Okay, so a lot of people really aren't understanding why I'm really starting to dislike the route Pokemon is undertaking. But after I give them my thorough explanation and solution, then they understand why I feel the way I do. So let's break this into 2 sections: The what and why, and the solution.

The What and Why
Pokemon Black and White. Let's open this paragraph with a fragment sentence. Overall the games are DECENT, but why aren't they amazing? Here's the problem...historically, and innovatively speaking, Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal were the best games of the series. Why? They brought MANY staples to the series that still exist in almost all the games today. Breeding, day/night cycle, communication tools, two regions in one game with 16 badges to get total, improved engines, etc. It was mind-blowing when these games first came out, and sold a ton of copies, all for good reason. The design of the world was done in a way that made the games open for exploration and easy to branch off and make your own path after certain points of the games, therefore making the games non-linear after that point of the games was reached, which is after Goldenrod City, by the way.

Pokemon Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald come out years later and introduce a few more elements to the series, while, for some reason no one knows, dropping the day/night cycle for these games. That was a dumb move. What could possibly have went wrong? Who knows. But ultimately, it wasn't there, so the Pokemon World on these games (as well as FireRed and LeafGreen) were trapped in a forever-daytime dimension. Easy to overcome, but why the heck was such a feature able to be put on a system that has LESS processing power and memory, and not the newer one? Sense, it makes none. Continuing on, these games also stripped a bit of the player's choices in which directions they could take when exploring. While they had a couple, it wasn't as open as it was during the Johto games. This marked the start of the Hand Holding Era, I like to call it. Sinnoh followed suit.

Pokemon Diamond, Pearl and Platinum were then released years after that, bringing back Day/Night that should've been there since the beginning, and introducing a small number of staples as well as the usual engine improvements. However, these games were the TRUE start of the Hand Holding Era. Not once in these games are you able to branch off and pick which route you want to take. You constantly have to follow the path they set out for you. HOWEVER, the map wasn't designed in such a way to make you feel like you are, because of all the twists and turns. This is a good mask, and better than Black and White for that, but still...doesn't change the fact that you still couldn't do anything off the beaten path.

So finally Black and White came out after those. These are the worst in the Hand Holding Era. Why is that? It's not because of the story, which these games are actually the most plot-driven of the series. It's because of it's extreme linearity. What compelled the games to take such a nosedive in this regard? So the Kanto games allowed you to branch off after going through the Rock Tunnel to get to Lavender Town...The Johto/Kanto games allowed you to pick after Goldenrod, and subsequently in Kanto, you could go pretty much anywhere you wanted right off the bat, Hoenn cut it down to a minimal choice, and then Sinnoh set the solid stone path of traversing while Black and White followed suit. Apparently, Black and White 2 do the same exact thing. What's with the downward spiral? Isn't Pokemon supposed to be about EXPLORING THE WORLD, while looking for partner creatures and collecting badges to become a Pokemon master? Pokemon Black and White feature a relatively small map compared to the rest, which gives you the illusion of a circle at first. But in actuality, you only get to travel around one side before you beat the game the first time, effectively making the path to the Pokemon League more or less a straight line. A STRAIGHT LINE. After the Johto games, the exploration factor deteriorated while the story factor exponentially increased. Why can't both go up? Why should you have to sacrifice one for the other? And this is where my proposal comes.

The Proposal (Solution)
So what could possibly add to fix the games now that they chose this route? Ultimately, if things continue the exact same way, nothing. There's nothing you can ADD to this to fix it. But there're somethings you can CHANGE. And here's what they are:

Gym Order: Why make it an order? This is the first problem of the games, in which it's tackled completely wrong. What they need to do here, is instead of making the region setup so you HAVE to do Gyms in a certain order, why not make it so you can get to every Gym of the game right from the start? But how would this work, some might ask? It's really not hard to grasp. Each Gym basically ranks up in levels of the Pokemon the higher you climb. So that should've put a spark in their minds that the Gym Leader's power should be determined by the number of badges you have. This way, people have freedom to take on any gym they want in any order they want. So for example, everyone knows that on Pokemon Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, FireRed and LeafGreen that you battle Brock, then Misty, then Lt. Surge. But why not let people choose to go after Misty first, who's team's levels would be tailored to the number of badges you have, then backtrack to Brock, who would at this point be stronger than Misty, and then Surge? Or even Surge, then an even stronger Brock? This would allow for many different combinations, which would effectively change how the entire game is played, and would also offer a ton of replay value.

