God Koh, Seriously?
The whle story being the same?
Really?
Stop repeating the same thing over and over,
You do realize that if you took away the bad Teams, what will the series end up? There wont be any epic climax, any reason for you to push yourself forward, itll just be a kid wanting to be at the top, not someone trying to make himslf a path to beat a team that is creating havoc. Thats why they have to keep the story linear. And seriously the pokemon proffesor and breeder thing are more fit to be minigames than anything else. Like Flannel said what can you do as a breeder or trainer. They already let you diverge a bit by the Contests and Pokeathlon. Most people like it the way it is. And you should leave it at that.
[/twocents]
Who or what should the conflict be against if not against a Team of some kind, Koh? And what exactly are the defining comparisons between New Super Mario and 3D World that are even applicable to Pokemon?
Again, these are actual questions.
Could be against a single entity. Or if they were smart they could have kept Team Rocket going so it wouldn't seem like there were a million evil "teams" in the Pokemon world just causing mischief everywhere. At least it would seem more organized, then.
I can see where Koh is coming from. It's a formula, and he's tired of it.
Team Rocket again would be MORE formulaic imo.
Now if there was some kind of tremendous disaster and a reformed Team Rocket showed up to HELP, that could be an interesting twist.
A single person who is "against" the player ? Thats Rival and N's role before he was reavled plasma . Need something more concrete than a single person.
(10-04-2013, 04:53 PM)TomGuycott Wrote: [ -> ]Who or what should the conflict be against if not against a Team of some kind, Koh? And what exactly are the defining comparisons between New Super Mario and 3D World that are even applicable to Pokemon?
Again, these are actual questions.
New Super Mario Bros was more or less a "new gen" Super Mario World, which is fine. Then the next releases of this series were basically rehashes of the same thing. Then 3D Land comes along and gives us something completely different in terms of gameplay, yet still with familar pieces of the Mario setup we came to know, such as collecting coins, stomping enemies, and racing through wacky levels. 3D World aims to innovate the game play even more, yet still retaining the Mario charm. Final Boss tends to be Bowser, but it's never the same battle strategy; he always does something different in each game.
Pokemon on the other hand, while I'll give it credit for things like Horde Battles and better Multiplayer to help innovate the gameplay a little, hasn't really done such levels of innovation since Gen II and III. II was the most, bringing the most changes to the series like Breeding and Day/Night, then Gen III brings us Abilities that every Pokemon has. Gen VI is trying something similar with Mega Evos, but again it's a form change, which has been seen since Gen III and doesn't scream "new!" As for the story, the formula has been the same each game regarding an evil Team sporadically needing your attention, and then you infiltrate their base and stop their leader. Since Gen 3, they've been working Legendaries into that, so that whole spiel's been tried and tired. Would it kill them to break away from that?
I'm not sick of fighting new Teams, I'm just sick of fighting new Teams with some crazy dream to change the world. Never liked how the games tried teaching hamfisted anime morals.
(10-04-2013, 05:46 PM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2013, 04:53 PM)TomGuycott Wrote: [ -> ]Who or what should the conflict be against if not against a Team of some kind, Koh? And what exactly are the defining comparisons between New Super Mario and 3D World that are even applicable to Pokemon?
Again, these are actual questions.
New Super Mario Bros was more or less a "new gen" Super Mario World, which is fine. Then the next releases of this series were basically rehashes of the same thing. Then 3D Land comes along and gives us something completely different in terms of gameplay, yet still with familar pieces of the Mario setup we came to know, such as collecting coins, stomping enemies, and racing through wacky levels. 3D World aims to innovate the game play even more, yet still retaining the Mario charm. Final Boss tends to be Bowser, but it's never the same battle strategy; he always does something different in each game.
Pokemon on the other hand, while I'll give it credit for things like Horde Battles and better Multiplayer to help innovate the gameplay a little, hasn't really done such levels of innovation since Gen II and III. II was the most, bringing the most changes to the series like Breeding and Day/Night, then Gen III brings us Abilities that every Pokemon has. Gen VI is trying something similar with Mega Evos, but again it's a form change, which has been seen since Gen III and doesn't scream "new!" As for the story, the formula has been the same each game regarding an evil Team sporadically needing your attention, and then you infiltrate their base and stop their leader. Since Gen 3, they've been working Legendaries into that, so that whole spiel's been tried and tired. Would it kill them to break away from that?
That didn't answer my question, but whatever, it does bring up another thing I thought of while at work:
The comparison of Mario 3D World to the previous New Super Mario games and the Pokemon XY compared to previous generations are SO SIMILAR I don't understand why you even use that to sell your point (Which is I assume you find Pokemon repetitive. That's fine, just don't make comparisons that are the reverse of your point).
Here's a short list:
-Mario 3D world pulls the fun coop gameplay of New Super Mario and puts it into a 3D environment. Pokemon XY takes the main series games into full 3D graphics, something that's NEVER BEEN DONE in the main series.
-Mario 3D World introduces new power ups while Pokemon XY introduces new Pokemon and ways to use them (Mega Evolutions).
-3D World brings back a playable character that hasn't been relevantly playable in its main series games for years, while Pokemon gives opportunities for old, underpowered Pokemon to be relevant again with the introduction of the Mega Evolutions.
-3D World is STILL just Bowser, just like there's still an evil team in Pokemon. There's as much of a chance that Bowser just gets bigger than normal again as there is a chance of the evil team trying to control a Legendary Pokemon for world domination (or in Team Flare's case beautification).
To be honest, sticking to the topic of the evil team, which seems to be your main gripe in terms of overused story elements, the only things known about the Team are that they are obsessed with beauty and making money, with no other story elements attached. What their part of the plot is at this point is entirely speculation. Sure, odds are they WILL go after strong Pokemon to achieve some sort of goal, but I'll ask you again, do you have any other alternative to that? As of yet you have yet to say what would actually impress you.
Lastly, you brought up the fact that Mega Evolutions were "just a form change", which has been around since Gen III. First of all, Gen II introduced something of that regard with Unown's alternate shapes. Gen III Had a PAIR of them, Castform and Deoxys, one of which was a barely legitimately obtained Legendary Pokemon. If anything, Forms were capitalized the most in Gen IV and V. Mega Evolutions is a BATTLE ONLY transformation, and there are limitations to how and when it can be used, making it a strategic tool rather than a form you have to be ready OUTSIDE of battle before you can use it. It brings another level into the gameplay, just like the inclusion of horde and to an extent air battles (though the latter seems to be more of an aesthetic effect).
So like I said before, it's FINE you don't like the way the XY games are looking. That's your subjective opinion and you have a right to it. Just when you cite a source, get your facts straight.
I don't get why you assume everyone would love an open-world game Koh. Some people feel very tired about them or kinda lost. It's a diferent game, if you want an open world, go fucking play Skyrim then. Linearity isn't bad as people make it sound like, a lot of games have been really linear and they were great games. I think I talked about this in this exact thread, but Japanese game design is more focused on set goals and western on arbitrary ones.
Also Pokémon has always been very anime and over-the-top, new teams with ridiculous plots give it a really nice charm (and kids love that)
@Tom: 3D is just an aesthetic; the game is still played in a top-down fashion. If anything, what should be said is the games are the first to fully use polygonal models, because Gen IV started 3D worlds, but still used 2D sprites. It's not changing the way we actually play the game, just a change in the looks.
@Mu: Linearity in and of itself isn't bad; it's when it's done to the extreme, constantly holding the player's hand and getting in the way of them actually breaking off and exploring on their own when it becomes a nuisance.
I don't see how Pokemon's linearity is different from any other traditional RPG, Koh. And if you actually explore areas in Pokemon you get rewarded with things like items, sometimes rarer Pokemon if you explore a deep area of a cave.. Also, 3D models are an exciting draw for a lot of people who grew up where Pokemon Stadium style games were the only games featuring the 3D model style. And even if that's just aesthetic, all the OTHER battle features I mentioned numerous times ARE changing the way the game is played.
I'm dropping it now, because I know exactly what you're going to say: the same shit you've been saying for the past hundred pages you've argued about ANYTHING on these forums.
It's just a battle of preferences really. Some people don't want a change from the old formula, and that's fine for them. I imagine there were people against Ocarina of Time completely changing the way Zelda games are played compared to the previous top down games. Just keep in mind I'm not hating on Gen 6. One thing people always seem to forget is that you can like something, while still being critical of it. I've always liked, and always will like Pokemon (though I like Dragon Quest Monsters better, simply because of the much higher level of customization with the monsters), but that doesn't mean I'll like every single little thing they do or don't do.
The point here is that you were trying to make it objectively better ("everyone will enjoy it"), while all the changes were to mostly please you, because what you changed weren't exactly flaws.
it's fine you having your opinion and being critical, but you can't really enter a discussion all: "this thing is shit they should change it" and expect people to not... you know... discuss
Except the discussion became pretty heavily focused on the discussers, and really wasn't anything more than "I like it" and "I don't like it" with a few obscenities thrown in.
Honestly there's nothing wrong with doing something completely new with the series. I've been wanting that with Mario for a few years now.
I must admit there are quite a few aspects of Pokemon that have gotten stale in my opinion.