The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   Simplifying the games? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=364167)

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire February 29th, 2016 1:40 PM

Simplifying the games?
 
Most thread here are focusing on what new features and types they could add. This is the opposite. In an interview shortly after XY came out Sugimori said that they were thinking of going back to their roots for future games.
Quote:

In the magazine “We Love Pokémon”, Game Freak's Ken Sugimori commented on the seventh generation of Pokémon.

When asked what the next generation of Pokémon games will be like if such a plan exists, Sugimori commented that they will not add more layers of complexity, but rather revert back to simplicity, in part by using elements found in Pokémon Red and Green. Therefore, there is now speculation that Game Freak may opt for this route in developing Generation VII.

As a side note, not only the number of games, but also the number of Pokémon, moves, abilities, items, etc. increase as each new generation is introduced, to such a degree that is difficult to remember all of them. It is impossible to decrease the amount of Pokémon, and such a move is assumed to be uncalled for, but some fans have claimed that it might be better to significantly organize/trim the moves, abilities, items, etc.

Also, Sugimori thought that other than the content of the game, Pokémon designs could probably be simplified, as well. As an extra, he stated in the same magazine that his favorite Pokémon of all times, even now as of the Pokémon XY series, is still Gengar as in the past.
Do you think that they'll get rid of anything? Could we see types be merged into one? Like say Ground and Rock are fused with the resulting type being something like "Earth" which would be weak against the common weaknesses of the two along with fighting (which rock is currently weak to), but strong against Flying, Steel, and Electric, and resistant against Electric moves?
What other types could you see being merged? Which designs do you see them fixing to make them more simple?

pkmin3033 February 29th, 2016 2:00 PM

I really, REALLY hope they simplify the plot. I think a large part of my ire with later Pokemon titles (Gen III onwards) is because of the Legendary-centric plots: by any RPG standards, they're unbearably half-arsed. Having two versions means that you only get half the story; this was especially prominent in Gen III when one of the teams was left out of the running entirely. Playing Emerald was really jarring, because with both teams out and about the story suddenly had a whole new dimension added to it and highlighted just how incomplete Ruby and Sapphire really were...and you can imagine how displeased I was with ORAS for ignoring the improvements Emerald made.

But even the third versions of the games, which incorporated both mascots, didn't have a stellar, memorable plot. Giving the villains reasons and motive is great, sure, but when they barely appear except for one or two moments in the game, it's a total waste, and they're no more memorable than Team Rocket, who were just evil because they were evil.

I'd love it if Sun and Moon just made the mascot Legendary a matter of personal preference, like Lugia and Ho-Oh were, and had the same plot that DIDN'T involve the Legendary. You CAN tell a compelling story without using a Legendary Pokemon to take over the world, you know. Having a team that is just evil and out to rule just because, like Team Rocket, would be great. Bring back Team Flare under Malva or something and depict their struggle to keep it together. Have another Team Rocket esque criminal organization. Whatever. I don't care. Just don't give me another unnecessarily complex, incomplete and half-arsed story with a plot that could go somewhere if it was ever allowed to go somewhere. Strip it right back down. You're a Pokemon Trainer. You have a rival. There are some guys out there who are evil. You fight them on the way to becoming the League Champion. You accomplish your goals. The end. It sounds boring on paper, but I don't remember anyone seriously complaining about Team Rocket's utter lack of depth, and who REALLY plays Pokemon for its plot? It's wholly unnecessary. Keep it simple and fun. OK? OK.

I wouldn't want them to change the core mechanics of the game by eliminating types and what have you, to be honest. As it stands, gameplay is at a good place in that it's as simple or complex as you want it to be. If you don't want to indulge in EV training or IV breeding or whatever else, you don't NEED to in order to play the game. But you can if you want to. I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again here: you are free to play Pokemon however you like. It allows for that. You don't even need to pay attention to type matchups if you don't want to; just overlevel and plough through it. Or don't. Whatever. Use your favourites. Do whatever you like. You could argue that additional types have made it more complex, but it's not really all THAT complex, even to newer players. I don't think they should tamper with the gameplay for the sake of simplicity; it's not broken, so don't try and fix it.

If they ARE going to tamper with things like abilities and what have you, I really hope they give us the option to enable or disable that. Let us ignore abilities if we want to, or combine types if we want to, or whatever else, but let us choose. Hell, this could even tie in with the idea of a difficulty mode. They already do this with Fire Emblem with classic mode and whatever, so doing it for Pokemon wouldn't be a huge stretch.

Otherwise...well, they could cut back on the little things. Cut down on the number of different types of Pokeball. Remove some of the healing items hardly anyone uses. You just know some people would cry havoc at things being removed for the sake of simplicity, because someone always does, but we got on alright without these things before, and we would again, I think.

Pinkie-Dawn February 29th, 2016 2:33 PM

I don't think going back to simplicity may be such a good idea, especially when this guy despised how dumbed down Street Fighter 5's gameplay mechanics were compared to previous entries he's played by changing most of the fighters' input combos. We would expect the same reaction from the competitive aspect of the Pokemon community.

Desert Stream~ February 29th, 2016 2:35 PM

I hope they don't make it too simple...
honestly things aren't looking good for me right now :(

Hikamaru February 29th, 2016 2:48 PM

I probably wouldn't enjoy the removal of entire moves or even types, since it would be taking a huge step backwards. Pinkie said that with Street Fighter V's mechanics, it caused a bit of fan outrage and if we were to remove core features of Pokemon I'd react in the same way.

Arylett Charnoa February 29th, 2016 3:23 PM

I would absolutely be all for simplification. Some moves/abilities/items are wholly unnecessary, being made redundant by something else, and it would just be less confusing to cull this.

Fusing redundant types together like Ground/Rock and Water/Ice is also something I've wanted since the beginning - since even the games themselves seem confused about the differences between them. (Playing Pokemon Yellow, I saw that Brock's gym trainers had GROUND types and no Rock types. Lorelei has Water-types as well.) I doubt this will happen though. We're in too deep and people would just complain.

I would also like if they added a simplicity mode (as Meloetta said) that removes natures/abilities/EVs/whatever to make those of us who aren't really too fond of them happy. It'd be the best way for everyone to benefit. Yes, I know they're a choice, but I like my game to be as efficient as possible and knowing that I have to go out of my way for said efficiency is really bothersome to me and nags at me in the back of my mind.

But I don't really know what to think about Sugimori's statement here. He could just be expressing his desire for this to happen, and nothing might be made of it. It also could just be in reference to this being the series anniversary special rather than actually relevant to anything. So I'll have to wait and see if they actually act on it. Though I honestly doubt they'll actually remove anything. Pokemon is based on continuity, and for better or worse, they'll keep most of the things they've added in from the past.

Rivvon February 29th, 2016 3:35 PM

People may not agree with me on this but please understand I'm coming at this from the point-of-view of someone who plays this game competitively.

I think this is very silly and unnecessary. What would you gain by removing attacks and items? Some Pokémon are viable only because they have access to certain moves or Abilities. Every so often I go back to play Crystal and one of the things I really don't like is how absurdly limited each Pokémon's movepool is. It takes forever for them to even learn a new attack, and even then they have maybe one or two STAB moves--one or both of which are really awful to use, even outside of competitive play. One of the things I enjoy about the newer games is finding out what cool attacks the Pokémon learn as they level up--and the more moves available, the more you're able to imbue a sense of your own creativity with each Pokémon. Maybe you like to play defensively so you give your team a lot of set-up moves. Or perhaps you just go for an all-out attacker. But how can you get that kind of individualism when there's only 150 total moves? Just take a quick look on Smogon and you'll see that there are lots of Pokémon with a wide variety of ways to use them--that's only possible because of the number of moves available to them now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make 100 new moves each gen--but that doesn't mean they should remove, for example, Aqua Jet and Extreme Speed to keep Quick Attack.

The only thing I think they should "simplify," or rather, attempt to streamline, is the IV system. Just make it so that all Pokémon's stats act as if they're all 31IVs. That would significantly reduce the time needed for breeding/resetting for the Pokémon you want, so the player can focus on other things, like getting the right Nature, Ability, Egg moves, or even shininess. This will make it easier for competitive players, while also making competitive-level play even more accessible to new players.

Esper February 29th, 2016 3:50 PM

This sounds more like Sugimori expressing his preferences over what the actual direction of the games will be.

That said, I do think there is a heap of unnecessary and redundant features and elements to the games. EVs and IVs in particular don't really seem essential (to me anyway) since the people who care about them are the competitive players who will have done the work to max them out anyway. The games could just cut that part out and save everyone time and maybe even make it easier for more people to dip their toe into the waters of competitive play. There are plenty of movies and abilities and items which could be removed or combined without really changing anything. Generally, I think a lot of things could be cut out without making the games any less fun.

Jacrad February 29th, 2016 4:12 PM

I would sure as heck love for them to simplify some of the evolution methods for some Pokemon. Like really, would it be such a big deal to make Leafeon attainable with a Leaf Stone? Or getting baby Pokemon without the need for some incense?

Ho-Oh March 1st, 2016 4:37 AM

In regards to the IVs comment, I think it's important that they stay as they are. Yeah, getting 31 IVs is a pain, but they've made it a lot easier now in regards to breeding etc - do we really want the easy route for everything?

Even though we have more content now than we did years ago, they've compensated for it. The games are incredibly easier. All these shortcuts, items, ability to run sooner than you would in the early days, easier ways to avoid Pokemon... they don't really make it much of a challenge. We were challenged in our early days, and that might be what he means. No items doing all the work for us, just a good old classic item finder, your own intuition and a whole lotta luck. Simple doesn't necessarily mean easier, and I think they could benefit from removing some of the things we've gotten accustomed to, other than the core parts of what makes each Pokemon unique.

Altius March 1st, 2016 5:26 AM

Simplify =/= less difficulty. I hope Game Freak would simplify some aspects of the series in Gen VII, yet increase the difficulty compared to the previous gen.

pkmin3033 March 1st, 2016 6:21 AM

Another thing simplification can mean is ease of access, and I think that is probably what they're driving at...or what they should be driving at with these games. EV Training was simplified substantially in the sixth generation with the introduction of Super Training, and with multi-use TMs it's made it a lot easier to get the moves you want on your Pokemon, too. Those have both simplified what was a rather tiresome process before then. Hell you could argue that the EXP Share of Gen VI that everyone seems to hate simplified the need to train all of your Pokemon by letting you do it all at once. Sure, it made the games feel easier for some because training wasn't as time-consuming as it used to be, but it DID simplify matters.

A couple of things they could do to make the games a little simpler is to introduce similar things for IV breeding, special evolutions, move tutors, etc. A minigame for IV breeding, or a special Daycare service that would guarantee you the IVs or egg moves you wanted, would be pretty nice. Rather than tracking down the items you need for special evolution and whatnot, you could pay using in-game currency for them instead, and Move Tutors could accept money for payment.

I don't think it's necessarily about cutting things out, or making them easier, or whatever. Just making them less time-consuming and awkward unless you know exactly what you're doing - or are prepared to go item hunting - would simplify the games significantly, and make them more enjoyable for people who "don't have time" to invest in the "proper" way to do things, or whatever.

Hikamaru March 1st, 2016 6:40 AM

As Meloetta said, the Super Training and (massively hated) Exp. Share in 6th Gen felt like simplifications of their own, making EV training and grinding noticeably less time-consuming. Heck, even ORAS's DexNav was also an improvement at finding maxed IVs and hidden abilities.

If another mechanic needed to be simplified in 7th Gen, I'd say IV breeding and Move Tutors. I find it annoying to always look for shards or grind for BP just to learn a good move, and breeding perfect IVs are currently very time-consuming so I'd like for those to be improved as well.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 1st, 2016 7:54 AM

That to me sounds like making the game easier rather than simple. I wouldn't mind just one move tutor or a bunch of them who teach the same moves spread out across the region.

Hikamaru March 1st, 2016 8:41 AM

But wouldn't the planned "return to simplicity" that Game Freak are teasing us also mean that it'll still be extremely easy? That would outrage the veteran players who seem to love the word "challenge" and would not be happy if there's little-to-no hard parts of the game again.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 1st, 2016 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9142540)
But wouldn't the planned "return to simplicity" that Game Freak are teasing us also mean that it'll still be extremely easy? That would outrage the veteran players who seem to love the word "challenge" and would not be happy if there's little-to-no hard parts of the game again.

