Bro what do you mean, if there’s a single franchise that has not changed its mechanics is Pokémon. Maybe you mean a game absent the gimmick mechanic they put in every gen? Or are you crazy enough to suggest we go back to the days before physical/special split?
I hate all the gimmicky mechanics so, I’d be down with getting rid of all that stuff like go back to gen1 before berries and holding items to increase power and stuff.
But I do not want to have to switch boxes to hold Pokémon on the PC or have limited storage for held items.
I wouldn’t mind a 2d version, but maybe they could draw inspiration from the Zelda 2d remakes.
Yeah I agree, the only one of these gimmicks that has been somewhat good is mega evolutions and they are still not great from a balance standpoint. Other than that I struggle to see how fundamentally different modern Pokémon games are from the old ones. There’s a lot of QoL stuff, but most of it is easily ignorable imo.
I think that you might want to look at rom-hacks like someone else suggested. You’ll probably find what you’re looking for in one of the hundreds that have been made.
I’m not totally sure what that would add to the experience. The core battles are still the same, just with more added on. I like pixel graphics and old gameboy music, but I don’t see why people would buy it. It’s seems strange considering it would be the same game as before, but less.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
That was me imagining it if it were limited to gen 1 gameplay. Maybe there’s a case to remake regions in like a style like emerald, but I still think it’s just a game that already exists but with less.
If you don’t know about them already, you should look into pokémon rom-hacks. Some are kinda like what you described, but they add their own twist like changing the story, adding new types, or adding newer pokémon or mechanics. A lot of them are really well made too.
Just because there’s more “stuff” in a game like Violet doesn’t mean it adds to the overall experience. Sometimes it detracts from it. A lot of times it detracts from it.
This is of course all subjective and if you enjoy the additional mechanics, it’s good you have them. There are of course others out there who would disagree with you and appreciate a more “core” experience in a Pokemon game.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
In my opinion, they can keep everything you’ve mentioned except terastallizing, a rideable legendary, and probably a good amount of your “and so on.” I’m pretty sure Pokemon games have had an open world since the beginning, but maybe some people have different ideas of what constitutes an open world.
If you want a pokémon game without new things, why want a new pokémon game? That doesn’t really make sense to me. I don’t think most of the gimmicks they’ve made have throughout the gens have been very good, but I appreciate them for the splash of novelty and I just ignore the ones I don’t like because I know they’re not permanent. I almost never tera-ed my mons in violet, I just grinded levels and planned my party like I have for 20 years.
By open world, I meant being able to travel through most routes and towns without a black screen or loading screen.
That said I wasn’t making a quality statement. I was comparing the most recent game with the first and I don’t know how there would be a significant market for a much more clunky version of an existing game with a huge chunk of features removed.
I’d say Pokémon is one of the franchises to which the transition to 3D added nothing of value to the experience. Every 3D Pokémon has been ugly as sin.
I definitely think the quality on the 3D models could be better, but I think the move to 3D has made the game more immersive and things like the size variations are charming details that makes “your” pokémon feel more unique. I was mainly questioning whether a product like that would actually sell well enough to be worth the effort, not making any statement of which is superior.
Coromon is a great attempt with great mechanics and alright visuals, but man, did the pacing just kill it for me. I felt like the entire game was the tutorial, not because it was easy or anything, but because it was the slightly boring do-everything-once-to-learn-it slog that a very well done tutorial is. When I beat the game, I was excited to start playing before I realized it was, actually, seriously, the end.
Did you have the game on a higher difficulty? I didnt have that experience, but I put it on one of the higher difficulties initially. I forget which but I found that more fun.
Its fair though, it wont be for everyone. Kinda like TemTem. I wanted to like TemTem, but the puzzles really sucked. So much so that I stopped playing the game halfway through.
I originally had it on, I think, a medium or normal difficulty. It was a while ago.
Like I said, though, it wasn’t that it was easy. I liked the modular difficulty system a lot! The game just felt like a checklist. Pokémon gives you a mechanic (like the HMs of old or modern rideable Pokémon, or the bikes), and you really could play with them for quite some time exploring and experimenting. The only parts of Coromon I felt had that was the item finding app thing and the raft thing. The rest were just “get it, move on, never use it again.”
I will give it that if your only goal is to have a battle with your friends game, Coromon is amazing! But if you want to enjoy the world, maybe not.
Still worth trying for anyone who likes Pokémon for the mechanics.
Sorry, I should have phrased that a little differently. What I mean to say is the game should not be limited to just the mechanics of the older games. There’s so many small mechanics they’ve added since the days of the 2D games on GBA that shouldn’t be ignored just because they aren’t retro.
One mechanic I’ve always loved in any game it’s been in is the ability to have a hideout/home/etc that you can deck out with furniture and whatnot to make it your own. It’s just a comfy mechanic to have.
Being able to trade with anyone around the world is pretty dope. It was much harder finding another kid with Pokemon Blue so I could get a goddamn Pinsir.
In HeartGold/SoulSilver specifically (and then not again after for some reason), you could toggle the running shoes. So much nicer than having to hold B all the time. They also allowed for two Select items (items you can activate without entering the items menu), which also never carried over to other games.
