the postgame other than battle, browse the Safari, and buy more clothes. Increase the difficulty, add a new mode/feature and put more stuff in the post game. I'll be pissed if they removed Amie. It's a great feature that should be improved and used to evolve more Pokemon but for God's sake, change it to have influence on friendship as well as affection.

mhoving

#25

mhoving said:

I don't agree with lesser 'mons, but if they decide to introduce lesser 'mons each gen I won't die or anything.

I just really hope they don't 'simplify' the battling. Are they crazy, like has been said before, pokemon is already simple! They can return RBY battle mechanics, but many people will quit the series if they do that. Those mechanics are horrible compared to newer games. Also things like abilities and deeper complex movesets also allow for deeper and more strategic ways, also giving otherwise terrible pokemon chances to shine!

I do agree with simpler elegant designs, but if simpler means gen 1 'mon like tangela, grimmer, muk, volorb, electrode, etc. (there are many more), than it definitely is a no-no.

Justaguest

#26

Justaguest said:

@Trululu ok thanks.. I dont know why I have been playing with it for so long. Its really easy to get used to but takes away from the experience. Especially when you onehit all of the gymleaders pokemon.

Senario

#27

Senario said:

@PrincessSugoi to be totally fair, do we need both leer and growl which do the exact same thing by lowering the def of the opponent by one stage? I don't think they will remove amie, just things like cloned moves.

Have you done the looker sidequests? How about the battle mansion? Catch the legedary pokes? Go to the battle Institute? Build a competitive team? That last one is keeping me busy with breeding.

ShadJV

#28

ShadJV said:

@Trululu that's the players fault for putting themself in a corner and ignoring common sense (especially since in X and Y there's no real large areas beyond waterfalls, just tiny dead ends), but it's not like there's no possible way out. There's still the fly HM (you never get waterfall before fly), and if they really have no party pokemon that can learn fly or waterfall then they have to suck it up and trade again. It's not hard to find a pokemon that learns fly or waterfall. They aren't in an impossible situation and all players shouldn't have huge inconvenience of semi-permanent HM moves because hypothetically there's a few players that don't have foresight and can't get themselves out of a situation they caused (they'd have to consciously choose to forget waterfall and then on a whim trade a pokemon that they were leveling up and cared enough about the moveset to delete waterfall).

Failing that, there's no reason all HMs have to be that way. A player can't get themself stuck with fly, for example.

mookysam

#30

mookysam said:

I think Black/White already made lots of long overdue tweaks and improvements to how the games play. They rejuvinated the series for me.

Now that EVs are easy to train, the last real abstract design concept is IVs, which I think should be simplified and more open to player control.

One solution to the annoyance of HMs could be to have field moves completely separate to battle moves. Now that TMs are no longer single use it feels like keeping HMs distinct is unnecessary. The design of the games also now seems to rely less on HMs.

Zombie_Barioth

#32

Zombie_Barioth said:

The series really doesn't need to be any simplier than it already is. If they feel that theres a problem with accessability then they should rebalance the games' pacing, not remove options and features. Going from the variety of things in X & Y to bare bones like older games will just be a huge turn off for a lot of people. Theres no reason they have to pick either plenty to see and do or simplicity.

If he wants to go back to simplier designs though I have no problem with that. That sort of thing doesn't affect the game much and I wouldn't mind seeing designs more like those from gen II or gen III. I've already heard some people say that the new Pokemon have a gen II vibe to them.

HyperSonicEXE

#33

HyperSonicEXE said:

@DarkKirby
Just because something was made more recently does not mean it is better.
I like fanciful designs, very occasionally. After all, thisis Fiction - who's to say it can't happen in their world? But I'm absolutely appalled by some of these newer designs that are just shallow and lazy on the face of them. Ice cream cone and keychain come to mind. And the new legendary trio - What???
That said, I never understood Magmar and some of the GSC and RSE designs.

It may be time to introduce Extinction of species.

Sneaker13

#34

Sneaker13 said:

I have to agree on multiple levels. I've got three big gripes about the serie.