Gen I fans claim that the originals were the hardest and the newest ones have gotten easier so...

MarinoKadame March 1st, 2016 1:07 PM

Just look how hard is Gen 1 to newcomers.

Abby March 1st, 2016 1:11 PM

I really
Really hope they don't go with this...

About the pokemon thing, weren't we meant to be UPSET with the number introduced in X/Y

Shiny March 1st, 2016 11:49 PM

I sincerely hope they don't simplify the mechanics of battling as it's perfect the way it is currently in my eyes.

The plot however, go for it and make it more concise and better executed.

KillerTyphlosion March 2nd, 2016 3:44 AM

This might be the reason why the VC pokémon are compatible with gen 6. They might even remove the whole IV/DV/EV thing. But I hope they actually won't. Because it will be a major kick in the nuts to everyone who breeded thousands and thousands to get the perfect shiny they wanted.

pkmin3033 March 2nd, 2016 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerTyphlosion (Post 9143660)
This might be the reason why the VC pokémon are compatible with gen 6. They might even remove the whole IV/DV/EV thing. But I hope they actually won't. Because it will be a major kick in the nuts to everyone who breeded thousands and thousands to get the perfect shiny they wanted.

Removing IVs and EVs would utterly destroy the metagame, and considering there are still tournaments and whatnot being held I can't see them removing anything like that; the backlash would be phenomenal. After putting in the effort to make EV training easier and more accessible through Super Training minigames, it'd be a bit of a step backwards to suddenly do away with the whole concept, too. At most, I can see a function that lets you choose whether you want these things on or not, but outright removal? Unlikely.

Shiny March 2nd, 2016 4:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9143672)
Removing IVs and EVs would utterly destroy the metagame, and considering there are still tournaments and whatnot being held I can't see them removing anything like that; the backlash would be phenomenal. After putting in the effort to make EV training easier and more accessible through Super Training minigames, it'd be a bit of a step backwards to suddenly do away with the whole concept, too. At most, I can see a function that lets you choose whether you want these things on or not, but outright removal? Unlikely.

I agree with this statement wholly.

The introduction of EVs and IVs have allowed older fans to take a more complicated and in-depth approach to playing the game. If they ever chose to remove them, a lot of fans would be rightfully uproaring.

Sopheria March 2nd, 2016 4:29 AM

It sounds almost like he's planning to revert 7th gen to the 1st gen data format...getting rid of EV yields, merging the special stats into one, maybe even removing IVs. Idk, Pokémon really isn't that complicated at all, so I can't even imagine what they could do to simplify it further and still maintain its enjoyability ~_~

JP March 2nd, 2016 5:15 AM

I don't know if I like any of this. The idea of removing or merging types is an absolute horrible idea. Pokemon battles are after all strategy battles, and dumbing it down to have less types and combinations seems like a silly thing to do and potentially could ruin the fun of battles. I have a hard time seeing them take that sort of route if they do "simplify" the games.

Same thing with the EVs and IVs. These things are pretty much what make your Pokemon YOUR Pokemon. If anything, adding in another layer, perhaps that isn't directly linked to battling, would only improve the idea of a Pokemon specifically being yours.

I think that if they do simplify things, it'll be mostly the story and perhaps less valuable things like Pokemon Amie and whatnot. I sure hope they don't dumb down the moves or get rid of some though, but in the end that's something I could ultimately live with. I'd say there's gonna be a very thin line, if there one at all, between simplifying and and making things too easy/horrible.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 2nd, 2016 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP (Post 9143719)
I don't know if I like any of this. The idea of removing or merging types is an absolute horrible idea. Pokemon battles are after all strategy battles, and dumbing it down to have less types and combinations seems like a silly thing to do and potentially could ruin the fun of battles. I have a hard time seeing them take that sort of route if they do "simplify" the games.

Same thing with the EVs and IVs. These things are pretty much what make your Pokemon YOUR Pokemon. If anything, adding in another layer, perhaps that isn't directly linked to battling, would only improve the idea of a Pokemon specifically being yours.

I think that if they do simplify things, it'll be mostly the story and perhaps less valuable things like Pokemon Amie and whatnot. I sure hope they don't dumb down the moves or get rid of some though, but in the end that's something I could ultimately live with. I'd say there's gonna be a very thin line, if there one at all, between simplifying and and making things too easy/horrible.

They could get rid of the moves that doesn't do anything at all...like Splash, etc. I think that they introduced several celebratory moves in Gen VI for some event mons, but they do nothing but look pretty...

Hikamaru March 2nd, 2016 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9144165)
They could get rid of the moves that doesn't do anything at all...like Splash, etc. I think that they introduced several celebratory moves in Gen VI for some event mons, but they do nothing but look pretty...

Yeah get rid of the more useless moves, mainly ones that get mentioned a lot in Top 10 Worst Moves lists on YouTube.

Master of Memes March 2nd, 2016 1:13 PM

Here is the most reasonable thing that would happen
Tackle and Scratch - replaced with Melee attack
Pure & Huge Power - replaced with Extra power
Pokédex organized by Pichu as 000, Pikachu as 001, starters, regional gimmicks, and the rest by environment up until the Legendaries.
No HMs

pkmin3033 March 2nd, 2016 1:29 PM

I think no HMs is a very real possibility going forward if simplification is going to equate to removing "unnecessary" things, because they can just as easily replace obstacles with roadblocks (because they serve essentially the same purpose) or some kind of all-purpose item that allows you to move boulders and the like around for puzzles, and you could hire rideable Pokemon to traverse the ocean and waterfalls etc.

Hikamaru March 2nd, 2016 1:38 PM

I do agree that removing HMs might contribute to simplicity. And maybe change some of the better ones in battle like Waterfall and Surf to TMs as a result.

Pinkie-Dawn March 2nd, 2016 1:44 PM

Found this comment in regards to "simplifying" the game by removing the IV system:

Spoiler:
Quote:

So now that the new gen is approaching, I’m seeing a lot of the obligatory “IVs should go” vs. “IVs should stay” arguments cropping up again. I already briefly outlined in my post on Cyber Sleuth why that game serves as an excellent argument against IVs, and it saves time and takes the luck out of the equation. Essentially in this era of increasing convenience for the player, IVs are a stale old 90s mechanic that should die a death.

Some standard arguments in favour of IVs and why they are bad

>"It keeps each Poke unique"
No it doesn’t. You can potentially acquire Pokemon with identical IVs, natures and all the rest. The uniqueness already exists in more gratifying ways such as a nickname, date caught/hatched, and other factors like shininess/personal attachment.

As soon as you set foot in a competitive environment, everything has the same relevant IVs, because players have bred them that way.

>"It’s representative of genes"
Which is fine but conflicts greatly with the pro-convenience referred to previously. It does nothing now beyond deciding hidden power and forcing the player to spend time acquiring a competitively usable mon for online or battle facilities. There are already many better ways in which flavour/worldbuilding is done in Pokemon such as non-gameplay things like the Pokedex text and NPCs. This is better than forcing a mechanic on players.

>"You’re just lazy"
And what if I am? I have a damn job, I don’t want to breed all the time, I want to use what time I have to actually play.

It reminds me of weapon durability in Fire Emblem. Everyone said it was a series staple, but tradition for tradition’s sake is one of the worst reasons to do anything, and once it was gone, many people then found the more inventive balancing better and encouraging of different equipment setups and strategy. Pokemon should take the same approach to IVs.

EVs are fine, they’re good for creating varied sets and can be quite interesting. But I believe the system needs to be even more transparent, as good a move as the Super Training graph was.

tl;dr IVs do nothing helpful for either casual or core players and only slow down the process of acquiring viable mons at an expert level.
An IV debate broke, and the same user I quoted had to calm down the flames:

Quote:

Woah okay guess I started something here lol. I’ve IV bred plenty of times myself tbh and have a couple of boxes full of the guys, I was just explaining that I don’t think it adds anything at this point. Digimon created a game where you don’t have to acquire the same thing multiple times for it to be competitively viable, I just think that’s better in the modern era. I get that some ppl do actually like the process.

Esper March 2nd, 2016 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9144231)
I think no HMs is a very real possibility going forward if simplification is going to equate to removing "unnecessary" things, because they can just as easily replace obstacles with roadblocks (because they serve essentially the same purpose) or some kind of all-purpose item that allows you to move boulders and the like around for puzzles, and you could hire rideable Pokemon to traverse the ocean and waterfalls etc.

As much as we all find HMs annoying, they are fairly simple. At some point in the game you hit a roadblock (boulder, water, whatever) and you have to beat a gym leader or whatever then you get the HM and you can move on. Sure, it could be changed in any number of ways, but I know that when I first started playing Pokemon I didn't really care that I had to use HMs. It's just that we've gotten used to complaining about them and wanting to have a 'perfect' team that gets muddied by having HM slaves. I mean, I'd be happy if HMs were removed, but I'd be satisfied if they did something different with the idea (letting existing moves replace HMs, like say letting any Fighting move replace Strength, any Flying move replace Fly, etc.) and I'd still not be sad if they stayed like they are.

pkmin3033 March 2nd, 2016 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9144257)
As much as we all find HMs annoying, they are fairly simple. At some point in the game you hit a roadblock (boulder, water, whatever) and you have to beat a gym leader or whatever then you get the HM and you can move on. Sure, it could be changed in any number of ways, but I know that when I first started playing Pokemon I didn't really care that I had to use HMs. It's just that we've gotten used to complaining about them and wanting to have a 'perfect' team that gets muddied by having HM slaves. I mean, I'd be happy if HMs were removed, but I'd be satisfied if they did something different with the idea (letting existing moves replace HMs, like say letting any Fighting move replace Strength, any Flying move replace Fly, etc.) and I'd still not be sad if they stayed like they are.

That's the thing, they're not so much difficult to understand as they are highly irritating and intrusive for some. Simplification is as much about removing those elements that interfere with freedom of choice and enjoyment of a game as it is making something easier to understand and access, and if the amount of complaining is anything to go by, HMs are highly intrusive, because they're mandatory for progression and most of them are utterly useless, making them undesirable moves. In a game that lets you choose more or less what Pokemon you pick and what moves you give them out of the selection on offer, people understandably don't like being forced to use specific moves at some point or another. It's never bothered me all that much personally, but I can see how it would irritate a lot of people, and Game Freak can't not be aware of this.

I think doing something different with the idea would a great step forward, but would that make life easier, or more difficult? How would you know which Pokemon could use Strength, or Cut? What if you didn't want to use that sort of Pokemon? It'd be swapping one system for another really, and in some senses it'd be worse for its ambiguity. HMs, for all their flaws, are very clear things. I think they'd opt for removal or remaining as is, rather than introducing a new system everyone would have to come to terms with when they're trying to make things easier and more accessible; it seems counter-productive.

I only thought of having interactive Pokemon for things like Surf and Waterfall because of the rideable Pokemon introduced with the Kalos games; it seems like something they might want to keep in and expand upon to make it a viable alternative, meaning we keep the puzzles and whatnot that rely on HMs but don't have to waste moveslots on our Pokemon if we don't want to in order to accomodate that.

Esper March 2nd, 2016 2:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9144266)
-snip-

All fair points.

Your suggestions or removing HMs or having extra Pokemon available for travel purposes would seem to further separate the travel/puzzle elements of the game from the battling elements. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it would mean moving toward a game where your Pokemon party only has relevance to the battling and not much else.

pkmin3033 March 2nd, 2016 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9144272)
All fair points.

Your suggestions or removing HMs or having extra Pokemon available for travel purposes would seem to further separate the travel/puzzle elements of the game from the battling elements. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it would mean moving toward a game where your Pokemon party only has relevance to the battling and not much else.

I'm not entirely sure if it would be a good thing or not either, although separating those two elements would be one potential method of simplifying the games; all you would need to worry about would be your team's battling capabilities, and it would result in greater freedom of choice. The two options aren't mutually exclusive, either - you could still retain HMs and have Pokemon available for HM purposes available if you didn't feel like using them in your party. Just one idea I guess.


Honestly, I don't like the idea of outright removing things for the sake of simplicity. Pokemon is a series that doesn't change very much in terms of core gameplay; it's the smaller changes that have slowly developed the games over the years to become more complex. A lot of these changes have improved the games in leaps and bounds, and removing them now would undo a great deal of progress.

If they absolutely must do this sort of thing, I think it'd be better to provide options like Super Training, which improve ease of access of these features and streamline them for more "casual" audiences who aren't interested in spending hours training. It's like the old competitive battling debate about whether or not it's acceptable to cheat to obtain these Pokemon that are tournament-worthy, because you don't have the time or motivation to train but still want to enjoy that side of the game.

Cutting out those prerequisites with options isn't a bad thing at all, as long as they're just that - options. It's never a bad thing to cater to a wider variety of players, just as long as it isn't to the exclusion of others who are just fine with things the way they are.

tl;dr simplification is good if it's optional, in my opinion

captainfez3 March 2nd, 2016 3:17 PM

I hope they get rid of IVs, EVs, and make nature more of a flavor thing and not a competitive aspect. I said this in a thread a while ago, but I hate how playing online or competitively has become an enormous time sink and impossible for everyone who isn't die hard. I remember back in the days of Blue, I could walk north of Pallet town and find a Pidgey, singular, catch him and train him into a Pidgeot to rival all other Pidgeots. There was no need to catch 200 of them to find the nature I wanted, let alone having to try and breed to max out his stats or whatever.

I've honestly never followed the IV/EV rules and how they influence how Pokemon grow, I just know you can min/max to get a stronger Pokemon in the end and I did not like the concept in the slightest. The whole point of the series was about forming a bond with your Pokemon and having that bond of trust be all you needed to conquer another trainer (keeping in mind type match ups as well I guess). Now, you have to breed a genetic freak if you want to win. I mean, doesn't this game have enough unsavory aspects already that we can afford to get rid of the "bred to kill" trope lol

edit: For all those saying it's ok if it's optional... if they change things, they won't be optional, by and large. Especially if they touch mechanics. You obviously cannot have two players fight each other if they are using Pokemon that follow different sets of game rules. It just ain't gonna happen. It's either all in or it's all for naught. I'll be especially interested to see how they take things forward. I'm really excited now, especially since we can transfer Pokemon from R/B/Y. I mean I know for G/S you just had a random gender assigned to your Pokemon along with anything else, but this might be them prepping for big changes to the mechanics. Long shot, but if true it would be a big plus for me.

Sceptile14 March 2nd, 2016 4:04 PM

There's simplifying and then there's over simplifying...
Simplifying through getting rid of stuff like IVs is slightly pointless and just takes away from that extra aspect of the game. Additionally, that would piss a lot of people off (not me in particularly, but a lot of competitive battlers). They're really only a problem if you want to make it a problem.
I think it's pretty strange actually; when I first read the title of this thread, I thought that it would be about how the games are becoming simplified. X/Y were made too easy, and I wish, in that regard, that it would be made more like it was in the past. Some of the gym leaders in X/Y were so unmemorable because I ended up just OHKOing all their Pokemon.
So yeah, if anything I think the games should be less simplified. IVs and everything else associated with competitive are staples really, and changing some moves into one? It's really just a redundant change that doesn't do much. I think, what I would simplify, is actually game direction. X/Y were based on genes... and a 3D map. Some Pokemon are based on more than one thing. Is that not just overdoing it? I don't mean to sound like one of those new gen bashers, but I prefer it where there is an obvious that a pokemon has to a real life thing. Ghosts and things like that are different, but actual animal based Pokemon need to look more like animals. That, is what I would simplify. Not designs per say, but what they base Pokemon off.

Arylett Charnoa March 2nd, 2016 4:14 PM

I'm seeing some people worrying about moves being removed, but I think when most of us say this, we're talking about moves that nobody even cares about. Who uses Comet Punch, for instance? And somebody previously did say a few gimmick event moves were introduced in Gen VI, so those wouldn't affect competitive play either.

Whilst I myself agree on the side of removing all of that stuff like IVs and EVs, I wouldn't say it would be a good move for Game Freak simply because of the backlash from the competitive community. I don't want to hamper the game for others because of my own preferences. Seriously thinking that they're going to remove these things is silly. They're not. They've been increasingly catering to the competitive scene in these past few generations. Why would they throw away such a profitable demographic? One that stays interested in their game long after they've finished the story? It is simply illogical because with the system they have now, casual players can still enjoy the games simultaneously with competitive players, even if we find it difficult to find someone who just wants to battle non-competitively online or dislike the systems on principle.

As for compatibility with RBY, I think they'll just have something that converts older Pokemon into the more complex data from the later games, rather than making the games simpler just for the sake of those who own these games. I don't think this really proves anything on the side of the kind of simplicity people like me prefer.

The most likely scenario is that the games will continue to become more and more complicated and only simple in the sense of convenience. But this will be convenience for little, insignificant things that someone like me wouldn't care about. (Like making it simpler to find good IVs.) I doubt anything, even the most useless of moves or abilities, will be cut out. Maybe in the far off future where Pokemon becomes so large that it is unmanageable, but we're not at that point yet. Even though it kind of feels like that to me sometimes.

Ultan March 2nd, 2016 4:37 PM

I would be in favour of removing IVs (or assuming that every Pokemon has 31 in all stats). Have a Hidden Power tutor/changer in game to let you decide which Hidden Power you want. In game 30 IVs vs. 31 IVs at level 50 is the same so the extra IV doesn't matter.

The only thing this would do is make moves like Foul Play stronger and Gyro Ball weaker in most cases.

Would also not mind if moves like Splash were taken out of the game (if there are even other moves like it)

Juice585 March 2nd, 2016 5:05 PM

All I really hope is that they trim "typical" moves of same typing down.

Tackle/Pound/Scratch/etc just becomes Tackle.
Bubble/Water Gun just becomes Bubble (because Bubble has a secondary effect)

Don't get rid of ExtremeSpeed or Aqua Jet for Quick Attack for example though, because they're all different. ES has extra priority, and priority moves of different TYPING should stay.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 2nd, 2016 5:08 PM

Maybe they could change the IV system to 1-5 so that there'll will be less difference between what a Pokémon is born with, and perhaps increase the number of Ev's one can get. So while one is born with natural talents, training can narrow that gap.

TCB March 2nd, 2016 8:38 PM

I see it both ways in not just what to simplify, but how to do so. For instance; when it comes to the plot we can all expect that if the boxart has a Legendary on it it's gonna be tied to the main plot. I for one want something different. So in that case yeah I would want the whole 'Legendary Plotline' of the past couple of Generations to be simplified. Do I want the overall presence of a plot in these games to be simplified? No.

I know this is Pokemon and story isn't as much of a strong suit but I would not object to a plot that you can dig your teeth into just a liiiiitle more than usual. Maybe have the plot revolve around the region itself and since Pokemon is involved have it on a grander scale rather than just plonk the version Legendary in there and call it a day.

Vezyn March 2nd, 2016 9:13 PM

First and foremost, I don't mind breeding for IVs and Nature, though it does feel like a needless aspect that could be replaced entirely by EV training or something similar.

One thing I'd like to see remedied or simplified is obtaining a competitive Legendary Pokémon, having to soft reset for 5+ IVs and the right nature is such a mind numbingly boring task that can take a very long time and a huge amount of fun out of the game imo.

If they added some way to modify IV values or maybe even breed legendaries (I know, blasphemy) I could live with IVs staying, but in their current form I can't see any good reason to keep them around.

There are definitely more interesting ways we could keep our pokemon unique.
I also feel that the removal or adjustment of IVs would make the competitive game more popular and accessible.

I'd like the removal of HMs, but I hope they keep all the types and moves.

captainfez3 March 2nd, 2016 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arylett Charnoa (Post 9144422)
Whilst I myself agree on the side of removing all of that stuff like IVs and EVs, I wouldn't say it would be a good move for Game Freak simply because of the backlash from the competitive community. I don't want to hamper the game for others because of my own preferences. Seriously thinking that they're going to remove these things is silly. They're not. They've been increasingly catering to the competitive scene in these past few generations. Why would they throw away such a profitable demographic? One that stays interested in their game long after they've finished the story? It is simply illogical because with the system they have now, casual players can still enjoy the games simultaneously with competitive players, even if we find it difficult to find someone who just wants to battle non-competitively online or dislike the systems on principle.

As for compatibility with RBY, I think they'll just have something that converts older Pokemon into the more complex data from the later games, rather than making the games simpler just for the sake of those who own these games. I don't think this really proves anything on the side of the kind of simplicity people like me prefer.

The most likely scenario is that the games will continue to become more and more complicated and only simple in the sense of convenience. But this will be convenience for little, insignificant things that someone like me wouldn't care about. (Like making it simpler to find good IVs.) I doubt anything, even the most useless of moves or abilities, will be cut out. Maybe in the far off future where Pokemon becomes so large that it is unmanageable, but we're not at that point yet. Even though it kind of feels like that to me sometimes.

I'm not so sure if they won't though. The competitive scene is probably not as major a component as you might think. I would say that most people who love and enjoy Pokemon play it in a "casual" sense (and I hate how fans of games will instinctively divide themselves into those two demographics, but such is life). From a monetary standpoint, Gamefreak doesn't really stand to lose anything; changing the underlying mechanics might upset people but if they enjoy the games, they will still play them. The main reason that the competitive players love all the breeding, training, and time investment involved in being in the top competitive scene is a simple (and honestly somewhat ugly) human drive; namely the joy of having something someone doesn't. And I don't mean to say they are all like that, but some obviously are. I've played a lot of people online that don't like to lose and it is just kind of the ugly truth about the situation that there is an "elite" mentality that pushes a lot of these players to do that. And it isn't in the true spirit of Pokemon where you want to "be the very best" but you want to crush everyone else.

Forgoing all that flowery talk, I do agree that for the most part, it is a nice system in the fact that you can play the game casually and enjoy it and play the game in the competitive way and still enjoy it. However, as online play becomes increasingly prevalent, I feel like something is going to have to give. I can pick up any modern online shooter, and I will at least be on a level playing field with my fellow players. I will get better with time as I learn the maps, weapon spawns, and unlock potential goodies, but I'm not going in and getting hammered because I haven't spent 200+ hours trying to get the right stats on my weapons or something like that. Even most MMOs are moving away from having very esoteric upgrade systems and instead streamlining character improvement, so that way you invest time to get better yes, but you don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time to get the exact right items to be viable. Interestingly enough, most people who decry those changes (I'm thinking of WoW specifically) are the people who consider themselves "hardcore" and look down upon "filthy casuals" who don't put in the crazy amounts of time to know the game inside out and dedicate their weekends to farming for the right stuff.

I feel that online attitude is something they should strive to not cultivate in Pokemon, because again, that flies directly in the face of the spirit of the whole thing. The easiest way to do that is make it so it isn't even present. That to me would be a brilliant step in making Pokemon a more fun online environment. I understand there are always going to be the "best" ways to play any game in a competitive sense, but I don't think an aspect of that should involve copious amounts of time. Again, I think the perfect system would be one that most closely mirrors the show. When I go out hunting for a Pidgey, I just want a male Pidgey, so I catch the first one I see and that is MY Pidgey. He has the exact same potential as any other Pidgey and if I train him hard enough, he can be as competitive as any other Pidgey.

That is what I want them to shoot for. I don't want to have to breed a million Pidgeys to get that one perfect one, I just want to use the one. And honestly, why would anyone want to keep the excessive breeding mechanic to begin with? What is fun about breeding eggs a million times? I think the fun of Pokemon comes from taking your favorites and battling against others favorites, seeing what moves they use, which Pokemon they like, etc. I mean, when it comes to competitive play anyway, I've wrecked a person who used 3 legendaries one time. Type match ups are still king in the game, so I say let's just get rid of the other stuff and focus on what's important. Give us new methods to train our Pokemon, give us contest, give us the PWT, and just make the game as full and vibrant as possible. That is what people want.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 2nd, 2016 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainfez3 (Post 9144848)
I'm not so sure if they won't though. The competitive scene is probably not as major a component as you might think. I would say that most people who love and enjoy Pokemon play it in a "casual" sense (and I hate how fans of games will instinctively divide themselves into those two demographics, but such is life). From a monetary standpoint, Gamefreak doesn't really stand to lose anything; changing the underlying mechanics might upset people but if they enjoy the games, they will still play them. The main reason that the competitive players love all the breeding, training, and time investment involved in being in the top competitive scene is a simple (and honestly somewhat ugly) human drive; namely the joy of having something someone doesn't. And I don't mean to say they are all like that, but some obviously are. I've played a lot of people online that don't like to lose and it is just kind of the ugly truth about the situation that there is an "elite" mentality that pushes a lot of these players to do that. And it isn't in the true spirit of Pokemon where you want to "be the very best" but you want to crush everyone else.