I seem to remember one of the more modern games allowing you to view move details (description, power, accuracy, etc) from the movelist screen during a fight, rather than having to go to Pokemon > [Pokemon] > view moves, or whatever it is. I think one game also allowed you to see if the move you’re about to use is super effective or not, but I’m not really a fan of that one. Learning type effectiveness is part of the game imo, but my opinion on this isn’t too strong.
Not really QOL but I loved mega evolution and would like to see it come back. It was exclusive to Gen 6, which was the last Gen I played, but I heard they never included it in following Gens. It was basically a temporary “evolution” (a different form) for specific fully evolved Pokemon for just the fight. Only one Pokemon can mega evolve per fight though, so you gotta choose wisely. Gen 6 competitive battling was peak imo for just that reason.
I really liked the EV training in Gen 6, not sure if that carried over but it made it much easier to increase EVs, rather than having to fight the same Pokemon over and over again.
HMs eventually disappeared. Gen 4 had a whole bunch, then in Gen 5 I think there were still a lot but most weren’t required for progression (I think in order to beat the game you only needed one of the HMs, I can’t remember which. The rest were just for optional stuff I think. It’s been a while though). I think in Gen 7 they finally removed HMs. The moves are still available I think, but they don’t do anything outside of battle.
I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting, someone else can expand on this list.
I dont know which game but they did add a QoL feature that tells you whether a move is effective, super effective, or ineffective vs monsters youve fought before, based on typings.
I remember that being the “feature” which really highlighted the dumbing-down of the game. Work things out for yourself? Look them up? Remember what you’ve learned? No, we’ve solved the puzzle for you, don’t worry.
i believe masuda made it very clear at the beginning of the swsh announcment, said he was going to make a “half ass game going foward, simply becauses hes tired of the franchise”, thats why every game has been a joke since.
masuda needs to hand it to another company, or have someone revamp the console games.
Honestly, I'd rather see another studio take a crack at the franchise. I don't know whether Gamefreak have lost a lot of important talent over the years or if they just got lazy because their games are guaranteed to sell no matter how poorly they're produced, but they do not know how to make games in the current era. Full stop. The last handful of mainline Pokemon titles have been unacceptably poor quality, and Nintendo won't light a fire under their ass because... why would they, when they're already printing money?
I think it would be wildly beneficial to the health of the franchise if a completely new studio took the wheel for a minute. They don't have to reinvent the game mechanics or take the story in some dark and gritty direction or anything like that, but if they just made it functional that'd already be a huge step up over Gamefreak's last few releases.
Personally, I'd love to see Retro Studios take a crack at a mainline Pokemon title. They've already got a very close relationship with Nintendo, and have released nothing but bangers.
I would call the new ones not even interesting enough to pirate, so yes.
Something like sword/arceus style but not garbage with mechanics around the gba era.
So no giga dumbshit or similar but still special/physical change.
Also if we’re requesting unicorns be brought to reality, more options. I wouldn’t hate the all the new giga shit if I could disable its cutscenes. It wasn’t even cool the first time.
Open world games don’t hold me, because ironically, they tend to feel too small. When you can walk from one side of the setting to the other in real time, it all feels small.
The only “open world” game that’s been a linear story survival sandbox that I’ve seen do it well is Raft. And that only works because of the medium of it being an open sea where the players can wander, then move through the story at their leisure.
The ol Ubisoft formula? Yeah - I enjoy sprinkling them in to my gaming.
Easy to pick up. Only got a bit of time? Go unlock some area or marker. Got a longer amount of time? Make progress towards the main quest. That with achievements gives me a list of short and long goals I can work towards.
Funny that you mention it. I usually play an open world game in parallel with a heavier on rails RPG/CRPG – and opt for the open world game when I want a more “brain off” session.
Indeed, I often times will play for a few hours and find all sorts of cool things, but nothing that moves the story along.
Case in point, I have been playing BG3 for months a few hours here and there and I’m only in the beginning parts of Act 3. And before that I dumped probably 400hrs into Elden Ring, and then went back in for many, many more when the DLC came out.
I played BG3, put over 100 hours, it took me 2 years. But I don’t mind, it was an easy game to pick up after a break and continue with, and the quests were rewarding in themselves, you didn’t need to complete the whole game to understand it.
There are definitely games I have started played, then couldn’t remember what I was doing after a break and wasn’t enthused enough to return to it. I can’t remember specific games but I know it happens.
I’ve put around 400 hours into that game. But I’ve only “completed” it once.
I came from divinity where you needed to play the game on tactician to experience all the content. Not sure if bg3 is the same way but I went in with that mindset.
Such a great game and so much to explore. Took me back to when I was a kid trying to 100% mass effect.
So many studios fail to breath life into their worlds and pump them full of tedious bs. (Looking at you starfield. What a let down that was…)
Yeah I’m only playing balanced or whatever the middle/default difficult is. I have 263hrs as of right now and have really been enjoying it. And I’m doing Dark Urge so I’m missing a bunch of content just because of “bad decisions”, and the way I ended up in act 2 I also know I missed a bunch of content. I’m not even close to being done with Act 3 (I don’t think) and I’m already debating if I will do another playthrough afterwards, or play something else from my ever growing backlog. And I’ve never been a 100%'er and usually happy/lucky if I even finish it. 😂
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze