Will pokemon continue to be overly simplistic?

Dr. Wiggles

Free Thinker
    • 41
    Posts
    10
    Years
    The game was made easy for children. Do you think in future game development, they will continue to aim the game at chidlren? Or make it harder for those who continue playing it from their early childhood?
     
    Well, we do have the complexity of battling. The competitive side with IVs, EVs, nature and the metagame at large all allow the depth the seasoned veterans among us can squeeze out of the game. The strategy shown at the 2015 VGC this weekend can attest to that.

    Granted, X/Y's weak story and in-game had a lot of hand-holding, if you're just referring to the in-game. *Here's someone telling you where to go next at every step* while we would simply explore in Red/Blue until we stumbled upon something interesting. It'd be nice to see more "hard mode" in further installations.

    And on the flip-side, Nuzlocking has given us a self-imposed way of making the in-game more challenging.
     
    BeachBoy said:
    Well, we do have the complexity of battling. The competitive side with IVs, EVs, nature and the metagame at large all allow the depth the seasoned veterans among us can squeeze out of the game. The strategy shown at the 2015 VGC this weekend can attest to that.

    Granted, X/Y's weak story and in-game had a lot of hand-holding, if you're just referring to the in-game. *Here's someone telling you where to go next at every step* while we would simply explore in Red/Blue until we stumbled upon something interesting.

    And on the flip-side, Nuzlocking has given us a self-imposed way of making the in-game more challenging.
    Click to expand...

    Regarding your first point. Do you think the developers expected competitive battling or did it come naturally from those who created it?

    Nuzlocking is a self restriction we set on ourselves to make the game more interesting. I am speaking of a development standpoint.
     
    Dr. Wiggles said:
    Regarding your first point. Do you think the developers expected competitive battling or did it come naturally from those who created it?

    Nuzlocking is a self restriction we set on ourselves to make the game more interesting. I am speaking of a development standpoint.
    Click to expand...
    There's a lot here, sorry for the rambling.

    Tournaments with prizes had to be in the minds of a battle-focused game from the start, to make it a worldwide phenom. A point to this focus on competitiveness is that they've introduced typing accordingly. Psychic-types lay waste to everything in Gen I? Hello, steel and dark. The dragons are over-powered? Fairy typing arrives.

    Children can go on their merry way, but then they can they discover the hidden side (though you can never really go back).

    About Nuzlocke, hence why I said "self-imposed." I think it speaks to the fact that we don't have to rely on the game out of the box. Regardless of how pokemon expands, experienced players will always find a way to make things interesting, as it's a two-way flow of innovation. One has to wonder how GameFreak factors this player creativity into their changes and progress.

    But back to your point, I think how the AI improves makes a major difference. Were the AI to start switching more aggressively, we'd have a far more difficult experience (Battle facility strategies, for once, would have to change dramatically).

    I also wonder why they had a challenge mode in B2/W2, but it was nowhere to be found in X/Y. Hopefully not a one-game wonder, or starting a trend toward the easier experience.

    What do you think about where they are headed?
     
    Sorry, if I reiterated your point, it was for emphasis.

    I still think AI is lacking immensely, even for children. With the attention nuzlocking gets, I would hope to see various game modes in the future that supports that very idea of game play.

    I however am not sure when this will come to light. You would think after 18 years, they would make the game a bit more two sided.
     
    I don't think the games are gonna get any different. We already have somewhat of an idea as to why they've made the games easier (not only to be beneficial to children, but because they know the lives of the older players are getting busier), and I don't think the AI can really be made perfect for handheld systems. I think someone else said somewhere on the forum (Cerberus87 I think) about how the DS systems aren't capable of having that great AI even on other RPGs like Fire Emblem, so they may never be able to make it perfect.

    And given the variety in newer games such as BW2 and XY, I don't think we'll ever have a Champion on caliber with Cynthia again. Besides, not everyone is gonna have the same time on those notes. Although with ORAS, I do wonder what Steven will be like with Mega Metagross...
     
    Stargazer said:
    I don't think the games are gonna get any different. We already have somewhat of an idea as to why they've made the games easier (not only to be beneficial to children, but because they know the lives of the older players are getting busier), and I don't think the AI can really be made perfect for handheld systems. I think someone else said somewhere on the forum (Cerberus87 I think) about how the DS systems aren't capable of having that great AI even on other RPGs like Fire Emblem, so they may never be able to make it perfect.

    And given the variety in newer games such as BW2 and XY, I don't think we'll ever have a Champion on caliber with Cynthia again. Besides, not everyone is gonna have the same time on those notes. Although with ORAS, I do wonder what Steven will be like with Mega Metagross...
    Click to expand...

    Do you view pokemon as a game of grind? I don't think the game is meant to be played for hours on end. I doubt the AI can't be improved to a point where it's somewhat challenging.

    > 12 hp left
    > AI uses agility

    I never stop seeing this, even with the newer versions of the games in extended game play.
     
    Just moving this over to Pokemon Gaming Central, since you are talking about the games.

    -moved
     
    If complexity is a must for some players, they can get into the competitive aspect as mentioned a bit above, with IV/EVs and breeding and all of that. As for actual in game, I honestly think the Pokemon games can use a little touch-up difficulty-wise, but otherwise it should stay how it is. You had the choice of Challenge Mode, but that was only available for Black 2 and White 2. That's where people-made challenges come in - it's as if Game Freak created the idea for a game, and left us to create a few of the rules. With the Challenge Mode thing, and challenges, the kiddy nature of Pokemon would work with difficulty being higher, though it'd be nicer if the difficulty could at least be changed.

    Simplicity is one of the series' defining points in my opinion, and I wouldn't like it if that defining point disappeared all of a sudden.
     
    Its kind of unfortunate that Sakurai isn't on the leading staff that works on Pokemon. Sakurai really loves the adjustable difficulty meter. I honestly don't understand why that's not a more standard feature in games. Well, actually it's probably due to production values increasing since it's fairly complex.

    The great thing about being able to adjust the difficulty is that it can save on breeding time. If done correctly. On higher difficulty it would make sense to give Pokemon better IVs and access to hidden abilities. It'd also be nice because you could get better legendaries without having to hack, since they can't breed.

    As for if Pokemon would make a tougher game... It doesn't seem very likely to me. Why GameFreak is as averse to difficulty settings I am unsure. I could understand making the first editions easier and having less options because they're building it from the ground up. But difficulty settings for the 'third' installment need to be a standard, with the difficulty setting being available at the start of the game.
     
    Pokemon will always be aimed at children, because that allows them to go for a wider audience. If they were going to aim the games at older audiences, that would cut out a lot of their younger buyers from getting the game. However, aiming the games at children doesn't take away from any of their buyers really (or we'll never know) because older people can self-impose challenging rules on themselves to make the games harder, and we do have a part of Pokemon in the form of competitive battling that was really only aimed at the older kids since it's a hidden function of the games. It's not really the best solution because the game isn't really that hard for us, but I doubt that it'll ever change unless they implement a real difficulty setting.
     
    I think PMD: EoS was a little harder (and they have a Zero Isle South dungeon which is probably the hardest challenge that any Pokemon game has presented "in-game").
     
    Pokemon is and always will be aimed towards children, even though I think Pokemon is aimed towards anyone. Like most games.
     
    Pokémon games weren't made specifically for children, per se; they were made for everybody. It's a family-friendly series, where almost all people could get together and enjoy their time playing. I suppose it was indeed aimed at kids at first, but right now, that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.

    Will they any kind of drastic change at some point in future? Their current formula is working pretty well for these guys, I'd say, but if something ever happens and it starts failing, then I honestly don't see why not. Sometimes, change is good, isn't it?
     
    As long as Pokemon continues to rake in the money for Game Freak and Nintendo, I doubt it'll change too much. Companies are first and foremost concerned with making money. The Pokemon formula has been working very well for them over the years, so they haven't bothered to make drastic changes to it (though we have gotten some fairly serious changes like new types or abilities). For them, its a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" scenario.

    While Pokemon isn't/wasn't necessarily aimed at children like Ashley said, it has, for whatever reason, been labeled as a children's game. They also like to keep it "easy" so it's accessible to new players. If the game is "too difficult" some people are gonna be scared away by it, and that's bad for business. After they have your money, they don't care what you do with the games. It would be nice though if Game Freak acknowledged the fact that the majority of Pokemon's fanbase is people who were kids when they first played but are now older.

    They did attempt to add more difficulty to the games with Black2/White2's Challenge mode, but that was rather poorly implemented.

    So basically, unless Pokemon game sales begin to tank hard, Game Freak isn't really gonna do anything really drastic to the series.
     
    Racket said:
    I think PMD: EoS was a little harder (and they have a Zero Isle South dungeon which is probably the hardest challenge that any Pokemon game has presented "in-game").
    Click to expand...

    Purity Forest in the first Mystery Dungeon games was the same deal. And even worse is the Destiny Tower, haha (you HAVE to go through the entire thing without fainting once, and can't be rescued, and there are those stupid Grudge traps). I've beaten it, though, it was nerve-wracking.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top