Forgoing all that flowery talk, I do agree that for the most part, it is a nice system in the fact that you can play the game casually and enjoy it and play the game in the competitive way and still enjoy it. However, as online play becomes increasingly prevalent, I feel like something is going to have to give. I can pick up any modern online shooter, and I will at least be on a level playing field with my fellow players. I will get better with time as I learn the maps, weapon spawns, and unlock potential goodies, but I'm not going in and getting hammered because I haven't spent 200+ hours trying to get the right stats on my weapons or something like that. Even most MMOs are moving away from having very esoteric upgrade systems and instead streamlining character improvement, so that way you invest time to get better yes, but you don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time to get the exact right items to be viable. Interestingly enough, most people who decry those changes (I'm thinking of WoW specifically) are the people who consider themselves "hardcore" and look down upon "filthy casuals" who don't put in the crazy amounts of time to know the game inside out and dedicate their weekends to farming for the right stuff.

I feel that online attitude is something they should strive to not cultivate in Pokemon, because again, that flies directly in the face of the spirit of the whole thing. The easiest way to do that is make it so it isn't even present. That to me would be a brilliant step in making Pokemon a more fun online environment. I understand there are always going to be the "best" ways to play any game in a competitive sense, but I don't think an aspect of that should involve copious amounts of time. Again, I think the perfect system would be one that most closely mirrors the show. When I go out hunting for a Pidgey, I just want a male Pidgey, so I catch the first one I see and that is MY Pidgey. He has the exact same potential as any other Pidgey and if I train him hard enough, he can be as competitive as any other Pidgey.

That is what I want them to shoot for. I don't want to have to breed a million Pidgeys to get that one perfect one, I just want to use the one. And honestly, why would anyone want to keep the excessive breeding mechanic to begin with? What is fun about breeding eggs a million times? I think the fun of Pokemon comes from taking your favorites and battling against others favorites, seeing what moves they use, which Pokemon they like, etc. I mean, when it comes to competitive play anyway, I've wrecked a person who used 3 legendaries one time. Type match ups are still king in the game, so I say let's just get rid of the other stuff and focus on what's important. Give us new methods to train our Pokemon, give us contest, give us the PWT, and just make the game as full and vibrant as possible. That is what people want.

I want what you described in the last paragraphs. Well, perhaps they can leave natures. Perhaps it'll be easier to raise a certain stat if it has a certain nature, compared to another. Like a Quiet Pokémon might be difficult to raise the attack of, but it's special defense can be easier. Something along those lines. It'll make it more complex, but in some ways simple enough for children to get without even needing to know the full details of the mechanics.

pkmin3033 March 2nd, 2016 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainfez3 (Post 9144363)
edit: For all those saying it's ok if it's optional... if they change things, they won't be optional, by and large. Especially if they touch mechanics. You obviously cannot have two players fight each other if they are using Pokemon that follow different sets of game rules. It just ain't gonna happen. It's either all in or it's all for naught. I'll be especially interested to see how they take things forward. I'm really excited now, especially since we can transfer Pokemon from R/B/Y. I mean I know for G/S you just had a random gender assigned to your Pokemon along with anything else, but this might be them prepping for big changes to the mechanics. Long shot, but if true it would be a big plus for me.

Not necessarily; you can quite easily set rules or adjust setings at the start of a match. You could have EVs and IVs turned off entirely, or turned on and set to the maximum possible values to correspond with Nature if they kept that in. Like how Pokemon levels are automatically set to Level 50 or Level 100 in some cases, and how the use of other Pokemon is restricted. It isn't as time consuming or difficult to include an option like that as people seem to think. An "all or nothing" approach seems more likely, I will give you that, but it's not the sole option. Different battle settings is not a new or revolutionary thing, so why not include those as a means of compromise?

I have to admit, your idea of doing away with them entirely and going back to Gen I's way of doing things is highly appealing (I don't battle competitively myself either, and the IV/EV mechanics are a huge part of the reason why) but I still think excluding one group - even if that group is a minority - for the benefit of everyone else is counter-productive, especially when the competitive batte scene has been slowly build up and has changed dramatically over the years...and that still wouldn't level out the playing field or balance the metagame either, which is what they REALLY need to address in my opinion.

Thunderflare March 3rd, 2016 1:30 AM

Pokemon is a very well balanced game. Any adjustments need to be made with tweezers, not with a spade. The only alteration I can think of is a buff for Bug types. I think they should have another resistance to Dark or Fairy types. I also can't understand why Fairy types would need a resistance to Bug types.

destinedjagold March 3rd, 2016 1:54 AM

I'd really like it if they wouldn't make things simple. If they will, then I hope they'll add an option of making things not so simple. XY were too easy, and ORAS was somewhat easy, and that's me with the Exp. Share. turned off.

Ho-Oh March 3rd, 2016 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juice585 (Post 9144519)
All I really hope is that they trim "typical" moves of same typing down.

Tackle/Pound/Scratch/etc just becomes Tackle.
Bubble/Water Gun just becomes Bubble (because Bubble has a secondary effect)

Don't get rid of ExtremeSpeed or Aqua Jet for Quick Attack for example though, because they're all different. ES has extra priority, and priority moves of different TYPING should stay.

I personally think they should stay as they are. Tackle/Pound/Scratch for example are associated with starters, they're classics, and they all mean a different thing. Whether or not they have the same effect doesn't matter. Say you're talking human terms, and you're playing a contact sports game. You go to tackle your opponent but because they're all the same you're actually scratching and pounding the person at the same time (which could lead to a lawsuit or two). I get why they should be merged together but I think considering what they actually do is important to this. Consider that Pokemon is also heavily realistic too, like with battling on the anime, weak moves are awesome, based on what they actually would do in real life. Merging them together would throw off things for the anime as well. I know they aren't traditionally the same but in this case I think things are better off as they are.

I also know that removing two doesn't imply that it becomes all three at once but it just doesn't feel right to me. If anything we should not introduce any new moves rather than cull old ones to simplify.

Pinkie-Dawn March 3rd, 2016 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9144922)
Not necessarily; you can quite easily set rules or adjust setings at the start of a match. You could have EVs and IVs turned off entirely, or turned on and set to the maximum possible values to correspond with Nature if they kept that in. Like how Pokemon levels are automatically set to Level 50 or Level 100 in some cases, and how the use of other Pokemon is restricted. It isn't as time consuming or difficult to include an option like that as people seem to think. An "all or nothing" approach seems more likely, I will give you that, but it's not the sole option. Different battle settings is not a new or revolutionary thing, so why not include those as a means of compromise?

How are we suppose to know if these battle settings are easy to develop if neither of us are game programmers ourselves? There may be a legit programming issue as a reason why these ideas never came into Game Freak's mind, but knowing you, you'll simply regard it as a silly excuse.

Quote:

I have to admit, your idea of doing away with them entirely and going back to Gen I's way of doing things is highly appealing (I don't battle competitively myself either, and the IV/EV mechanics are a huge part of the reason why) but I still think excluding one group - even if that group is a minority - for the benefit of everyone else is counter-productive, especially when the competitive batte scene has been slowly build up and has changed dramatically over the years...and that still wouldn't level out the playing field or balance the metagame either, which is what they REALLY need to address in my opinion.
The problem with your reasoning is that even if a company tries to please everyone, they'll still get backlash from another minority group, whether it's because of certain characters they think is a racial stereotype, the game itself being "sexist," or the lack of characters from certain sexual orientations. Even the same groups they're trying to please will try to compete each other on who gets the special treatment regardless, and it becomes a single player vs. competitive experience debate.

Esper March 3rd, 2016 9:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9145335)
The problem with your reasoning is that even if a company tries to please everyone, they'll still get backlash from another minority group, whether it's because of certain characters they think is a racial stereotype, the game itself being "sexist," or the lack of characters from certain sexual orientations. Even the same groups they're trying to please will try to compete each other on who gets the special treatment regardless, and it becomes a single player vs. competitive experience debate.

I think all they were saying is that GF shouldn't alienate its fans by taking away something it already gave us *cough* character customization *cough*

pkmin3033 March 3rd, 2016 9:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9145335)
How are we suppose to know if these battle settings are easy to develop if neither of us are game programmers ourselves? There may be a legit programming issue as a reason why these ideas never came into Game Freak's mind, but knowing you, you'll simply regard it as a silly excuse.

I'm going based off of what has been included in the past in games; we have different battle settings already as it is, through excluding certain Pokemon in tournament settings, etc. I think it a relatively safe assumption that, if they are already building rulesets for these things, that they can do so again. I can see no reason why they wouldn't be able to do so. I may or may not be wrong. It's an assumption. An idea. Speculation. It's all I or anyone else has at this juncture regarding these titles.
Oh, and guess what? You don't know me. So stop assuming that you do and stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9145335)
The problem with your reasoning is that even if a company tries to please everyone, they'll still get backlash from another minority group, whether it's because of certain characters they think is a racial stereotype, the game itself being "sexist," or the lack of characters from certain sexual orientations. Even the same groups they're trying to please will try to compete each other on who gets the special treatment regardless, and it becomes a single player vs. competitive experience debate.

So? Those arguments have always been there, and will always be there. I don't see how that relates to my reasoning in the slightest. My reasoning, my point, is that making sweeping changes on that level will do nothing to address the issues present; it's simplification for simplification's sake. IVs and EVs have no effect whatsoever on the main story of the game; they are purely competitive aspects of gameplay. I know nobody who has had to EV train or IV breed in order to complete the main game. Their removal might level the playing field and make competitive Pokemon more accessible to more people...or it might not. There are other factors regarding that area, I feel, which should be addressed first.

LilBueno March 3rd, 2016 4:39 PM

I think certain physical moves shouldn't take a move slot. Tackle/Pound/Scratch/etc have similar effects, yeah, but really? My Pokemon has to know how to Tackle its opponent as a battle move? There are other similar moves like Bite. There has to be some way to streamline that.

Hikamaru March 3rd, 2016 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilBueno (Post 9145954)
I think certain physical moves shouldn't take a move slot. Tackle/Pound/Scratch/etc have similar effects, yeah, but really? My Pokemon has to know how to Tackle its opponent as a battle move? There are other similar moves like Bite. There has to be some way to streamline that.

The trick as to why Tackle/Scratch/Pound exist is because every Pokemon must start small and then work up to the stronger attacks. It's a formula I doubt that would ever be scrapped.

LilBueno March 3rd, 2016 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9145978)
The trick as to why Tackle/Scratch/Pound exist is because every Pokemon must start small and then work up to the stronger attacks. It's a formula I doubt that would ever be scrapped.

I understand that, I just think there has to be a better way.

Sopheria March 3rd, 2016 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9145978)
The trick as to why Tackle/Scratch/Pound exist is because every Pokemon must start small and then work up to the stronger attacks. It's a formula I doubt that would ever be scrapped.

I think that what he meant was that those attacks should be usable without taking up a moveslot, since tackling or scratching is a generic enough action and isn't a "skill" that needs to be learned, per se (or forgotten, for that matter). Sorta like how most RPGs have a generic "attack" action that's weaker than skill-based attacks, but at the same time doesn't occupy a moveslot and has unlimited uses. Not sure how likely that would be to happen in Pokémon, but it's something that almost all RPGs except Pokémon do and would definitely be a simplification of sorts.

pkmin3033 March 3rd, 2016 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 9146100)
I think that what he meant was that those attacks should be usable without taking up a moveslot, since tackling or scratching is a generic enough action and isn't a "skill" that needs to be learned, per se (or forgotten, for that matter). Sorta like how most RPGs have a generic "attack" action that's weaker than skill-based attacks, but at the same time doesn't occupy a moveslot and has unlimited uses. Not sure how likely that would be to happen in Pokémon, but it's something that almost all RPGs except Pokémon do and would definitely be a simplification of sorts.

So basically what the Mystery Dungeon series have; a weak attack move assigned to a different button that can be used instead of the standard weak normal-type move they typically learn in the beginning?

I could get behind that. It IS a better alternative than Struggle I think, and it has the added benefit of meaning your Pokemon aren't utterly useless if they use all their attack moves and only have passive moves left. I can't see it happening in the mothership titles either, but it IS a nice idea and a good way to remove "unnecessary" moves without any negative effects.

Ultan March 4th, 2016 4:14 PM

Removing Pokémon like Luvdisc (if there is even anything else like it) wouldn't bother me at all...

Rivvon March 4th, 2016 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainfez3 (Post 9144363)
I hope they get rid of IVs, EVs, and make nature more of a flavor thing and not a competitive aspect.

IVs, yes. I agree with that. I already touched on that in my last post but hopefully I can make it more clear here... but more on that later.

Remove EVs and Natures? No, absolutely not.

First I just want to get out of the way that "simplification" and "streamlining" aren't quite the same thing, and simplification isn't always that great. By removing EVs and Natures, you're watering down what makes competitive Pokémon unique. I'll try to explain with some concrete examples because maybe what I said in my previous post wasn't very clear...

From a competitive standpoint:
If I open up my Omega Ruby and check the "Competitive" box I have on my PC, I'll have, at this very moment, at least three different, equally-viable Swampert. How is that possible? EVs and Natures.

Swampert #1: Single Battle Support
Relaxed Nature (+Defense, -Speed)
EV spread dedicated to HP and defenses
Overall supportive moveset
Give him some Leftovers to munch on

Swampert #2: Single Battle Sweeper
Adamant Nature (+Attack, -Sp.Attack)
EV spread to maximize Attack, enough Speed, and the rest in HP to accentuate his natural bulk
Moveset ready 2 sweep
Hit the Gym with Swampertite

Swampert #3: Double Battle Special Attacker
Modest Nature (+Sp.Attack, -Attack)
EV spread for maximizing Sp.Attack and HP
Replace the usual Physical STAB moves for Special ones and you're ready to rock
Expert Belt makes his Special Attack stronger than if he was Mega'd

If Natures were nothing more than flavor text and EVs didn't exist, this would not be possible. All Swampert would be the same physical-oriented mudfish. The same applies to other Pokémon, even those who seem really overused: Primal Groudon can be a physical, special, or mixed attacker, and can be either fast (+Speed Nature and EV investment) to help outspeed other Groudon, or slower and bulkier to take their attacks (defensive EV investment). There are so many possibilities opened up to players because of Natures and EVs!! Removing them would only make the competitive scene even more stale and boring and repetitive.

So why do I think IVs can go? Because all those Swampert I mentioned have the same IVs. When it comes down to it, everyone is gonna be using perfect-IV Pokémon all the time anyways. All Pokémon are caught and bred to be perfect IV-wise. Few exceptions exist, but for the most part they're perfect (really I just don't want to go into the nuances of 5IVs because I don't want to confuse anyone, but 5IVs are "perfect" in their own right so my point still stands). So since everyone is expected to go in with their 6IV dream team, removing IVs is just removing one step in the process of creating a competitive Pokémon--it's streamlining, not simplifying. Removing IVs could even be good for Hidden Power, the Type of which is based on the Pokémon's IVs--just assign a new hidden value to each Pokémon and then breeding for certain Hidden Powers is much easier, not to mention it opens up the possibility of Fairy-Type Hidden Power finally being a thing.

I can tell you right now from lots and lots of experience: the IV breeding is the most tedious, time-consuming part. Breeding for the right Nature, Egg moves, Hidden Power, etc. and subsequently EV training your new Pokémon is rewarding and should be the focus of creating a competitive Pokémon.

From a casual standpoint:

Why do Natures matter to you???

I beat Pokémon X with a Modest Pinsir. A Modest Pinsir. That's like the worst possible Nature for Pinsir to have and it still carried me through most of the game (and by most I mean the second half--it probably would have carried me through the beginning too if I had it that early)! Even back in gen 5, the last time Pokémon games were even remotely challenging, a hindering-Nature Pokémon could still make it through the Pokémon league just fine. These games are not challenging enough for Natures to matter during a casual playthrough of the story, so what would it matter to you if Natures remained an integral component to competitive play?

Game Freak has confirmed that they, at least to some extent, take into consideration what happens at Worlds when re-balancing certain attacks--ever wonder why in gen 6 Grass-Types are immune to "powder" moves, and why they introduced the Safety Goggles item? Check out the 2013 Worlds Masters finals and have fun watching an Amoonguss Spore everything in its path! And while most players are certainly more "casual," the competitive scene is still growing and is definitely an important group to TPC(i). Some aspects of the game can certainly be streamlined to make things less tedious for everyone, but other things would just make the games simpler and sometimes simpler isn't better--it's nice to have a game that can offer so much depth if you actually take the time to learn about it!

In summary, Natures and EVs actually make each Pokémon different and allow the Trainer creativity in how they train their Pokémon, so those aspects should stay. Alternatively, in competitive play--the only place where IVs even matter--everyone will be using perfect-IV Pokémon, so in that instance they are all the same. Thus, removing IVs would only serve as a way to streamline the process of creating competitive Pokémon. Therefore, it can go.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 4th, 2016 10:20 PM

I am absolutely fine with IV's going away but Ev's and natures staying. It'll make it easier to train that mon one wants.

pkmin3033 March 4th, 2016 10:22 PM

One thing I forget whether I've mentioned already but feel the need to add now onto the end of Rivvon's rather wonderful post above me is that the process of EV Training has already been simplified beautifully through the inclusion of the Super Training minigame. It's something anyone and everyone can access, it's an easy little minigame that produces great results and doesn't take very long - once you've unlocked all of them, you could max a Pokemon's EVs in about an hour. It even shows you how much you've done.

It'd be rather strange move for Game Freak to remove EVs at this juncture for the sake of simplification, as they would then have to remove Super Training, as it would serve no practical purpose.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 5th, 2016 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9147705)
One thing I forget whether I've mentioned already but feel the need to add now onto the end of Rivvon's rather wonderful post above me is that the process of EV Training has already been simplified beautifully through the inclusion of the Super Training minigame. It's something anyone and everyone can access, it's an easy little minigame that produces great results and doesn't take very long - once you've unlocked all of them, you could max a Pokemon's EVs in about an hour. It even shows you how much you've done.

It'd be rather strange move for Game Freak to remove EVs at this juncture for the sake of simplification, as they would then have to remove Super Training, as it would serve no practical purpose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Ev's existed in some form since RG? Sugimori mentioned back to the roots, so I think they'll keep the stuff that's always been part of Pokémon in some form. Irc from what I've discussed with a friend, it was possible to Ev train all the stats to max, wasn't it? Perhaps they'll get rid of the two stat max and 8 or so Ev's for a third one being the most one can max.

pkmin3033 March 5th, 2016 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9147848)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Ev's existed in some form since RG? Sugimori mentioned back to the roots, so I think they'll keep the stuff that's always been part of Pokémon in some form. Irc from what I've discussed with a friend, it was possible to Ev train all the stats to max, wasn't it? Perhaps they'll get rid of the two stat max and 8 or so Ev's for a third one being the most one can max.

They did exist in Gen I and II, but it was a completely different system with EVs being distributed evenly amongst stats when you won a battle, so yeah, it was possible to max all stats...eventually. I remember being told by my friend to box my Pokemon frequently so they'd get stronger, I think it had something to do with that too.

It'd be quite interesting if they simplified EVs by reverting back to that system in part though, letting you max all stats, but having the nature of a Pokemon determine which stats received additional boosts or something. It doesn't really harm competitive battling all that much, I don't think...although I could be wrong about that; I haven't battled since Gen IV. But hacked Pokemon with maxxed stats in all areas never used to guarantee victory, so I doubt it'd make much difference. In a way it'd make more sense in-game, too - I never understood the rationale that you'd only get stronger in specific stats if you beat certain Pokemon; surely you'd improve in all areas? You could train in specific areas if you wanted to using Super Training, but otherwise you wouldn't have to worry about it: you'd get stronger just by battling whatever.

Rivvon March 5th, 2016 5:48 AM

I think the reason why gen 1's EV system wouldn't work is because the whole idea of the current one is that you have to "sacrifice" something when making the Pokémon you want. Want a fast, deadly sweeper? You can maximize its Speed and appropriate attacking stat... but that leaves its HP and defenses low to act as a balance. Want a bulky wall? You'll have to train in the defensive areas, but it will leave your attacking capabilities lower.

So if all sweepers could be bulky, and all walls could be offensive, that just makes things... overpowered, for lack of a better word. The drawback of being able to max out only two stats is more of a balancing measure, and because you can only pick two stats it offers more diversity in terms of what you choose to create. For instance, in my happy Swampert family I mentioned above, if given the choice, I would absolutely give all of them all maxed-out stats regardless of what they were meant to do (it's kinda scary to think about a Mega Swampert that has maximum HP, Attack, Defense, Sp.Defense, and Speed...)--so then you have the same issue with IVs, where everyone will have the same EVs because why wouldn't you max out everything if given the chance?

Then the theoretical argument would be that EVs should be removed because everyone is using the same EV spread... when in reality our current EV system allows for creative freedom and should stay. But the reason why it allows for creative freedom is because it's limiting.

You even get cases where EV spreads can be very individual, too. Say you're certain you want your Pokémon to have max Sp. Attack, and be as bulky as possible. Well, that would be as simple as maxing out Sp. Attack and HP. But what you wanted it to be just a teensy bit faster to outspeed other similar Pokémon? That extra 4 EVs won't help you much. So you're gonna have to make a choice. Do you sacrifice some bulk?
244 HP / 252 SpA / 12 Spe
Or do you sacrifice some power?
252 HP / 244 SpA / 12 Spe

EV spreads can be as simple as 252 / 252 / 4, or as unique as 252 / 156 / 92 / 8. You can fine-tune your Pokémon to outspeed what you need it to, to survive what attacks it needs to survive, because of the nuances offered by EVs. But if you could max all stats? I can guarantee you, they'd all look like this no matter what the Pokémon: 252 / 252 / 252 / 252 / 252 / 252

In that case, I say going back to the gen 1 EV system isn't really even streamlining, and it would just make it so that EVs could be removed, in a similar vein to IVs.

Aside from that, though, it's very true that since Super Training was implemented, EV Training is more accessible as a whole. And horde battles are very, very great for EV training, too. I'm not sure how likely the removal of EVs are after those two things were incorporated into the games.

Shadow Chill March 5th, 2016 6:47 AM

Simplify the mechanics, but improve on the storytelling. The player could do without more features and gimmicks. As for the storytelling, they touch on the morally grey areas with the "villains" of Hoenn and Unova. Try something new like the redemption arc in Colosseum. Put the player in a position they've never been before working their way out of it or exploring it.

captainfez3 March 5th, 2016 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivvon (Post 9147530)
IVs, yes. I agree with that. I already touched on that in my last post but hopefully I can make it more clear here... but more on that later.

Remove EVs and Natures? No, absolutely not.
[/i]

I snipped out all the other stuff you wrote just for the sake of space, but upon reading it, I agree fully. I'm not sure if I stated it explicitly, but I honestly didn't really know the difference between IVs and EVs. EVs sound like something I do want to keep around, especially so long as we have super training so I can monitor what I have on each of my Pokemon.

I just disliked the idea of having to breed a Pokemon ad nauseum to get the right set of internal values, then taking that Pokemon and training him against specific Pokemon over and over to get the right stat boosts, just to have him be in the right % to be competitive. As long as whatever system they employ allows me to catch a Pokemon and then adjust him to be the "type" of Pokemon I want (like you gave in your example, defensive, speed, etc.) I will be happy. I just don't want all the time I invest to be because I'm trying to luck out and get the right stat spread, but rather because I am trying out different strategies, different strengths, and move sets. So basically the fun stuff ha ha.

I'm still not sure how I feel about natures, because I still have to hunt around to find the right nature to match my desired strategy before I even begin training the Pokemon. I would much prefer that the benefits/drawbacks of natures be something that we have direct control over. So my Swampert has a Brave nature, but that just impacts his flavor text or something. I can choose if I want him to have a boosted Attack stat at the cost of Speed, or whatever Nature combo we have.

Thanks for your post though, it helps to put it in a different perspective. I don't want them to simplify Pokemon, I just want the depth and complexity to be readily accessible to all people and not just those who have the patience to breed. Really this all comes down to having to hatch too many eggs over the years. I'm tired of doing it, it is mind numbing and it isn't fun lol.

Sun March 6th, 2016 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 9143684)
It sounds almost like he's planning to revert 7th gen to the 1st gen data format...getting rid of EV yields, merging the special stats into one, maybe even removing IVs. Idk, Pokémon really isn't that complicated at all, so I can't even imagine what they could do to simplify it further and still maintain its enjoyability ~_~

Yeah, this is also emphasized by allowing us to send out Gen I mons to the Sun and Moon versions.

