@Bolt_Strike So if you return to route 1, you'll fight against level 40 Rattata and Pidgey? What if you want to fight against weaker Pokemon, what if you want to catch a Pokemon before a certain level because it'll miss out on a move otherwise?
Equip/unequip badges or with other special items? It would work something like this: all pokemon would have a minimum and maximum level at which they can appear for every route you could encouter them - levels typically increase within these limits if you have more badges - if you unequip badges, the levels of wild pokemon become lower. Something like that? Should probably be refined a bit, but I guess you could make this work.
And still, even though BOTW is as open world as you might get, you'd definitely get blown to bits if you try to fight the Guardians in Hyrule Field with 3 hearts, 1 wheel, a wooden shield and lack of skills
It would be awesome if you could actually ride a flying Pokémon like in the anime, and you could fly across an open world. In older games, flying Pokémon were just used as "quick travel" points.
@MarcelRguez They could have both. Fast travel via some other device, and actual flying. Also ORAS got old because of how it was implemented. When I said "open world" I was thinking something like Breath of the Wild. You’d ride around similar to how Link rides on horseback. Checking out the scenery, and enjoying the beautiful landscape, all while riding on the back of a Pokémon. It would be an awesome sight.
@Bolt_Strike So if you return to route 1, you'll fight against level 40 Rattata and Pidgey? What if you want to fight against weaker Pokemon, what if you want to catch a Pokemon before a certain level because it'll miss out on a move otherwise?
I was thinking more along the lines of encountering anything from Lv. 5 to Lv. 40. Also probably a good idea to put a temporary limit based on your current team (so say if you have a bunch of Lv. 5 Pokes on your team ATM, you'd only encounter Lv. 2-5 stuff, but if you swap in something stronger you encounter higher levels), we don't really want people getting wiped out by Lv. 40 stuff while they're training up new teams.
Climbing was enough to break Zelda. Flying in an ''open air'' game would completely ruin any world design. Just keep it like it is. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.
@Bolt_Strike So if you go around with a bunch of low level Pokemon, but you still keep a strong Pokemon around, just in case, you still encounter strong Pokemon? I dunno, that system doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
@Bolt_Strike So if you go around with a bunch of low level Pokemon, but you still keep a strong Pokemon around, just in case, you still encounter strong Pokemon? I dunno, that system doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
That would actually be beneficial. You could train up the lower level Pokemon a lot quicker that way.
Game Freak should break Pokemon the same way. There's a lot of untapped potential for HMs/Riding to genuinely allow for creative ways to navigate the overworld like BotW's physics system instead of just being glorified plot barriers.
(Note: I have no idea what stance you were taking here, so I'm not meaning to argue with you here) And that 'breaking' it, helped Breath of the Wild feel like I was on an actual adventure in a vast land as opposed to just playing a limited video game with limited spaces to walk through.
Pokemon games are supposed to be adventures. So I definitely feel like it's an evolution Pokemon should take, too.
@Bolt_Strike So if you go around with a bunch of low level Pokemon, but you still keep a strong Pokemon around, just in case, you still encounter strong Pokemon? I dunno, that system doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
Have you even read my comment? I wonder what you think about that, haven’t read any comments against it yet:
Equip/unequip badges or with other special items? It would work something like this: all pokemon would have a minimum and maximum level at which they can appear for every route you could encouter them - levels typically increase within these limits if you have more badges - if you unequip badges, the levels of wild pokemon become lower. Something like that? Should probably be refined a bit, but I guess you could make this work.
Why is everyone so obsessed with turning Pokemon in an action/adventure game? It's an RPG, it doesn't need physics, a jump button, etc.
@toiletduck I have, but... unequipping badges... apart from the fact that it doesn't make a lot of sense (why would their levels suddenly drop), it's also unnecessarily complicated I think. I mean, it's a solution. But it's a solution to a problem that shouldn't have to exist in the first place.
Why is everyone so obsessed with turning Pokemon in an action/adventure game? It's an RPG, it doesn't need physics, a jump button, etc.
It allows for more realistic and complex ways to interact with the environment. Things like being able to Cut down a tree and then using Strength to push around the fallen log, using Dig to tear caves a new one, using a fire type field move to light up caves or burn bushes, etc. I also want to be able to cut down any tree, move or smash any rock, climb any cliff, etc. All of this would really enhance the exploration and puzzle solving allowing you to really get creative with how you navigate the overworld, which are elements that have been sorely lacking in recent games.
When IGN published their list of '100 best RPGs of all time', they apparently received a number of complaints that no Zelda games featured in the list - their explanation for their omission was that they define an 'RPG' as a game with some sort of levelling/progression system - and so, as Link doesn't 'level up', Zelda games weren't considered. One of their editors, Sam Claiborn, argued that Link's ability to gain hearts in the Zelda series was a form of 'levelling up' - so games from the series should've been allowed - which seems fairly logical to me, but (for some reason) the consensus in the office was that they should leave them out.
I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere - but the line between what defines a game as an 'RPG' or an 'Action/Adventure' title is extremely blurry...when you strip them back, Zelda and Pokemon have far more shared elements in common than they don't - you could easily take mechanics from one and add them to the other without overly changing the core experience - we're not so much comparing apples with oranges here, I'd say it's more like comparing apples with round pears!
@MarcelRguez What I was meaning was that they considered Zelda games to tick all of the boxes for their definition of an RPG, except the character progression system - and they didn't even reach a full consensus on that element (with Sam arguing that 'gaining hearts' = 'levelling up') ..otherwise, they're pretty similar experiences
@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!
Forums
Topic: Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee!
Posts 641 to 660 of 2,582
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic