The gameplay could be better, more balance, and can tinkered to even more diverse playstyle. Fixing somethin that isn't broke is called tinkering and it ain't no wrong at all. Although in this some part of the gameplay are broken, and need to be fixed.
well you can said that but the existence of Smogon university and other battle junkies out there says otherwise. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they redone an old formula to better one right? That revamps they did in Generation III was good. Their change with experience formula in Generation V was good. I want more other old and untouched formula being change into a new one. They can't use the same old formula forever.
In ways yes, and in ways no. I think in Gen V, the developers pushed their creativity even further than past generations, which proved to produce mixed results.
I'm not sure what the grass and fire starters are supposed to be, and I can't see myself as a big fan of the water starter. I think they ran out of ideas...even the titles don't sound very convincing.
Even though I would be quick to buy most Pokemon games, I'll have to say I'll give these a miss come October. (Besides...I don't have a 3DS, nor do I intend to get one.)
If you look at the designs of pokemon from the first gen like Grimer/Muk, Magneton, Dugtrio, Dodrio, Ditto, Voltorb/Electrode I would say that Game Freak are actually more creative than ever. The first gens answer to evolution designs was to stick extra heads on things. (that's not entirely fair but it is definitely a noticeable trend in the first gen)
It baffles me when I see this argument it really does.
The argument that they ran out of ideas for titles because the names are so different from past ones makes negative amounts of sense, yet it's everywhere. Riddle me this, batty: How is it that reusing past animals for Pokemon is uncreative, but breaking away from the persistent naming trend is also deemed uninspired? This is clearly a creative move. They are doing something completely new, and I love it. Here's an idea: I've heard people expressing the idea of X being the horizontal axis and Y being the vertical axis, but I haven't seen people make the connection to the legendaries. Deer that don't go by the name of Dancer, Prancer, Cancer, etc. typically stay out of the skies. However, the bird/dragon legendary definitely can fly. The stag is proficient at horizontal movement, while the bird is adept at vertical translation. Bada-bing, bada-boom: Science.
Also, Fennakin (Finnegan, as I like to call him) is a Fennac Fox (as if the name and design didn't make it obvious) and the little bundle of joy called Chespin is loosely based on a Hedgehog (hence the quills and adorableness). Okay, I think I've satisfied my parentheses quota.
Dude, what the heck are you talking about? I said titles, not names. The starter names are fine (although I noticed the fire- and grass-type starters' names end similarly). It's the X and Y stuff I don't understand.
Well, I'd just like to add that Pokemon Red and Blue weren't the most creative things ever either; plus, there's a LOT of things X and Y could stand for, so there's a lot of potential! Other people have mentioned genetics (which was a big underlying factor in Generation 1 with several Pokemon, so it's not like you can claim this is a "new" thing), the x- and y-axis, and probably tons of other things I'm missing.
In any case, you're entitled to an opinion of your own, and that's fine! It's not like I blame you, or anything. I just wanted to point that stuff out because you said you didn't "understand" the names!