Reverting back to the basics isn't going to solve the problems tbrh.

If they drop the fundamental stuff like IV, EV etc etc, Pokemon's gonna lose that appeal they build and improvised through out the 20 years.

Hikamaru March 6th, 2016 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun (Post 9150726)
If they drop the fundamental stuff like IV, EV etc etc, Pokemon's gonna lose that appeal they build and improvised through out the 20 years.

I agree. If the Sp. Atk and Sp. Def are merged back into the Special stat that 1st Gen had, I can now see Fairy-type becoming the new broken type, like how Psychic was extremely broken in 1st Gen days and Dragon was overpowered in pretty much every pre-6th Gen game.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 6th, 2016 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9150778)
I agree. If the Sp. Atk and Sp. Def are merged back into the Special stat that 1st Gen had, I can now see Fairy-type becoming the new broken type, like how Psychic was extremely broken in 1st Gen days and Dragon was overpowered in pretty much every pre-6th Gen game.

Not to mention that Psychic will go back to being Op again, not to it's former greatness, but close. Psychic still has only has three weakness, Dark, Bug and Ghost compared to Fairy's two, so perhaps not as much as a Fairy type. Of course, if they fuse the special stats back together I think they should do the same with their physical counterparts. Of course, Deoxys will be odd...

Hikamaru March 6th, 2016 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9150879)
Not to mention that Psychic will go back to being Op again, not to it's former greatness, but close. Psychic still has only has three weakness, Dark, Bug and Ghost compared to Fairy's two, so perhaps not as much as a Fairy type. Of course, if they fuse the special stats back together I think they should do the same with their physical counterparts. Of course, Deoxys will be odd...

I agree, Psychic may not be back to its original glory but Psychic-types are known for learning a lot of powerful attacks, but imagine Deoxys with 1st Gen stat mechanics... oh god.

Chansey's evolution line would also go back to its former strength as well, given Chansey had not just the ability to sponge special attacks in 1st Gen, but was also able to hit hard with special attacks.

pkmin3033 March 7th, 2016 12:38 AM

Fusing the special stats back together again would make no logical sense; it'd be another "simplicity for simplicity's sake" maneuver and I don't think Game Freak would make such a careless move because, if anything, it'd make the games even more complex than they already supposedly are. Such a move would cause absolute chaos with the physical/special split as well and, as already mentioned, certain types would skyrocket in power and break the metagame even further than it already is. Any changes they make on that scale are going to cause confusion across the entire fandom, because everyone is going to have to get used to it.

Vezyn March 7th, 2016 11:09 AM

If removing IVs entirely becomes problematic they could always just continue to make it easier to deal with for players that don't hack.

Maybe add a feature to EV training that allows you to raise IVs while training your pokemon, along with special bags. Add berries that lower IVs as well for pokes that benefit from lower stats (Mostly speed).

They could even add something to Pokémon-amie that lets you change your pokemons Nature.

Sun March 7th, 2016 11:17 AM

There's no need to make fuss over the two Special stats merging back, tbh.

The Psychic-type won't be as broken as everyone thinks; Dusknoir, Scizor, M-Absol said they can slay the Psychics. Similarly, M-Metagross didn't exist for nothing; it's able to crush the Fairies. Not to mention, Ghost-type moves are able to hit the Psychic-type now and there are stronger Bug-type moves too!

I highly doubt that they are merging them back though.

But the IV system and EV system from Gen I games... Hmm...

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 7th, 2016 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9151007)
Fusing the special stats back together again would make no logical sense; it'd be another "simplicity for simplicity's sake" maneuver and I don't think Game Freak would make such a careless move because, if anything, it'd make the games even more complex than they already supposedly are. Such a move would cause absolute chaos with the physical/special split as well and, as already mentioned, certain types would skyrocket in power and break the metagame even further than it already is. Any changes they make on that scale are going to cause confusion across the entire fandom, because everyone is going to have to get used to it.

The physical and special split? Well that was about types being assigned a certain stat. The types of the Gen I-IV Eeveelutions plus Dragon were all special. The other types at the time were all physical, including Normal of course. I doubt they'll undo that change from Gen IV.


About going back to Gen I mechanics, we did get a little taste last Gen, as the Exp Share went back to it's original Exp. All form.

pkmin3033 March 7th, 2016 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9152061)
About going back to Gen I mechanics, we did get a little taste last Gen, as the Exp Share went back to it's original Exp. All form.

I had completely forgotten about the Exp. All...interesting that you bring that up, as it was absolutely awful in Gen I; if anything it made training even slower. That actually makes me hopeful that any changes they do elect to make with simplification in mind will undergo the same sort of improvements. It seems logical that they will, but with Game Freak you never know I guess.

Cyrain March 8th, 2016 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainfez3 (Post 9148812)
I'm still not sure how I feel about natures, because I still have to hunt around to find the right nature to match my desired strategy before I even begin training the Pokemon. I would much prefer that the benefits/drawbacks of natures be something that we have direct control over. So my Swampert has a Brave nature, but that just impacts his flavor text or something. I can choose if I want him to have a boosted Attack stat at the cost of Speed, or whatever Nature combo we have.

It's honestly really easy to get the right nature for a pokémon:). If you have a decent amount of pokis in your pc you might only have to breed a single egg for the right nature. The breeding mechanics were SO simplified in gen 6 and I honestly love it...in any other gen I would never bother with the day care, but now I enjoy breeding for shinys, IVs, nature and even the right ball:D. It might be overwhelming at first, but if you take a closer look it isn't bad or difficult at all. A youtuber said in one of his videos 'Breeding, it's all I do anymore. Is it even fun...I guess'. Honestly it's addictive, once you understand the basics:3 Egg Moves, IVs, Nature, Shiny-Status, Ball and so on are a really interesting topic and I'd be really sad if all of this would be cut from the next games...

However, what I'd really like to see would be a better aproach to this whole topic:). We get a dumb tutorial about catching Pokémon every single time...why not some kind of nice explanation for breeding. A status page where you can see the IVs in numbers without having to rely on an online calculator or the judge, that would be great as well.

KillerTyphlosion March 8th, 2016 3:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9152061)
About going back to Gen I mechanics, we did get a little taste last Gen, as the Exp Share went back to it's original Exp. All form.

It didn't went back to the original. The exp all divided the exp like the exp share did in other gens but for the whole party. Now you just get a flat out +50% exp for every pokémon, but that is not the exp share mechanic, but the exp mechanic from gen 6. When you switch out pokémon both pokémon get 100% instead of 50% for both like in older gens.

Sabrewulf238 March 8th, 2016 7:48 AM

Personally I think the Pokemon games are already simple enough.

They're the kind of games that are easy to get into and understand but there's still some complexity if you want to go looking for it.

I have to say this is something that concerns me quite a bit. I won't mind if they're just doing some cleaning up, but if they decide to dumb everything down it's going to be kind of upsetting.

I could kind of see this as not being a case that the games are too complicated, but maybe too bloated with redundant moves and features. At least I'm hoping that's the angle they're coming from.

Mobile Tsk March 8th, 2016 8:01 AM

I think merging types would be interesting, but it would probably actually be more complicated than simple. I love the idea of a simplified game. The game mechanics have become pretty convoluted and there are far too many abilities and attacks to take into account when battling. Some people like this, and I will concede it does make the gameplay more competitive and interesting, but something fundamental about Pokemon is lost in all of the confusion. I will take the simpler games over the more complicated ones more often than not, though I do appreciate the creativity that has gone into some of the more recent odd attacks.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 8th, 2016 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerTyphlosion (Post 9152953)
It didn't went back to the original. The exp all divided the exp like the exp share did in other gens but for the whole party. Now you just get a flat out +50% exp for every pokémon, but that is not the exp share mechanic, but the exp mechanic from gen 6. When you switch out pokémon both pokémon get 100% instead of 50% for both like in older gens.

I think that they should make it more like Gen I, since some felt it was broken.

captainfez3 March 8th, 2016 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrain (Post 9152942)
It's honestly really easy to get the right nature for a pokémon:). If you have a decent amount of pokis in your pc you might only have to breed a single egg for the right nature. The breeding mechanics were SO simplified in gen 6 and I honestly love it...in any other gen I would never bother with the day care, but now I enjoy breeding for shinys, IVs, nature and even the right ball:D. It might be overwhelming at first, but if you take a closer look it isn't bad or difficult at all. A youtuber said in one of his videos 'Breeding, it's all I do anymore. Is it even fun...I guess'. Honestly it's addictive, once you understand the basics:3 Egg Moves, IVs, Nature, Shiny-Status, Ball and so on are a really interesting topic and I'd be really sad if all of this would be cut from the next games...

However, what I'd really like to see would be a better aproach to this whole topic:). We get a dumb tutorial about catching Pokémon every single time...why not some kind of nice explanation for breeding. A status page where you can see the IVs in numbers without having to rely on an online calculator or the judge, that would be great as well.

Yeah I knew they added some stuff in to make breeding easier. I just do not think it is a fun thing to do. Running around hatching eggs is mind numbing. I am always watching tv when I have to do it, wishing I could just go battle and raise some Pokemon. The only thing I've ever enjoyed about breeding was getting unique moves onto Pokemon that wouldn't otherwise have them. Now THAT was an excellent addition. Everything else, I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go. Especially the new Poke ball thing they put in. Why can't I just transfer a Pokemon into a different Poke ball, now I have to be conscious about that when I breed too?! lol. makes no sense

pkmin3033 March 9th, 2016 4:00 AM

A breeding minigame, similar to Pokemon Amie, would do wonders for the breeding mechanic, and allow them to keep in IVs as well if they didn't want to ditch them. How about some touch-screen based minigames that let you raise IVs, and dictate Nature and even Egg moves? Maybe a nursery-style thing, where you can customise the environment or something, or some crazy dream-based game that lets you raise IVs.

I still think ditching IVs altogether would be a better choice, but they're unlikely to cut out game mechanics altogether for the sake of simplicity, so making these things more accessible to players - and building on Pokemon Amie to make it a more integral and varied feature - seems like it'd be a better way to go. Two Pidgey with one stone.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 9th, 2016 8:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9154366)
A breeding minigame, similar to Pokemon Amie, would do wonders for the breeding mechanic, and allow them to keep in IVs as well if they didn't want to ditch them. How about some touch-screen based minigames that let you raise IVs, and dictate Nature and even Egg moves? Maybe a nursery-style thing, where you can customise the environment or something, or some crazy dream-based game that lets you raise IVs.

I still think ditching IVs altogether would be a better choice, but they're unlikely to cut out game mechanics altogether for the sake of simplicity, so making these things more accessible to players - and building on Pokemon Amie to make it a more integral and varied feature - seems like it'd be a better way to go. Two Pidgey with one stone Geodude.

Maybe the nature can be impacted while it's still inside the egg. Like wrapping the egg in a warm or cold blanket, a flagrant blanket. It'll allow the egg to hatch faster, but also get the nature associated with that item.

LilBueno March 9th, 2016 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9154666)
Maybe the nature can be impacted while it's still inside the egg. Like wrapping the egg in a warm or cold blanket, a flagrant blanket. It'll allow the egg to hatch faster, but also get the nature associated with that item.

I like this idea. It could even affect the hatching rate a bit. You use certain items on the egg, attach certain items, and/or do certain activities with the egg and you get guaranteed results (Nature for sure, maybe IV yield and ability?)
That way, you know what you're getting and the endless breeding will be unnecessary but you still have to work for it a little bit.
I wouldn't mind something like wrapping the eggs in certain items gives it a certain nature, having the egg in your party for so many battle affects IV yield, and ability and egg moves can come from a minigame (one that actually takes a bit of effort, not just a thirty second berry catching game).
I'd also like to have the choice of what Pokeball to put the Pokemon in. Do Pokemon just hatch with a ball?

pkmin3033 March 9th, 2016 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9154666)
Maybe the nature can be impacted while it's still inside the egg. Like wrapping the egg in a warm or cold blanket, a flagrant blanket. It'll allow the egg to hatch faster, but also get the nature associated with that item.

Something along those lines would be fantastic, especially if these were re-usable items. Held items, but for eggs. I'd actually love it if incense was modified to be like this, too - put incense around the egg (either in a nursery environment for a bottom-screen PDA thing or something) or as a hold item so it hatches into a baby Pokemon, rather than needing the parents to hold them whilst breeding. Or even making incense key items that you can activate or de-activate one at a time. You could even use them to attract/repel certain Pokemon in the wild, similar to Sweet Scent or Repels...which would eliminate the need for repels, too. God knows I'm sick of buying those things!

Pokemon has been pretty big on minigames like this recently, and the whole caring of pets things in general has been a thing since Nintendogs. It'd make much more sense if they simplified breeding and hatching eggs to fall in line with this style - it'd be easy for people to understand and get into, and streamline the whole experience.

Rivvon March 10th, 2016 5:50 PM

Okay hold on. I was gonna quote captainfez3's post and reply to him but now I feel I just need to say this as a general thing...

Breeding for Nature is the easiest part. Literally the easiest part. You pick a parent with the Nature you want. Stick an Everstone on it. Now all of the Eggs will hatch with that Nature. 100% of them. No exceptions. Whatsoever. Making the obtaining of Nature into "you just pick it at some NPC's house" is like, way too easy (there needs to be some effort put into making your Pokémon...). Making it into some minigame would make it take way longer and feel more like a waste of time.

"But I don't have a parent with the right Nature," you say. Okay but catching Ditto is easy in XY--go catch a bunch until you get the right Nature. Or grab a Pokémon with the Nature you want that has Synchronize and catch a parent with the right Nature. Really, the Nature is the easiest part out of all aspects of breeding... And honestly, it's great to see so many people wanting to get into competitive play, and it could stand to be more accessible despite gen 6's improvements, but seriously. There needs to be some effort put into getting the Pokémon you want. Anything less and the game is just... way too watered-down.

And as for...hatching being a mini-game or something like that? I mean I know this may sound weird but I kind of like that I can just hatch my Pokémon while watching a video or something. If it was turned into a mini-game you'd have to actually pay attention. Like think of it this way:

IVs are gone. Praise Arceus! I want to hatch a Modest Pinsir. This will be good. I have my Modest Pinsir from my X playthrough, so she'll be the mom. Stick that Everstone on her and I'm good to go. IVs are gone so I have no need for the Destiny Knot but that's okay. But what I do need is a male Heracross, because Close Combat is an Egg move for Pinsir. I mean yeah it's gonna be Modest but I like to live life on the edge.

Anything else fancy about this Pinsir? Well, since I don't want to worry about IVs any more, I'll try to hatch it shiny! So I put the parents in the day care and grab 5 Eggs. Now it's time for hatching!

Mini-game Method: I have to have both hands at the system, paying attention to actually play the mini-game. Depending on how long the mini-game takes, it could take a while to hatch my batch of five, which might not even have the shiny.

Current Method: Flame Body Pokémon in front. Egg Hatching O-Power activated. I press right on my D-Pad. I can do whatever I want now--eat, watch TV, draw, whatever, as long as I pay slight attention to my screen. Which is actually fairly easy since it's easy to see when the on-screen movement has stopped (signalling the Egg is ready to hatch) out of the corner of your eye. Now I just wait to see if it's shiny; I can hatch many Eggs fairly quickly.

The only way the mini-game method would be better is if you could hatch like a box or two of Eggs at once through it. Otherwise it would best be like Super Training: optional for those who need an entry-way into the mechanics, but ultimately way too time-consuming compared to the "standard" methods. (And since this is a topic about removing unnecessary features... I mean, what it all comes down to is that hatching Eggs is easy. It's making the Egg that takes some effort but as I've said, we don't want to make these games thoughtless.)


I apologize if my posts are turning into "Competitive Breeding 101" but I feel as though the things people want gone or changed are things that they don't really realize how they work. Breeding is such a simple thing; it really doesn't need to be revamped all that much, if at all.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrewulf238 (Post 9153187)
Personally I think the Pokemon games are already simple enough.

They're the kind of games that are easy to get into and understand but there's still some complexity if you want to go looking for it.

I have to say this is something that concerns me quite a bit. I won't mind if they're just doing some cleaning up, but if they decide to dumb everything down it's going to be kind of upsetting.

I could kind of see this as not being a case that the games are too complicated, but maybe too bloated with redundant moves and features. At least I'm hoping that's the angle they're coming from.

I agree completely; thank you.

pkmin3033 March 11th, 2016 1:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivvon (Post 9156984)
I apologize if my posts are turning into "Competitive Breeding 101" but I feel as though the things people want gone or changed are things that they don't really realize how they work. Breeding is such a simple thing; it really doesn't need to be revamped all that much, if at all.

Don't you think there is a problem in that - that people don't really realise how these things work?

What you describe is still a potentially time-consuming and irritating process people won't necessarily have time for, or even the desire to do. The whole idea of playing a game is to play the game. Just wandering around in circles waiting for eggs to hatch, obsessively catching Pokemon just for a specific attribute value, etc? It's not really a simple process at all, it's a multi-stage process you need to research beforehand and do a lot of prep work for.

You're not really playing it either in the situation you describe; it's something you're just doing so that you CAN play. It's delay on top of delay on top of delay towards getting what you want - a specific Pokemon with specific values - and simplifying that process through streamlining it is not a bad thing. Catch this until you get that, breed this and hatch until you get what you want. Reset, reset, reset if you don't get what you want. It's easier now than it was before, but you still need to get there: you still need the necessary prerequisites like Pokemon with the right nature.

Alternatively, you could play a minigame about the same length as the ones in Super Training to accomplish the same thing. Sure, it simplifies the process to the point of ridiculousness, perhaps. But it makes it quicker and easier to understand for everyone, and you're actually playing the game, rather than just having it on. You have to pay attention to what you're doing, and isn't that why people buy the game in the first place - so they can play it? Personally, I think people should have the option of doing that, rather than having to go through this annoying multi-stage process to achieve the results they want.

This is the thing about options, too. You don't HAVE to use them. Just as nobody was forcing you or anyone else to use the Exp. Share in the Gen VI titles, nobody would be forcing you to use a minigame to hatch your eggs or select your natures or whatever else. You want to do it the other way? Do it the other way. If you've got that choice, then what's the problem? Simplification isn't about the removal of features, it's about making them more accessible for other players.

You shouldn't have to put a huge amount of effort into playing and enjoying a game. Maybe it's not that difficult to understand if you do a little bit of research...but why should you have to? Why shouldn't you be able to just take a quick, easy route to get the same results? Why should you have to put in so much effort just to be able to play with everyone else and stand a chance of winning? You can argue that this is the whole point of a competitive scene, but that's a bit exclusionary in my opinion.

As long as the original method of doing these things is available, what's the problem? You can play how you want. Others can play how they want. You can both attain the same results and get the same satisfaction out of it. It's not as time-consuming to get competitive-ready Pokemon. You still have to put effort into it - you have to pick the right Pokemon, the right moves, build a strategy, etc. The process of getting there isn't quite as time-consuming as it was previously; you can dive in, actually play the game, and enjoy yourself that much faster. Why is this a bad thing?

I have to point this out, too - other people thought that EV training was simple before Super Training came along. Yet that change has been met with overall positive reception. I don't see why a similar mechanic for breeding would be a bad thing. Breeding has received improvements...but EV training received improvements before Super Training too. There is no reason why further improvements can't be made.


I have to admit that it really bothers me sometimes that people are so against options for less experienced players that in no way affect them. If anything, this sort of thing is beneficial: more people can play on the same playing field, and it puts more of an emphasis on your understanding of strategy and tactics, rather than secondary gameplay mechanics which are never really explained in the game - or even required to finish the story - yet ARE required if you want to play with others. I really can't get behind the idea that only some people should be allowed to access certain elements of a game - the metagame, in this case.

Sun March 11th, 2016 1:59 AM

Btw, simplified can also mean ditching the Ability or even blocking the access of Gen III - VI Pokemon to Gen 7. :/

Hikamaru March 11th, 2016 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun (Post 9157596)
Btw, simplified can also mean ditching the Ability or even blocking the access of Gen III - VI Pokemon to Gen 7. :/

That would be a huge step backwards that would be unlikely, since I remember that the Direct mentioned that Pokemon in 6th Gen games can be moved forward through Pokemon Bank.

pkmin3033 March 11th, 2016 2:08 AM

Nothing is gained by the removal of features, other than the ire of fans who already understand them. The word itself means "make (something) simpler or easier to do or understand." and that does not imply, to me at least, that something needs to be removed in order to make that something simpler or easier to understand.

To me, simplifying something implies either further explanation through in-game tutorials - which is not implied in this context really, although I think they might appear in some form - or through additional gameplay features that make things more accessible and easier to do. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see a bit, but I honestly don't think anything will be removed in the same of simplifying the titles: it's not really simplifying the game in this instance as it is stripping it of gameplay mechanics. It sounds like they're making it more complex this way, but...well, again, refer to Super Training. That was an addition to the mechanic, but it made it far easier to do and understand than it was previously.

Sabrewulf238 March 11th, 2016 4:38 AM

To be honest the whole introduction of a mini-game for training your Pokemon was a neat little gimmick, but I couldn't be bothered with it while playing ORAS. It lost it's appeal pretty quick.

So I don't think tacking mini-games on to everything is a very good idea. Unless they're prepared to add a lot of variety. At least if a feature doesn't have a mini game it's not pretending to be a fun process. Having to play a mini-game just to hatch an egg is going to get annoying after a while. That stupid catching mini-game was the reason I didn't like transferring Pokemon from the 4th to the 5th generation games.

That's the problem with mini-games. At first they're a fun diversion, but eventually they'll just become as cumbersome as the complications they're supposed to replace. Except they'll be pretending to be fun long after they've lost their appeal.

Rivvon March 11th, 2016 4:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9157595)
Don't you think there is a problem in that - that people don't really realise how these things work?

I get where you're coming from with this point. But in truth, there has to be some sort of understanding before you can get into it. Like, I don't know how American Football works, so I don't think it would be fair for me to say it should be simplified so I can play it at a competitive level.

The reason why I said these mini-games and extra Items would probably be better off not being implemented isn't because I want to keep competitive battling as this exclusive elite thing. That's silly; I was never a fan of people who tried to keep things exclusionary. But isn't this topic about not the simplification of the game, but rather the streamlining of it? People are saying, "Get rid of Natures!" "No more Abilities!" "Make it so Tackle and Scratch are the same move--it doesn't matter that they don't have the same base power!" I've even seen someone suggest combining Types.

So what I'm saying is, why make all these new blanket items and such when there already exists an Item for determining your Egg's Nature? I'd say this thread can generally agree that we don't want them to make another version of False Swipe, so why make more Items that do what another single Item can do to an even more efficient extent?

And I get that by turning hatching into a mini-game, you're "playing more," but trust me, it will be old, fast. Sometimes efficiency is best, even if it's coupled with some time of not actively playing. The reason why I want IVs gone is because it makes breeding take less time so you can play more. And by play I don't mean breed more Eggs. I mean actually play battles. If hatching Eggs takes anywhere from 15-20 minutes per batch, yeah you're playing--you're playing a mini-game. That's a lot of missed time to actually play in battles, which is, I would assume, the thing you want to do if you're getting into competitive play.

Now, if this mini-game system were to remain optional then I would certainly have no problem with it. But it would be a foolish choice to make playing a mini-game the only method of hatching Eggs unless it was a 5-second mini-game. Like, I don't want people thinking Super Training should act as the only way to EV train, either, for the sake of "streamlining." Especially when standard EV training has been made so fast and efficient.

Iceshadow3317 March 11th, 2016 6:18 AM

They made it clear that they wanted the games to become easier so that they could compete with Mobil Games. I don't see them removing anything massive. I would say that they would remove some small things here and there, to make the games simpler to get through,

What I think they meant was, they would reduce the time it takes to breed pokemon. Or things in that nature. I just don't see them destroying the meta game with taking types out.

Another thing would be the design of pokemon. Making pokemon simple looking and no overly complicated.

Anything that is removed will probably be to reduce the time to do things. I don't think IV's or EV's would be removed, but I will be over joyed if they are. I wouldn't have to spend hours on end trying to understand how to IV and EV train. Although I hope they don't remove stats.

I myself just learned about how the stats works. I was always clueless about Attack, Def, Spec. Att and Spec. Def. For some reason I couldn't understand it, but now I do. And stats play a massive role in Megas.

pkmin3033 March 11th, 2016 6:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivvon (Post 9157699)
I get where you're coming from with this point. But in truth, there has to be some sort of understanding before you can get into it. Like, I don't know how American Football works, so I don't think it would be fair for me to say it should be simplified so I can play it at a competitive level.