First the design of the Pokémon. The first generation was awesome and there were hardly any Pokémon I didn't like (they were there, but most of them were great). But with each gen they got worse. Like they were running out of ideas. I mean, we have Ice cream Pokémon, garbage back pokemon, candle Pokemon, key pokemon. Really? Not to mention how the have nice Pokémon en screw them up by making them evolve in terrible Pokémon that hardly look like the original ones.

Second the evolutions. This was pretty simple in the first few games, but got extremely complicated. Some evolve at day, some at night, some need to be in a certain location, some need happiness, some need to hold an item when breeded etc. etc. It is just so overly complicated.

Then the moves. In the later games I have no idea what a move does. Even with a description. And especially in the last game. Some moves looks very impressive but don't appear to do much. I would however add two moves to each Pokémon. I think four is too little, I would rather have six. I find it really hard to believe that all Pokémon simply forget moves. Really? I also hate using moves outside of battle. I don't want to give up a move slot just for things like cutting down trees, breaking rocks, surfing on the water etc. etc. Just give Pokémon these abilities by default. Do I really need to learn a bird Pokémon how to fly, a water Pokémon how to swim/surf and a big, strong Pokémon how to break rocks. I don't think so.

Pixel-Perfect

#35

Pixel-Perfect said:

Venusaur is his least favorite? My childhood is ruined. ;-; Anyways, if he wants to simplify the designs and feels that he can keep each Pokemon relatively unique for it, then why not? But I'm definitely against scaling back the mechanics...

MarioMario

#36

MarioMario said:

I feel like HM's should be passive abilities. They don't take one of the four attack slots. They're just a unique ability certain pokemon will always have

BulbasaurusRex

#37

BulbasaurusRex said:

@Morpheel That would make them no different than other field move TMs like Dig, Teleport, Soft Boiled, and former HMs Flash, Rock Smash, Whirlpool, and Dive, which means they essentially would be getting rid of HMs. I do agree with the idea, though, as they're just an annoyance now that TMs are reusable, and the gym badge restrictions already prevent you from using them in the field too early. They just need to make sure that you can't delete Surf while actually on the water nor throw the TMs in the trash.

Ernest_The_Crab

#40

Ernest_The_Crab said:

@ShadJV Unfortunately, they will need to stop somewhere. As you may have noticed, the game had frame rate issues even with 3D off in the battles. If anything, things need to be simplified in this regard. The hardware doesn't appear powerful enough yet, and seeing as how GameFreak prefers to develop on portables, they may need to wait for the next portable from Nintendo before everything runs smoothly.

As a result, they will need to cut somewhere if they want to release another Pokemon on the 3DS/2DS or not develop a new Pokemon game for awhile.

@MarioMario The problem with that, is a number of HM moves are very powerful and very common moves in the competitive scene (for example Surf). Making it passive would essentially remove the use of said attacks, and possibly hurt move pools for Pokemon.

WreckItRyan

#42

WreckItRyan said:

@Wonder_Mask Better yet, if Surf was a TM, you could hypothetically replace Surf with a new move while on the water...and then sink! They would have to make Surf/Waterfall linked to key items instead.

tabris95

#44

tabris95 said:

I wish this article was a little more specific on what he meant by simple. Honestly, the battle mechanics are a little too simple already and in my opinion, in need of an overhaul. Whats the point of double and triple battles when they are barely in the game? Why bother having 6 pokemon in a party when the average trainer you fight only uses 2? Only 69 new pokemon were introduced and I only used maybe two of them. With the new exp. share I was always 10 levels higher than any trainer, giving me no challange. I love all these new features but maybe I wouldn't mind if things were simpler if that meant strengthening the core gameplay and adding worthwhile pokemon to the roster.

BlatantlyHeroic

#46

BlatantlyHeroic said:

I want Pokemon to become more complex. Especially the story. After Black and White, I feel that X and Y failed to deliver an exciting story line that drives you. It was rather bland and didn't make any sense.
@Sneaker13 Genwunner alert. Genwunner alert.

link_hatchet

#47

link_hatchet said:

Well i sure hope they do a little simpler design on the pokemon, after the second gen of pokemon I lost interest in it.

IceClimbers

#48

IceClimbers said:

In my opinion, if they simplify things in the way that Black/White, Black 2/White 2, and X/Y did, then I'm ok with it. BW did many things to simplify the game and make it much smoother, such as infinite use TMs, PokeMart inside the PokeCenter, and speeding up the pace during battles. BW2 took this even further by doing things like asking you if you want to use another Repel when one wears off.

X/Y simplified many things. First off, Super Training simplified EV training majorly, making it easier than ever. Breeding was made simpler by removing some of the barriers in the past regarding passing down egg moves, Hidden Abilities, etc. Destiny Knot has made it sooooooo much easier to pass down IVs, and the new Friend Safari helps with this by making each Pokemon found in it have at least 2 IVs of 31. It's easier to get a flawless Pokemon now than it EVER has been. This helps blur the line between casual and competitive players, which was an issue in the past when it came to online battles (especially Random Wifi Battles). The PSS also made it really easy to look and find someone to battle or trade with, and the user interface is very user friendly. Having all of those online features and the option to be always-online when playing at the touch of a button is extremely satisfying.

Sneaker13

#49

Sneaker13 said:

@BlatantlyHeroic. Jup and proud of it. But seriously. The first few gens did have there bad apples and silly moves and things as well. Still can't believe that I had to ruin a Pokémon with Flash. But it's not as bad as in the later gens.

Ngamer

#50

Ngamer said:

it became time. The pokemon dont need all those extra things around there body, just simple can be nice too like in the first 150 pokemon

miletich3

#51

miletich3 said:

How about no more event Pokemon, no more forced sidequests and no more redundant electric type gyms?

theblackdragonAdmin

#52

theblackdragon said:

i wouldn't mind seeing some of the more complicated pokemon designs simplified down a bit. keep what we've got as-is, what's done is done, but any future ones could stand to be a bit simpler. Fletchling and Inkay were probably my favorites of the new batch this time around mainly because they were so simple. their final evos are a lot more visually complicated, but the charm of those first evolutions sucked me in and kept me using them. Litleo and Pyroar (both male and female) look great, they remind me of Meowth and Persian in terms of design and coloration simplicity. Skitty and Delcatty are a bit more complicated design-wise, but they're still okay because they make up for it in simplicity of coloration. In contrast, Espurr to Meowstic is a visual change too drastic to bear, and Purrloin and Liepard both look absolutely hideous IMO.

Venusaur for a very long time was a turn-off in terms of using Bulbasaur, but I've grown to enjoy mine due to the personality they now show in battle — i don't like discriminating against 'mon due to the way they look, but sometimes i just can't help cringing when i have to add a pokemon i don't visually enjoy to my team(s). i do feel the way battles are displayed now helps to make up for the ugliness of some pokemon in static images (and absolutely enhances the adorableness of others!), so that's a change that's grown on me very much with X/Y and I hope they don't stray from it.

I do greatly enjoy the update to battling and interacting with other users that the PSS brought to the table, I can turn on the 'internet' option anyplace, anywhere to interact instead of visiting a specific spot inside a pokemon center, and trading for specific 'mon or battling with others has seriously never been easier. i like the trainer customization (to a point — let me take off the hat plz). i like the battle chateau and maison and the restaurants you can visit, and i also like the new Friend Safari thing, but the cafes where you basically pay to view pokemon are useless, as are the o-powers, trainer videos, and the 'visiting' portion of Pokemon Amie — i love everything else about Amie, interacting with your different 'mon is really a lot of fun, but having pokemon just slide in and out of your little decorated area all the time is more annoying than anything else, especially when they eat all your Puffs or just give you Puffs instead of cool items.

I think the whole 'mega evolution' thing is a joke. who needs it? it's just a way to dress up old pokemon, and they can be taken down just as quickly by other plain old everyday pokemon. i've made a point so far of not busting out a mega evo in serious online battles; when i win i want to do it old-school, y'know? I kinda wish they'd just given us more meat to the story (team flare was pretty lame overall IMO) or even a few more new pokemon to play with (though i do think keeping the amount of new 'mon in this one relatively low was a good idea; the dexes are bulky enough as-is D: ).

Finally, I agree with whomever is saying that the HM system could stand to be modified. I'm glad they've beefed up the HM moves over the years (they used to be straight-up awful, you'd have to catch something to use as an HM slave because you never wanted to have an HM ruining your pokemon), but i'd still like to see a system where you could maybe teach one HM to a pokemon able to learn it and you could choose to either have the move in their available battle set or have it only usable outside of battle. I like that they made TMs reusable, i like that there's now the option to unlearn HMs, i like that you don't have to force something to learn Flash to get through caves anymore, i just don't like the idea of HMs stinking up perfectly good pokemon in general.

fwiw, i think they're on the right track with X/Y — i haven't played a pokemon game through to being champ since the original G/S. there's plenty that can be shaved down here and there, it's not really one major thing alone that needs to be cut out of the games IMO.

MixMasterMudkip

#55

MixMasterMudkip said:

I'm fine with simpler Pokemon, but don't scale back Moves, Abilities, and such. that would mess somethings up.

MasterWario

#56

MasterWario said:

@Wonder_Mask But that could easily be solved with a "teleport back to pokemon center" button or something more creative. There are ways around it, I'm sure.

AlbertoC

#57

AlbertoC said:

Even Sugimori feels that Pokemon doesn't have the same appeal as older generations. And personally, i don't like how any gen 6 pokemon looks. Especially Sylveon, it's a love letter to the japanese "kawaii" concept. As far as i know, Eevee evolves to adapt to its surroundings, not to be a japanese girly merchandise theme, because just very few of Gen 6 pokemon are "kawaii" enough to make plushes or the like. Or tell you what... Make 1,000+ pokemon. In Japan the franchise is dominating 3DS sales so...

But i'm afraid it will eventually get to the point the concept will get stale, or Pokemon as a whole will be so big that new players will perceive it as, if not complex, overwhelming.

"But teacher, how do you expect me to learn the entire periodic table?"
"The same way you learned the names and types of well over 500 pokemon." (That means... by battling and trading them...)
Untitled

@theblackdragon: "Mega evolutions are just a way to dress older pokemon. Who needs them?" Absolutely yes. My favorite part is Mega Mewtwo X and Mega Mewtwo Y. Oh, and let's not forget Charizard -> mega Charizard -> shiny Charizard. Or something. Suuuuuuuuuuure.

@Senario: Technically, growl and leer don't do the same thing... Growl lowers the attack of the defending pokemon, while leer lowers its defense.

In other news... Pokemon gen 7 confirmed.

Zombie_Barioth

#58

Zombie_Barioth said:

@AlbertoC
Or it could simply be that since he prefers a simplier design and had a huge influence over the originals those would be the ones he likes best. He isnt the only one designing them anymore so they won't all share his style. Thats like Walt Disney prefering Oswald or Mickey's design to Donald and Goofy's.

Its true that Eevee is supposed to adapt to its environment, and Sylveon fits that well enough. What would a spoiled, pampered Eevee that only knows city life evolve into?

What do sales of the series or being big in Japan have to do with anything? Pokemon has always been big over there, and its not the only franchise either. Most 1st stage Pokemon are designed to be cute, they don't have to be "kawaii" to be made into plushies or other merchandise. I doubt that has anything to do with how they design them.

Senario

#60

Senario said:

@AlbertoC I just mistook it for something else. Probably tail wag? Something like that. But what do you have against the Japanese and Japanese style? I see nothing wrong and I do enjoy some of the new pokemon as they are creative. Saying you don't like it because it is "girly" is just about the most absurd thing I have heard. When did videogames, particularly a game targeted towards kids, become something you need to use to justify your manhood? Can't you just enjoy good games? And even if they are cute inthe early stages they quickly lose that cuteness when they evolve like pangoro or talonflame. Besides that, Sylveon is great and evee is just known for having different evolution types.

Mega evolutions are also cool and are not just a new coat of paint. They add a whole new sense of depth to the gameplay in terms of strategy. In general you either have an irrational hate for pokemon or a hate towards japanese games that you should probably let go.

I think people have too much nostalgia for the earlier gens as they do not see that the pokemon designs weren't that great or original. Goldeen? Goldfish with a horn. Muk is a pile of sludge. Magneton is a round ball with magnets attached.

Squid

#61

Squid said:

I've been playing these games since Gen II and I have had no problem with the direction they've been going. The number of Pokémon (while I understand that some designs can be underwhelming, and that they do need to stop eventually) is fine (at least for me, I've got no problem memorizing 721 so far), moves, items, battle mechanics, etc are all fine. There are some things I don't like, such as Mega Evos and evolution methods, but they're doing good to enhance the series so far, and I don't think they need to scale back. I don't understand, I thought there were people who said Pokemon didn't change enough, now we say it needs to reverse itself? And honestly I'm more concerned how Sugimori hates Venusaur the most. I've always loved Venusaur. :D But I think Gengar is a good choice for a favorite (except for its hideous Mega Evolution)

GalacticMario28

#62

GalacticMario28 said:

I wouldn't mind seeing Pokémon designs simplified a bit, even though I think I like the recent designs better than a lot of people do and I acknowledge that some of the older designs were pretty uninspired, but I don't want to see the mechanics become oversimplified. I think it would be fine to remove a few things here and there and fine-tune a couple of other things, but I absolutely do not want the battle system to revert back to the way it was in Gen I/II. Those were the days when Electrode and Sandslash didn't learn any Electric and Ground moves, respectively, by leveling up (Sandslash might have, I don't remember exactly, but I know it didn't learn Earthquake by level up). I feel like the Pokémon just didn't learn enough moves back then, not to mention there was no Physical/Special split, meaning some Pokémon were borderline useless back then; although I do feel they could do with Pokémon learning slightly fewer TM moves than they do nowadays.
After testing out some of the Mega Evolutions, I can definitely say I approve. I like the concept of temporary evolution, and I think they've done some interesting things with the concept, though I would like to see them do just a little bit more with it. I'd also like to see what some other Mega Evolutions would be like. For instance, imagine going up against a Mega Shuckle; with Shuckle already being such a pain to deal with (provided you can't hit it for Super Effective damage), I shudder at what its Mega Evolution would be like.
I do feel that IVs and HMs can be annoying at times, but I also feel like they're a part of what makes Pokémon what it is, at least for me; I wouldn't lose sleep if those were changed/removed, but I also don't have a particularly strong desire to see that happen.

EvilLucario

#63

EvilLucario said:

No, no, and no. Pokemon was already an RPG series that anyone can easily pick up and play easily, even without taking into account of EVs, IVs, natures, and overall stat totals. To simplify the mechanics even more would mean suicide, as Game Freak would lose out millions in consumers just to appease the rose-tinted people who "stopped playing after Gen 1/2".

Yes, some Guide Dang It moments involving things like breeding and evolution should be sorted out by having NPCs talk about those things, but Pokemon, mechanics wise, is heading in a very strong position of being simple to get into, yet have layers of complex strategy involved. Game Freak shouldn't throw that away. Ever.

DaveGX

#66

DaveGX said:

Hoenstly, what I'd like to see is at least take the mechanics back to simpler days of Red and Blue, maybe not that too far back, however, with some exception on them learning and forgetting moves. I've never really understood the logic behind only learning/remembering 4 moves because the Tv series never really seem to've followed that formula very much. That said, the moves/attack set should become legit,a big bigger maybe. Also, why not just have some moves/attacks automatically be forgotten in order to learn stronger/more advanced 1s that borrow from 1 or more basics allow those to become an automatic combination for a way they learn them, and forget the basic 1s as they become no longer necessary? Perhaps this could act as a means for them to become smarter, thus remember more moves progressively maybe?

As for the designs, some of the 3DS games we've seen, appear to take graphics either from Nintendo 64-GameCube level I'd say, take Super Mario 3D Land for example. I'm still just not feeling the same level coming from Pokémon. And so I still say they should bring this series to console, and definitely deliver some/more on textures, not just for the environments but for the Pokémon as well. This is something I feel that's still lacking very much in any canon Nintendo games, and it really wouldn't do them any harm to give them a believable/realistic appearance. If anything as an example, I always think of the cimematic from Super Smash Bros Brawl, how Mario's clothes look more like real clothes, like his overalls at least. That's the level of texture and detail I feel could help modernize them a bit more without doing any harm to their respectful franchises.

Gorlokk

#67

Gorlokk said:

Looking back, there were A LOT of lame Pokemon designs in older games too.

But uh, I saw a few people complaining about Pokemon Amie, and honestly, that was a small selling point for me. It made your Pokemon perform better in battle and gain more exp too, so it would make NO sense to take out a feature that's not only useful, but just plain fun too.

Ragnopazzo

#68

Ragnopazzo said:

Simplified doesn't mean easier, in fact this is the easiest pokèmon game because it offers too much options to the player to be cool.

Things i don't like in Pokèmon Y: Pokèmon Amie, Super Training, Mega-Evolutions because they aren't permanent, super-catch system in witch more Pokèmon you catch the more effective they get (i catched Yveltal with one Ultra Ball first try, sigh) and having the EXP-Share from the start insted of having to find it mid-game or post-game.

In fact this is why i'm just playing this game until Braverly Default is out here in europe the 6th of december.

rafaelluik

#69

rafaelluik said:

@DarkKirby I'm your fan! Perfectly said.

Additionally there's no problem with the current Pokémon designs. And if they simplify the plot even more than what it is now I quit playing Pokémon. Gen I "clean up the towns of Team Rocket" sucked compared to Sinnoh and Unova legendary stories.

JimLad

#70

JimLad said:

It took me long enough to learn the first 151. As soon as they started introducing more I was like, 'screw that'.
Now when people talk about Pokémon I literally have no idea what they're talking about most the time.

DarkNinja9

#72

DarkNinja9 said:

"simplify things" could be a double edge sword... in X and Y it already seemed WAY way to easy you get stuff thrown at you from the start pkm here and pkm there items here item there no real challenge to explore for those items or pkm less far new pkm and legendaries too :|

what i have noticed though that they added or removed some features at times or even moves those around which is annoying -_- like when using the items anyway seriously make a way to use HM moves easier that is something i say yes <.<

theblackdragonAdmin

#73

theblackdragon said:

@interneto: he's talking about going back to gen 1 'simplicity' in the article, and i brought that stuff up to show how some things in the series have changed to be much better since those days and i wouldn't want to go back. If you look at the rest of that paragraph of mine, you'd also note that Flash hasn't been an HM since gen 4 and TMs were made reusable last gen iirc.

MideonNViscera

#74

MideonNViscera said:

Just ditch IVs. It's the only thing in these games that is really a needless pain in the donkey and waste of time.
Please watch the profanity — TBD

gregrout

#75

gregrout said:

I'd lose the IVs, turn all HMs to TMs, kill that annoying "mini-soccer" game and I would increase the number of moves per-pokemon to 6. I'd even go as far as allowing mega-evolution pokemon duel-spec (2 sets of 6 moves, one regular set and a another that gets loaded when you evolve). I think battles would become a lot more dynamic and exciting this way.

Senario

#76

Senario said:

Clearly nobody here knows that the mini soccer game is actually beneficial to the game...EVs are important and a big part of the competitive game. Limiting things to 4 moves also balances out what each pokemon can do. In part, doing ev training makes complaints about the game being too easy invalid. pokemon amie is a great feature for interacting with your pokemon. And if you really need difficulty, try the battle mansion or battle other people. The legendary pokemon besides yvetal and xernas are harder to catch. And those two pokes aren't supposed to be difficult to get since they are part of the main story.

AlbertoC

#77

AlbertoC said:

@Zombie_Barioth @Senario In terms of pokemon design, I guess it's just the fact there are people with all sorts of different tastes. I'm also not necessarily inclined to the first generation. There are no "wrong" tastes, am i right? Like Ken Sugimori, for me the franchise overall has lost the initial charm it had.

Let me also assure you it hasn't anything to do with an "irrational hate" or "something against a different culture". This is simply not the case. In fact, i have been studying the japanese language 6 years as of now (and i still have a long way to go...), and this comment is just for pointing the fact i'm familiar with their language, society structure and culture, not just in a shallow or commercial level.

There are Pokemon TV shows, printed media, the obvious case of videogames - main games or spin-offs - and in the case of Japan, even Pikachu planes and a Piplup car. Taking this into account, and the fact its origin is Japan, i think said market has a big influence in Pokemon designing, merchandise-wise.

How many pokemon are too many pokemon? I don't really know, but as long as the franchise is doing well in Japan, and in sales in general, Game Freak is going to continue producing it. But I'm afraid someone who wants to start playing with 800+ monsters will find it intimidating, to say the least. In this light definitely a "simpler approach" would be a smart move.

RaylaxStaff

#78

Raylax said:

Remove the 100 EVs cap on Vitamins. I see no downside to doing this. They've gone half the journey to making EV training not psychotically dull, now they can just go the rest of the way. That, or implement more / better EV training mini games.

Breeding is more-or-less fine as-is, now that nature is a 100% inherit with Everstone. Perhaps an item to make eggs hatch faster that stacks with Flame Body / Magma Armour, like XY's Hatching Power Level 3 (but without the time limit)

In terms of sheer volume of Pokémon, which is always tagged up by people as "too dang many", I'm actually in the other camp: more is better. Naturally, there's a few duff designs, but consider what got most of us hooked on Pokémon in the first place - the sheer variety on show. You and 5 friends could all be playing Red or Blue and all be using almost entirely different Pokémon teams. That was cool, it kept everyone on their toes. Now there's over 700 of the things. Imagine what that's like for someone brand new to the franchise - practically an entire ecosystem of critters, from which they're free to cherry-pick their favorites, safe in the knowledge that their friends probably aren't using any of the same things. That's pretty awesome. I don't buy that it makes the game any harder - the same logic applies as it did in Red and Blue. Water types look like they're made of or live in Water. Fire types are fiery. And so on - nobody needs to be an expert in all 713 creatures when the designs usually give a solid indication of what they are. There's a few oddballs that are hard to identify, sure, but that's not new, and it's part of the learning process. How many people were convinced Kangaskhan was Ground-type? Or wondered what on God's sweet earth Mr Mime was supposed to be (asides fantastically creepy)? I still always have to look up Drapion's type since I expect bug/poison and wonder why my psychic moves keep bouncing off it. But that's all part of the learning process, no different to how things were in Red and Blue.

Senario

#79

Senario said:

@Raylax I am all for different EV training minigames. I think that vitamins shouldnt affect EVs but IVs. Or remove IVs alltogether since it is all RNG. Oh and Pokerus needs to affect EVs gained through supertraining.

Zombie_Barioth

#80

Zombie_Barioth said:

@AlbertoC
Thats understandable, I'm not knocking anyone for prefering older games or anything. I just think in Sugimori's case what they went through to make the first few games and being the main guy behind them holds a lot of influence for him. For us older fans I wonder if part of the missing charm is due to being so familar with the franchise at this point.

I didn't mean that marketing has absolutely no influence on their designs, just that they probably don't design specific Pokemon with plushies and the like in mind. The Pokemon are designed to be appealing from the start so of course theres a bit of marketing influence there, and that means they're naturally suitable for merchandise.

