Simplifying the games?

[firekid115]

The last paragraph makes it look like he was talking about the games and designs separately. In terms of simplying the games, I can see them cleaning up the amount of items, possibly moves, etc. I'd like to think IV's and EV's will stay.

In terms of designs. . . well. . I'd love for them to go back to their simpler style.

This interview was three years ago though, and it's possible things have changed. If Magearna is any indication, I feel like we wont be simplified designs.

Although, I do realize you can't judge an entire dex we haven't seen yet off of one revealed legendary, so here's hoping.

 

[KillerTyphlosion]

I don't get how they can compare pokémon to mobile games or want to compete with them. Most mobile rpg games are WAY more time consuming than classic rpg games. I mean most of the mobile rpg games is spam this level and collect these monsters/cards and use them to level up your own champions and you need to pay currency for it. It may take you like weeks playing to get to like the final forms and a good team and don't forget the stamina thing where you either need to pay to continue or just wait, but the higher you are the more stamina is consumed. Pokémon in that regard is way less time consuming in getting the final forms or other things or just a good team. I get that Nintendo means what most childeren play is those quick games that you can play where ever you are, but pokémon is an rpg game and a very easy one at that. They should try to simplify the tedius stuff but not to much.

 

[Rivvon]

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.

I think this is where I really can't agree with your point. I think there should be some effort in getting your Pokémon. IVs, as I've said who knows how many times, I think are too much. But not wanting to go and get a proper-Nature parent? Isn't that "playing the game?" Exploring the location, finding your Pokémon, and catching it? If the DexNav feature returns (I'm crossing my fingers) it would be easier than ever and you'd still be "playing the game." But just telling the game, "Alright, I want X Nature, thanks"... that's no effort at all. In my mind, it's a pretty good compromise: just like how you have to prepare your body physically before you're even remotely ready to actually start practicing and playing a sport, you have to prepare your team before actually battling, and it's not something I think should be likened to pressing a few buttons on a machine, pulling the lever, and the Pokémon pops out.

That isn't playing. The whole point of a game is to play it.

It's just odd to me that you're suggesting the point of a game is to play, but you're not even willing to go catch a parent Pokémon. What you're suggesting is closer to using a PowerSave to make your team rather than playing the game...

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?

If the feature added is literally just an optional mini-game to hatch your Eggs, it wouldn't be a problem. But adding new Items that do what the Everstone does is against streamlining the game. Multiple Items that do the same thing would naturally get streamlined together into one Item, so including them wouldn't streamline anything (the point of this topic). If you think putting a Synchronizer in the front of your party and using the DexNav to catch 1-3 Pokémon to get one to use the Everstone on "takes too much effort," that's a whole other point. But the truth of the matter is, the Everstone already does what you want these new Items to do. If you don't mind adding a bunch of Items that do the same thing, then that's that. But if we were to assume Sugimori's desire for streamlining the games will actually come to fruition in some way, I don't think those Items will ever see the light of day.

 

[pkmin3033]

I think this is where I really can't agree with your point. I think there should be some effort in getting your Pokémon. IVs, as I've said who knows how many times, I think are too much. But not wanting to go and get a proper-Nature parent? Isn't that "playing the game?" Exploring the location, finding your Pokémon, and catching it? If the DexNav feature returns (I'm crossing my fingers) it would be easier than ever and you'd still be "playing the game." But just telling the game, "Alright, I want X Nature, thanks"... that's no effort at all. In my mind, it's a pretty good compromise: just like how you have to prepare your body physically before you're even remotely ready to actually start practicing and playing a sport, you have to prepare your team before actually battling, and it's not something I think should be likened to pressing a few buttons on a machine, pulling the lever, and the Pokémon pops out.

I wouldn't say it is playing the game; it's doing the same thing over and over so that you can play it. The idea of playing a game is that you make progress. What progress is there in catching a Pokemon with the wrong nature over and over? It's tiresome, it's tedious, and it's outright boring. You've got, what, a 4% chance of finding the right one? There is no guarantee that the one you catch afterwards will be what you're looking for; your skill as a player is irrelevant and it's down solely to how lucky you are. The effort you put into the game in this context comes from training the Pokemon, from formulating your strategy, from actually doing things.

You might think that an exaggeration, but...well, RNGs are the bane of video games in my opinion. Chance should NEVER be a factor obstructing you from playing a game, and hunting for a specific nature is exactly that: an obstruction. Hunting for a specific nature does nothing except frustrate for the longer you go without finding it. It's wasted time. Wasted time is exactly what games should be designed to avoid. There can be no effort involved in something down entirely to chance, it's solely a question of patience, and when a game becomes an exercise in patience, it ceases to be fun. When you put in effort, you should make progress.

It's just odd to me that you're suggesting the point of a game is to play, but you're not even willing to go catch a parent Pokémon. What you're suggesting is closer to using a PowerSave to make your team rather than playing the game...

See my above points. What I'm suggesting is cutting out the random chance factor that stops you from getting what you want the first time. I'm suggesting allowing players to manipulate that so that they can play the game. Endless resets, wasted time catching what you don't want, and making zero progress for the effort you put in is NOT playing the game. It's an exercise in patience.

If the feature added is literally just an optional mini-game to hatch your Eggs, it wouldn't be a problem. But adding new Items that do what the Everstone does is against streamlining the game. Multiple Items that do the same thing would naturally get streamlined together into one Item, so including them wouldn't streamline anything (the point of this topic). If you think putting a Synchronizer in the front of your party and using the DexNav to catch 1-3 Pokémon to get one to use the Everstone on "takes too much effort," that's a whole other point. But the truth of the matter is, the Everstone already does what you want these new Items to do. If you don't mind adding a bunch of Items that do the same thing, then that's that. But if we were to assume Sugimori's desire for streamlining the games will actually come to fruition in some way, I don't think those Items will ever see the light of day.

Having nature modification items would remove the need to find a parent with the right nature, removing that aspect of chance, and makes things easier to do. There is nothing in the games that will let you choose your nature without some kind of pre-requisite. You can't deny that just using an item to affect the nature would be a lot faster than the process you described, surely? Thus it IS streamlining the process; it's far easier to access the nature you want because you don't already need to have it beforehand.

It doesn't even have to be through items. Anything that lets you guarantee the nature of your Pokemon would be useful. I just think if they're going to make competitive battling more accesible, that needs to be a factor, because right now getting the right nature is dependant on your luck more than it is your skill.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I also wouldn't mind if they made it so that the Pokémon that hatches might be that of the male species. There is no way for Male only mons to get moves through breeding (that I'm aware of) as they can only reproduce with Ditto if they want another of their line that is.

They could make it so that the species will be that of the first Pokémon deposited into the daycare(or in position one if one removes the first one and replaces it with another), and perhaps even have the daycare person an in game breeder mention something along the lines of "the Pokémon eggs I get at the daycare tend to hatch into one related to the first one of the pair that I placed into the Day care", to allow people to know about it. That way they won't have to add an item to get the desired species.

 

[Rivvon]

I wouldn't say it is playing the game; it's doing the same thing over and over so that you can play it. The idea of playing a game is that you make progress. What progress is there in catching a Pokemon with the wrong nature over and over? It's tiresome, it's tedious, and it's outright boring. You've got, what, a 4% chance of finding the right one? There is no guarantee that the one you catch afterwards will be what you're looking for; your skill as a player is irrelevant and it's down solely to how lucky you are. The effort you put into the game in this context comes from training the Pokemon, from formulating your strategy, from actually doing things.

You might think that an exaggeration, but...well, RNGs are the bane of video games in my opinion. Chance should NEVER be a factor obstructing you from playing a game, and hunting for a specific nature is exactly that: an obstruction. Hunting for a specific nature does nothing except frustrate for the longer you go without finding it. It's wasted time. Wasted time is exactly what games should be designed to avoid. There can be no effort involved in something down entirely to chance, it's solely a question of patience, and when a game becomes an exercise in patience, it ceases to be fun. When you put in effort, you should make progress.

Synchronize makes that into a 50% chance. Don't want to catch a Synchronizer? One key element of Pokémon is trading. So offer to trade for one! Or do what tons of people do and skip that completely--ask for a parent directly! You don't need to do everything yourself--and trading itself is intertwined with the game really well now thanks to the PSS. And once you get the parent, you are progressing.

See my above points. What I'm suggesting is cutting out the random chance factor that stops you from getting what you want the first time. I'm suggesting allowing players to manipulate that so that they can play the game. Endless resets, wasted time catching what you don't want, and making zero progress for the effort you put in is NOT playing the game. It's an exercise in patience.