I can see your point, but then just because you can understand something doesn't guarantee that you'll be any good at it. You could pre-load competitive Pokemon onto the cartridge as an extreme example, but you wouldn't affect competitive play in the slightest: you need to know how to use the Pokemon properly, after all. But if you can't get them at all because the methods of obtaining them are either too time consuming or too obscure, you'll never have the chance or even the desire to learn. I guess that's what I'm driving at.

A lot of these terms do cross-purposes, or are mistaken for one another: it's the same thing as people thinking that something more time consuming is automatically harder. Personally, I don't agree with the concept of streamlining in that sense either, it doesn't really do anything for the games in any significant fashion. There are other concerns that need to be addressed in my opinion to make the games more accessible for newer players, and existing players are going to be just as confused as newer players by the changes...perhaps even more so, since it'd require a serious adjustment in thinking. Screwing with core gameplay mechanics on any level is not simplifying things.

Well, it was just a hypothetical example, but I suppose in that case it's more about the description of the item and it's primary purpose. The primary point of the Everstone has never been to pass over natures; it's a secondary effect, and not one everyone is going to know about. To have another separate item, clearly labelled with that effect, would make the process far less obscure to newer players who want to get into competitive battling. It would also circumvent the need for a Pokemon of the nature you want in the first place, simplifying the entire process. It's all about ease of access, and something like that facilitates the process.

Well, I'm not a game designer; I don't know how they'd actually incorporate these things to prevent them from getting too stale. My suggestion of a minigame was based solely off how Super Training made EV training a lot more accessible and simpler to understand, even if it wasn't necessarily the best or fastest way to go about it. If there is a better way to do it, I'd be open to hearing it. It just seemed to tie in with the minigames they've been adding as a way of doing things with recent generations. It's not the only way they could go about it. I think that kind of thing comes down to personal preference and play style - some people want to play their game when they play their game (haha), others would prefer not to have to focus on such a monotonous task. Since the option of cutting out the process entirely isn't really feasible, I think we need more options of going about it, rather than just one set way.

I don't think these things would be seen as the only way of doing things either; at least, not in the long term. They'd serve as an excellent way to lower the obscenely high entry barriers to competitive battling, though. As I said earlier, having the Pokemon is only half of it: you need to know how to use them properly. If these things aren't as time consuming or intimidating as they were previously, people are going to want to know more: what's the best way to build a good team? What nature/ability/EV spread etc should this Pokemon have? If you pique their curiosity with readily available, clear visible, simplified means of doing things, they're going to want to learn more. THEN they'll do the research, and then they'd learn about the other ways to do things.

That might sound optimistic, but I'd say it's part of the learning process: you learn about a better way to do things the more you play. But you need to be inspired to play first, and you need to know how to go about it and, right now, there is no real in-game information or even motive for competitive breeding, and it's a very time-consuming business even with the improvements made. It's easier to do things, yes, but in my opinion it's not quite simple enough for newer players looking to get into competitive battling, at least not just yet.

GMeister March 11th, 2016 6:35 AM

Some might like the games due to their secondary mechanics. If I were to be selfish, I would love the game to be as hard as Soul series but that is just impossible. Adding mini-game for breeding will take too much time. I would prefer the old-fashioned hatching; pressing D-pad while doing other stuffs (mostly watching TV). Remove IVs, keep natures/ EVs and at least give the player to discover and learn the game and not to spoon feed everything for all the game mechanic.

Masterge77 March 11th, 2016 7:15 AM

The word "simplicity" can mean virtually anything depending on the context, but most people have been behaving as if they're going to return to the clunky, archaic system of Gen 1, where there were no genders or breeding, no Abilities, no hold items, no EV's or IV's, and all types were strictly Physical or Special. Now I will admit that in more recent years, the battle system has gotten far too convoluted and has become a strategic nightmare (at least to me it has) though I don't think the system should be completely stripped back to how it was in Gen 1. I will agree that they could make breeding and EV/IV training far more simple since those are anymore a chore to do. In fact, the inclusion of Amie and Super Training in Gen 6 has actually made EV/IV training

What they could also do is fix the problems that older generations had rather than simply adding new features and leaving the older features left the way they are. The Physical/Special Split was a huge benefit for the franchise. What they could do is that they could make the grinding and team building more simple. I really like how in Gen 6 the EXP Share now applies to the whole team since you can easily level up all the Pokemon equally, plus there's the addition of Amie and Super Training to help with the process. Breeding is also a chore anymore since it's not easy

My biggest fear, however, is that they'll make it more like a mobile game and have virtually no story, no memorable characters, and extremely linear gameplay. In order to have a good game, you need to have a balance of story and gameplay. One wrong move, and they could lose a large portion of their customers.

Rivvon March 11th, 2016 9:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9157773)
I can see your point, but then just because you can understand something doesn't guarantee that you'll be any good at it. You could pre-load competitive Pokemon onto the cartridge as an extreme example, but you wouldn't affect competitive play in the slightest: you need to know how to use the Pokemon properly, after all. But if you can't get them at all because the methods of obtaining them are either too time consuming or too obscure, you'll never have the chance or even the desire to learn. I guess that's what I'm driving at.

Competitive battling is almost in essence a community effort. You're going to want to read what people are doing, what kinds of teams they're making and why, and what they've found to be effective methods of dealing with other threats to inspire your own teambuilding and play style. As such, I don't see why looking up a breeding guide, one that was made by a member of the community for the sole purpose of helping newer players get their footing, is such a bad thing. "I want to do X, but the game doesn't spell it out for me how to do it. Maybe I should do some research...someone has to know, after all." That's the logic I think of in regards to these matters.

And if that's not quite acceptable for some people, there's always the option of just having the game spell out what already exists, instead of making new things. In the Item menu, add an extra option to each Item: Use, Give, Discard, and maybe something like "Info." That could switch the generic description to something more comprehensive. For example, it would rotate the Everstone description between its standard text and something like, "Held Item. Prevents Pokémon from evolving. Passes down Nature when in the Day-Care," perhaps. It would make things clearer than crystal without the need for making tons of extra Items. Because making more Items that essentially do the same thing would just be bloating the game, not streamlining it.

And yes, I'm very aware that practice is the most important part of competitive battling. That's exactly why I don't think turning hatching into a mini-game is a particularly good idea. How can you be practicing if you're spending all your time playing a mini-game? At least with the current method, I can hatch my Eggs while playing on Showdown, essentially practicing while I hatch my Eggs. If the reason why you feel the act of hatching Eggs is such a big hurdle for the non-competitive player is because there's ways to streamline it that aren't made completely obvious within the game itself, wouldn't it just be better for some NPC in the Day-Care to explain it all to the player, and add "expanded" descriptions to Items and Abilities that detail their secondary effects? As opposed to Game Freak putting time and resources into making a feature that ultimately serves to spend more of your time instead of speeding things up?

Although I'll be honest, if this hatching mini-game had a screen that just showed the Pokémon that's in the Egg and maybe its Ability I can imagine that would be helpful in the way that you can still use Super Training to visually see the EVs your Pokémon has (although they really do need to add the option to see the numerical value someday...). But in the most extreme case, I wouldn't want a hatching mini-game to be like the big new selling point of a game because of how unnecessary in practice it would be, when there's so many other features they should be focused on improving, revamping, or bringing back.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire March 11th, 2016 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterge77 (Post 9157847)
The word "simplicity" can mean virtually anything depending on the context, but most people have been behaving as if they're going to return to the clunky, archaic system of Gen 1, where there were no genders or breeding, no Abilities, no hold items, no EV's or IV's, and all types were strictly Physical or Special. Now I will admit that in more recent years, the battle system has gotten far too convoluted and has become a strategic nightmare (at least to me it has) though I don't think the system should be completely stripped back to how it was in Gen 1. I will agree that they could make breeding and EV/IV training far more simple since those are anymore a chore to do. In fact, the inclusion of Amie and Super Training in Gen 6 has actually made EV/IV training

What they could also do is fix the problems that older generations had rather than simply adding new features and leaving the older features left the way they are. The Physical/Special Split was a huge benefit for the franchise. What they could do is that they could make the grinding and team building more simple. I really like how in Gen 6 the EXP Share now applies to the whole team since you can easily level up all the Pokemon equally, plus there's the addition of Amie and Super Training to help with the process. Breeding is also a chore anymore since it's not easy

My biggest fear, however, is that they'll make it more like a mobile game and have virtually no story, no memorable characters, and extremely linear gameplay. In order to have a good game, you need to have a balance of story and gameplay. One wrong move, and they could lose a large portion of their customers.

I think that they'll keep most of the stuff we have now, just cut down on the areas that are redundant. I can see them getting rid of the elemental boosting items like charcoal, and mystic water, leaving only the plates.
Also, since Sugimori is an artist, I take his remarks to mean that he'll want them to tone down the designs.

pkmin3033 March 11th, 2016 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivvon (Post 9158042)
-snip-

Hmm...I suppose we're looking at different thinking styles, then. I think the game should sell itself, rather than rely on the community to sell it - competitive battling has stupidly high entry barriers for newer players, and the game should take active steps to lower those and draw the player into it, rather than leaving it to outside factors. It's not a bad thing that these guides exist, it's a bad thing that the game does nothing to inspire you to look for them, because they describe processes that are obscure and time-consuming.

That'd be a nice addition regardless, but in the context of the Everstone it doesn't eliminate the need to have a Pokemon with the nature you want, which is a potentially irritating delay in getting a battle-ready Pokemon, as you'll have to go out and find one. It clarifies, but it doesn't really simplify - easier to understand, yes. Easier to do? No. You shouldn't have to go out and find a Pokemon with the right nature, in my opinion. I don't think you should get rid of natures entirely, but having a way to affect them in eggs is a must if competitive breeding is going to be simplified. It doesn't necessarily have to be through items (although those would be the easiest way of doing it; I don't think they'll bloat the game at all) but it really should be included in some format.

Again, some people actually want to play the game, rather than waste their time idlng around on it because there is literally nothing else for them to do on it whilst they hatch those eggs. I think they should have the option of playing the game to hatch the eggs, rather than messing about with it one-handed to walk in circles or whatever. That isn't playing. The whole point of a game is to play it. As it is right now our time is being wasted with egg hatching; it's efficient, but it's not particularly interactive and extremely tedious...and who is to say it'll be faster or slower to have a minigame to do the process anyway? Options are never a waste of time, and there is nothing to say Game Freak can't or shouldn't do both things and speed up existing processes whilst adding in new options. Why do the two things have to be mutually exclusive?

A nice compromise feature, I suppose, could be an in-game timer, which goes down in real time as well as when you take a step. That would allow you to do other things - like battling online against random players to get practice in, or whatever else - whilst you hatched the eggs. Just leaving the game on or in sleep mode would be a much better way of going about it, perhaps. It doesn't solve the problem of what comes out the egg, but it gets things out of the egg faster.

I don't think it should be a major selling point either, if they ever did incorporate something like that. I'd have it as an extension of Pokemon Amie/Super Training and leave it at that, and build up a different feature.

LilBueno March 12th, 2016 8:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloetta (Post 9158972)
Again, some people actually want to play the game, rather than waste their time idlng around on it because there is literally nothing else for them to do on it whilst they hatch those eggs. I think they should have the option of playing the game to hatch the eggs, rather than messing about with it one-handed to walk in circles or whatever. That isn't playing. The whole point of a game is to play it. As it is right now our time is being wasted with egg hatching; it's efficient, but it's not particularly interactive and extremely tedious...and who is to say it'll be faster or slower to have a minigame to do the process anyway? Options are never a waste of time, and there is nothing to say Game Freak can't or shouldn't do both things and speed up existing processes whilst adding in new options. Why do the two things have to be mutually exclusive?

To me, this is the main issue. I'm one of those who hasn't been able to get into competitive battling (though it's more lack of time to do the research and planning than anything else), but I was excited when I heard about ORAS's hatching route near the Daycare. Breeding for Dex completion, I didn't mind it. Breeding for specific Pokemon, it was just...not fun. I wasn't playing the game, I was just running in circles.

Hikamaru March 12th, 2016 9:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9158438)
Also, since Sugimori is an artist, I take his remarks to mean that he'll want them to tone down the designs.

Tone down the designs? I remember 5th and 6th Gen were hated for "overdesigned" Pokemon so maybe 7th Gen may end up getting good designs again.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:06 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.