As for having to many Pokemon I don't think theres much of a problem. Do we need 100+ new ones every generation? No, it was fine before when there were only a few hundred and most were lower stages, but we don't need so many at a time anymore. Having more potential enemies in an RPG is a good thing, and while Pokemon aren't simple palatte swaps of weaker ones the rock, paper, scissors mechanic makes figuring out how to deal with them simple to figure out most of the time. If all else fails you can catch it and find out its abilities that way.

Besides, doesn't the DQM2 remake have 800 or so? Its a no brainer that Square Enix will market it towards Pokemon fans being a monster raising game itself, and nobody seems to be complaining about being too hard to get into. What made Pokemon hard to get into was having so much hidden in an attempt to create a sense of realism. How many of us knew how moves worked in gen I&II before trying them? Other games like Digimon World or Monster Rancher were more difficult for that very reason despite having far fewer monsters.

XCWarrior

#82

XCWarrior said:

Simplify the game if you want for a spin off game. But for the main line, don't touch it. If you do, sales will hurt big time because the non-child audience won't buy it.

theblackdragonAdmin

#83

theblackdragon said:

@interneto: i'm not sure what you mean, but my entire comment was coming from the fact that while I agree with him that there is fat that could be cut from what X/Y has to offer us, there are other aspects of the game that have long since been modified for the better and i do not want to see them go back to the way they were back in R/B/Y (as Sugimori is pointing to that as the general ideal at the moment). am i making any sense? :3

Interneto

#86

Interneto said:

@theblackdragon According to the Urban Dictionary I should respond "umm.. right..." to that... :3

@JimLad well, it's all about getting used to it. If we truly like the formula we kinda get stuck to it until the very end.

TheSonicdude97

#88

TheSonicdude97 said:

Yes, simplify by getting rid of the crummy new Pokemon from Gen. 5 & 6! :D (As well as having no Mega Evolutions cause they ruin the traditional style of battle and make most Pokemon look ugly)

AlbertoC

#91

AlbertoC said:

@Zombie_Barioth You make some really good points. Perhaps i'm just too familiar with the concept at this point, and it just doesn't wow me anymore.

As for the second part, I guess some people could just look up in online guides how to play their way, removing some of the obstacles for playing as a beginner, without dumbing down the overall experience. Everyone plays games to enjoy them, and in the end that's what counts.

Bass_X0

#93

Bass_X0 said:

I think they should focus more on giving Pokemon three evolutionary stages than creating one or two evolutionary stage Pokemon.

Doma

#94

Doma said:

@theblackdragon "I think the whole 'mega evolution' thing is a joke. who needs it? it's just a way to dress up old pokemon, and they can be taken down just as quickly by other plain old everyday pokemon. i've made a point so far of not busting out a mega evo in serious online battles"

I fully agree with this. It's gotten really lame online seeing people using the same pokemon all the time, just cuz they're mega. I'm so used to battering the same few pokemon now that it's just boring. The only thing worse than the mega obsessed, are people who think they're clever by abusing the move 'Protect' (i value my time, so i disconnect whenever encountered).

unrandomsam

#95

unrandomsam said:

@Senario Be the first time they cared about that group of people I can think of. (Suppose it is different as they only own the 55% stake).
They removed what was good about both Fire Emblem and Smash Bros even Super Mario Bros and Zelda.

tripunktoj

#96

tripunktoj said:

I agree, since Diamond and Pearl, I feel they have been adding more things that a person with more things to do in his life can focus on (even if those things are only more games) natures, abilities, moves, items, evolutions/forms and tons of extras (limited time downloads, pokewalker, dreamworld, dream radar, super-training, etc) The best generation ever is G&S the amount of content was just right, R&S lost the chance without backward compatibility, night/day, weekly cycles and Stadium.

Luffymcduck

#97

Luffymcduck said:

@PokemonManiac
Exactly.

If he means by simplifying that Abilities and other awesome features should be removed then NO.
Pokémon is simple enough for anyone to beat and it has a great competetive scene for for more hc-players. It's just great, like Super Smash Bros Melee. If by simplifying he means making features more accesible to everyone (Super Training) then YES. Also, make story more interesting next time. B&W was a step to right direction.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...