I hate to say this but there will be numerous times where you lose competitive battles completely due to RNG not being in your favor. You're going to have to get used to chance elements and the game makes it so hand-holdingly easy to catch a parent Pokémon in gen 6 that it's really the least of your RNG worries if you want to get into competitive battling. And there are so many ways to manipulate the RNG in your favor (DexNav guarantees the Pokémon, and even allows for an Egg move and Hidden Ability + Synchronize gives you a 50% chance of the encountered Pokémon having the same Nature) that removing it entirely at this point just makes it a no-effort task.

I also wouldn't mind if they made it so that the Pokémon that hatches might be that of the male species. There is no way for Male only mons to get moves through breeding (that I'm aware of) as they can only reproduce with Ditto if they want another of their line that is.

Male Pokémon have always been the ones to pass down Egg moves. It's only starting in gen 6 that mothers also pass down Egg moves, so the gender of your Pokémon no longer matters when it comes to passing down Egg moves.

They could make it so that the species will be that of the first Pokémon deposited into the daycare(or in position one if one removes the first one and replaces it with another), and perhaps even have the daycare person an in game breeder mention something along the lines of "the Pokémon eggs I get at the daycare tend to hatch into one related to the first one of the pair that I placed into the Day care", to allow people to know about it. That way they won't have to add an item to get the desired species.

I dunno, that just sounds kind of strange to me. As of now, the only rough spot you'll have when breeding a male Pokémon is that it can only breed with Ditto and that may give you a hard time breeding for IVs. But in our ideal, IV-less world, is it really too much to just put your male Pokémon with a Ditto? So you don't have to worry "oh shoot, I put them in in the wrong order, time to pay P100 to take them out and rearrange them..."

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Synchronize makes that into a 50% chance. Don't want to catch a Synchronizer? One key element of Pokémon is trading. So offer to trade for one! Or do what tons of people do and skip that completely--ask for a parent directly! You don't need to do everything yourself--and trading itself is intertwined with the game really well now thanks to the PSS. And once you get the parent, you are progressing.



I hate to say this but there will be numerous times where you lose competitive battles completely due to RNG not being in your favor. You're going to have to get used to chance elements and the game makes it so hand-holdingly easy to catch a parent Pokémon in gen 6 that it's really the least of your RNG worries if you want to get into competitive battling. And there are so many ways to manipulate the RNG in your favor (DexNav guarantees the Pokémon, and even allows for an Egg move and Hidden Ability + Synchronize gives you a 50% chance of the encountered Pokémon having the same Nature) that removing it entirely at this point just makes it a no-effort task.







Male Pokémon have always been the ones to pass down Egg moves. It's only starting in gen 6 that mothers also pass down Egg moves, so the gender of your Pokémon no longer matters when it comes to passing down Egg moves.


I dunno, that just sounds kind of strange to me. As of now, the only rough spot you'll have when breeding a male Pokémon is that it can only breed with Ditto and that may give you a hard time breeding for IVs. But in our ideal, IV-less world, is it really too much to just put your male Pokémon with a Ditto? So you don't have to worry "oh shoot, I put them in in the wrong order, time to pay P100 to take them out and rearrange them..."

I meant for Male only mons like the Hitmons. They can't get egg moves. As for the 100, they can allow us to change the order without a charge.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

I meant for Male only mons like the Hitmons. They can't get egg moves. As for the 100, they can allow us to change the order without a charge.

The Male Only Pokemon without Egg Moves are Tauros, Throh, Sawk, and Rufflet. Volbeat and Nidoran♂ since they can be randomly generated from their female counterparts have egg move lists that include different fathers. The Hitmons can all pass down egg moves to Tyrogue. The other four aren't shared species and since they'd only be able to pass down from the father as the mother has to be a ditto, they'd learn nothing new.

I think changing the breeding mechanics would be the opposite of simplifying. It's pretty simple as it stands, they just need to make the less seen information more visible (IVs and such), which is what they have been doing. Turing it into a minigame kinda seems like it would complicate it more than it is now.

I can't guess what they'd mean by simplier. Could be fundamental story, focusing back on the player's exploits like in gens 1 and 2 rather than putting the player into destined hero role like every gen after 2. Maybe a more linear travel path. Too hard to tell imo.

 

[Micael Alighieri]

I'd glorify Ken Sugimori if they changed those terrible designs summoned by Junichi Masuda during 5th Generation development time. Apart from that, one of the things that made me get away from Pokemon battles is that the actual metagame is too complex, you spend more time thinking about strategies than actually battling. Knowing that it could have took your time to build a good strategy only to find that you have to keep changing everything is very discouraging. Also, there are movements that are too similar or even obscure. So yes, a simpler metagame would be appreciated.

 

[Andrewjessica]

Im more worried about simplifying the typing back to red/green/blue. Would that mean that Dark,Steel etc will have their typing changed completely? Pokemon like steelix is okay as have a secondary type but what about pokemon like Umbreon which has only a primary type which is dark. Or am i just overthinking?

 

[Biogoji]

Ok if they do stuff like removing moves and fusing types together that will be where I draw the line and tell Gamefreak to fuck off.

Why must they make the games more easy and simple instead of expanding upon their features and adding more of a challenge to make a truly great experience of a game. If this is the path they go down then I will be hesitant to purchase a copy of Sun and Moon.

 

[nullcakes]

I'm all for simplification, but at least only down to Gen 2 terms.
If you've ever played the originals, they are pretty unbalanced and... simple.

However, GSC, RSE, and DPP were just right. BW added just a little too much. XY made things better.

I'd like them to do a cut to some moves, there's way too damn many. EVs and IVs are good enough, but Super Training is kinda, weird. I'd like something different there, but it was nice to easily train EVs like that. IVs should be easier to obtain through breeding.

Story wise, Gen V was good, but it was a little too... not pokemon. They should look to Gen 2 in terms of story and keep the plot centered on the bad guys, and maybe not the legendaries.I don't want to have a legendary Pokemon by the time I fight the big boss.
More character development. Colress is great. Silver is great.
Have your rival actually be a rival. It really is a downward slope when it comes to rivals in the series, with maybe a little spike in Gen V but a downward spiral in Gen VI. Nobody wants friends, they want a competitor.

The originals were about catching them all, and evolving them all, and having a collection, a unique one, but the games have been stuffed with so many different things, and its changed. Bring back some simplicity, but not all of it. Gen 2 is great and Gen 4 with the physical/special split was good.

 

[Rivvon]

Ok if they do stuff like removing moves and fusing types together that will be where I draw the line

I can't even understand some peoples' justifications for combining Types together. "Water and Ice are the same thing in real life so they should be the same Type in Pokémon." Okay but their advantages and disadvantages are way different from each other so if you remove one you mess up the overall balancing a lot.

Or like, "Rock and Ground are both predominantly brown and share a weakness to Water, so they can become the same Type." Yeah but one doesn't affect Flying-Types at all and the other is one of its main weaknesses, so...they're really not so similar when you actually bother to look at the Type chart.

The balancing of Types is already kind of tough because the ones we have now compliment each other in an almost delicate fashion. Removing Steel's Dark and Ghost resistances in gen 6 was a pretty big deal in general and it had a huge impact on certain individual Pokémon, for example. There would have to be major reworkings if entire Types were flat-out removed, and is it really worth it?


And while I can understand some peoples' reasoning for wanting to "combine" some moves, like remove Bubble but keep Bubblebeam, I don't think that really works, either. From a competitive standpoint, sure, no one cares about those moves. But what about when you're just playing through the story? Imagine in an extreme scenario where all special Water moves were consolidated into Scald, arguably the best special Water move for general purposes. Yay, there are less attacks to keep track of now. But when your beloved Water starter hits Lv7 and learns its first Water move, it's gonna have 80 base power. That's whack. Even if it was more tame, like Bubble and Bubblebeam being combined, your first STAB move is gonna have 65 base power--still incredibly strong at that level.

It may seem weird to keep them separate at first because anyone is gonna replace Bubble with Bubblebeam, but that's sort of the point. As your Pokémon gets stronger, it learns stronger moves, too. Those weaker moves exist so your Pokémon isn't overpowered at lower levels during your story playthrough. It's, in my train of thought, the reason why Poison still exists despite Bad Poison being better in every way, period. It's for balance. Specifically, "story mode" balance.



At this point, any removal is gonna have to be met with extreme re-balancing across the board. And it may not even feel like the same game after that. I honestly think just slowing down the pace at which new moves and Pokémon are made would be the best option for now, rather than the complete removal of [insert thing here].

However, GSC, RSE, and DPP were just right. BW added just a little too much. XY made things better.

I'm really curious as to what you mean by gen 5 "adding too much." Mechanics-wise, all that was really added was triple and rotation battles. Gen 6 added way more mechanically than gen 5, so it seems odd to me that you think gen 6 "made things better."

Unless you're referring to gen 5's story, which was more complex, but it ultimately comes down to opinion whether you want a complex story or not. Lots of people prefer complex stories because they feature dynamic characters and the plot makes you think and is ultimately more memorable, unlike their simplistic counterparts.

Gen 5's story was about the bad guys--N specifically--it just had you catch a legendary and subsequently battle the Plasma leaders at the climax. You may say gen 5's plot didn't feel "Pokémon enough," but the truth is, we've gotten to the point that anything deviating from the tradition started by gen 3 will feel a bit foreign to the series. Whether someone likes that "tradition" or not is completely up to opinion, but gen 1 is still almost unarguably the weakest in terms of plot despite not following it...and as much as I love gen 2, its plot really isn't much better--but that's best left for another topic. Because ultimately, the interview which spawned this discussion was about Sugimori thinking the game mechanics had gotten too complex, and that he would be alright if there was some simplification. So I don't think any story-related choices will be impacted by this opinion.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I think fusing moves of the same type, and power, and of the same category can work. Bubble and Water gun for example.

 

[MarioManH]

Story wise, Gen V was good, but it was a little too... not pokemon. They should look to Gen 2 in terms of story and keep the plot centered on the bad guys, and maybe not the legendaries.

First would like to state that the plot for 5th Gen was not legendary-centered. Yes, the legendaries in the games did have influence on the plot and did add to it, but it was not focused on them as it was during 3d and 4th Gen. These games put a huge focus on the idea of whether or not having Pokemon battle/trade/kept-in-balls was right or wrong. A majority of the story focused on this issue, and went a lot into depth about a human's connection with a Pokemon. They also take this theme into 6th Gen a bit with Mega Evolution. Gen 1/2 were very "simple" in terms of story, but it doesn't mean games have to copy them in order to be "simple". Both Black/White & X/Y were very simple in terms of story compared to 3d and 4th gen, and the fact that they both touched on some issues of morality brings more of a mature light to the game.

The originals were about catching them all, and evolving them all, and having a collection, a unique one, but the games have been stuffed with so many different things, and its changed. Bring back some simplicity, but not all of it. Gen 2 is great and Gen 4 with the physical/special split was good.

The games are still about catching them all. This theme was drifted away a bit in 3d/4th but was brought back in 5th Gen. B/W introduced a region with only that regions Pokemon, allowing for a nice solid Regional dex to be completed. Also if you even bothered to pay attention to B/W, there's a constant push for you to increase your Pokemon collection and complete your Pokedex. There's even a mini-competition to collect as much Pokemon as your rivals in the first route of the game.
They also "stuffed so many different things" in the games in order to add diversity to each game and to also give more to do. I mean catching Pokemon is great and all, but it would get boring if it was nearly the same thing without anything else to do as more games are released. The games should have more to do, and they do, and for that most of the fans are grateful (Clearly you aren't). Also it's worth mentioning that with more technology for GF and Nintendo to work with, the better/greater things they can add to the games.
Picture this: Pokemon is first being released next year. Do you think that it would be the same as R/B/Y with better graphics? Most likely not, as they could do so much more with the games since they're able to do so much more as compared to back in the 90s.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I went back and read the interview, and it sounds like Sugimori thinks that there are a lot of Pokémon. He brushes aside the notion of erasing some of them. It also mentions the (art) form could be simplified, as well as items, moves, and abilities. Nothing on the mechanics, and of course no mention of fusing types (this was me brainstorming in the OP) .

 

[nullcakes]

First would like to state that the plot for 5th Gen was not legendary-centered. Yes, the legendaries in the games did have influence on the plot and did add to it, but it was not focused on them as it was during 3d and 4th Gen. These games put a huge focus on the idea of whether or not having Pokemon battle/trade/kept-in-balls was right or wrong. A majority of the story focused on this issue, and went a lot into depth about a human's connection with a Pokemon. They also take this theme into 6th Gen a bit with Mega Evolution. Gen 1/2 were very "simple" in terms of story, but it doesn't mean games have to copy them in order to be "simple". Both Black/White & X/Y were very simple in terms of story compared to 3d and 4th gen, and the fact that they both touched on some issues of morality brings more of a mature light to the game.


The games are still about catching them all. This theme was drifted away a bit in 3d/4th but was brought back in 5th Gen. B/W introduced a region with only that regions Pokemon, allowing for a nice solid Regional dex to be completed. Also if you even bothered to pay attention to B/W, there's a constant push for you to increase your Pokemon collection and complete your Pokedex. There's even a mini-competition to collect as much Pokemon as your rivals in the first route of the game.
They also "stuffed so many different things" in the games in order to add diversity to each game and to also give more to do. I mean catching Pokemon is great and all, but it would get boring if it was nearly the same thing without anything else to do as more games are released. The games should have more to do, and they do, and for that most of the fans are grateful (Clearly you aren't). Also it's worth mentioning that with more technology for GF and Nintendo to work with, the better/greater things they can add to the games.
Picture this: Pokemon is first being released next year. Do you think that it would be the same as R/B/Y with better graphics? Most likely not, as they could do so much more with the games since they're able to do so much more as compared to back in the 90s.

I didn't say the plot of Gen V was legendary centered. I just said that the plot of Gen VII shouldn't be legendary centered.

Gen V is my favorite generation, and although it's my favorite it doesn't appeal to everyone. It's more story oriented, and that's a fact. I love the story, but I feel like maybe the next Generation should be less story oriented, that's all. I found that the story of Gen VI took itself way too seriously and they shouldn't go that route again. I'm just saying to maybe take elements from Gen II when it comes to story simplicity, not as bibles. They were simple but still had engaging game-play and weren't way too focused on story. When Pokemon takes its story too seriously it personally makes me cringe. It's like when Sonic tries to take its story seriously: its a talking hedgehog with tons of anthropomorphic friends for gods sake.You're a kid running around catching Pokemon. Pokemon, in my opinion, is more light hearted and should appeal to all age ranges. More like a cartoon, with adult humor being masked under childlike setting. Gen V, like I said, was my favorite, but it doesn't appeal to the Pokemon spirit that everyone enjoys.

The motto was dropped after the third generation. Rightfully so, regional dex excluded, catching them all means catching all 721, hunting for legendaries, downloading them, trading endlessly, it's an outdated concept. I like what Black and White did with catching brand new Pokemon, and I thought it was a refresher. But the games can never go back to the utter simplicity of a 151 collection that could be completed with you and a friend that didn't involve spending hours upon hours doing so, which let me tell you catching all 721 starting with only 1 will take you. I never said that the games today were bad, I just said they were stuffed with many different things. Pokemon amie is bloat, so is super training, contests, the whole shebang. It's bloat. There's too many things to do. That can be just as bad as too little. I enjoyed the end game of both B2W2 , GSC, and RSE in that order. X and Y felt bloated, so did ORAS. I am appreciative of these additions but some I do not agree should be carried over to the next games. I think they should be more simplistic and appeal to the styles of the original games more.

To answer your question about the game being released today: You really can't answer that question. It's a really bad hypothetical in the sense that you cant really take events out of context and try to place them in today's time. Pokemon probably influenced a lot of RPGs and maybe even changed the field. It wouldn't be the same today, considering the impact Pokemon has made. I do think, with a bit of speculation, you are right, the games would be improved. But they wouldn't have a lot of features that the games have today, no, because those features developed over time and came to fruition due to the evolution of the series.

 

[Tankenka]

I'd like less but more memorable characters, and a more solitary adventure like in the first games.
Those friend kids in XY were useless and they never improved themselves.
Blue or Silver were way more memorable with even less line of dialogues.
That moment when you encounter Red on the top of the mountain? Basically no text and yet absolutely fantastic, never experienced again in later games.

Also, I hope there are few legendaries, just 5-6 is alright.

 

[Micael Alighieri]

I went back and read the interview, and it sounds like Sugimori thinks that there are a lot of Pokémon. He brushes aside the notion of erasing some of them. It also mentions the (art) form could be simplified, as well as items, moves, and abilities. Nothing on the mechanics, and of course no mention of fusing types (this was me brainstorming in the OP) .

For God's sake, let's hope that he doesn't remove anything from previous gens in favour of Gen 5th...

I think fusing moves of the same type, and power, and of the same category can work. Bubble and Water gun for example.

Actually not, Bubble has a chance to low foe's speed movement, while Water gun hasn't. The thing about removing moves is harder than we thought, we shouldn't even remove Pound or Tackle, as they involve other body parts. I think the only viable deletions would be the ones which balance the metagame a bit more, like removing Stealth Rock for example.