Cutscene Driven Events: So nullifying the starting scenes, since you wouldn't have any badges at that point, all cutscenes should be based on how many badges you have. In just about every game, something will happen to the plot after you get to the next gym and clear it. So instead of locking the player in that area until they get their grubby mitts on that badge, why not make the same events trigger in a different location based on the number of badges? For example, on Black and White, Cheren wants to challenge you right after each gym to see how strong you are. That can be done at anytime, with him coming off screen from whatever location you're at to where you're standing, and then you'd do your little encounter there. Team Plasma is supposed to stir up drama near the Gym as soon as you leave? Why not make it happen right outside the Gym you decided to do next, instead of a specific location? See, there's no reason to barricade the players in like that. Everything would be based on the number of badges you have, and the difficulty would be scaled to that.

HM Badge Requirements: This should be gotten rid of entirely. If you find a Hidden Machine, you shouldn't have to have some badge to be able to use it, you should just be able to use it. How does the program know you have the badge or not anyway, and who keeps track of that? Why are you allowed to use it in battle, but not on the overworld? This concept never made sense, and it still doesn't. If you find or receive a Hidden Machine, you should be able to use it right away to explore more areas.

Random Trainers: Unlike the cutscenes, these guys should have their teams scaled base on the average level of your current party. This way, not only are you able to go to what would be considered the "end area" of the game and still be alright, but also would make it easier to find a trainer to train your full Level 1 Party without having to battle some random wild Pokemon first.

---
So does this all make sense? It should...it's not cryptic. Who else agrees with all of this?

Sounds nice, but I'm afraid Nintendo won't do that, and this is why:

Logistically speaking, it's a lot of effort. To allow the plot to be moved around to wherever you happen to be is difficult to program, and will take a lot of time. The fact is, while it may not be the best it could be, the current system works, and Nintendo know that a lot of sales will come from a new Pokemon game regardless of whether they put the extra effort in, so why would they bother doubling or tripling the development time (which your suggestions would) when they can do just as well with what they have already, perhaps better, since it's tried and tested.

Plus, lots of games retain the same style yet no one complains about that.

In fact, remember how people bashed Legend of Zelda 2 for being different from the usual top down style? (Even though Nintendo hadn't found a staple style yet, but people love to ignore details like that...)

Some of your ideas aren't too bad but it'll kinda break things. For instance, Gym Order. Lots of games have bosses that you have to battle in order. I don't see how that's a problem in any way. Games like Mega Man and Prinny do allow you to pick any order of bosses, but there are more games that do otherwise.

(09-07-2012, 06:10 PM)Hoeloe Wrote: Sounds nice, but I'm afraid Nintendo won't do that, and this is why:

Logistically speaking, it's a lot of effort. To allow the plot to be moved around to wherever you happen to be is difficult to program, and will take a lot of time. The fact is, while it may not be the best it could be, the current system works, and Nintendo know that a lot of sales will come from a new Pokemon game regardless of whether they put the extra effort in, so why would they bother doubling or tripling the development time (which your suggestions would) when they can do just as well with what they have already, perhaps better, since it's tried and tested.

And that's the problem. They're too afraid to break out of their comfort zone, so the games are all basically the same exact thing :C.

Though it's hard to say what gamers will accept these days. Keep everything the same, and they'll want something different. Give them something different and they'll want things the same.

(09-07-2012, 06:31 PM)DragonBoy Wrote: Though it's hard to say what gamers will accept these days. Keep everything the same, and they'll want something different. Give them something different and they'll want things the same.

I don't mind change as long as it's handled at least tolerably. Some things take a nosedive when changed, which is when people really get upset about it.

(09-07-2012, 06:29 PM)Koh Wrote: And that's the problem. They're too afraid to break out of their comfort zone, so the games are all basically the same exact thing :C.

Because, as far as they're concerned, they earn a hell of a lot of money from it.

(09-07-2012, 06:36 PM)Hoeloe Wrote:

(09-07-2012, 06:29 PM)Koh Wrote: And that's the problem. They're too afraid to break out of their comfort zone, so the games are all basically the same exact thing :C.

Because, as far as they're concerned, they earn a hell of a lot of money from it.

Which is ultimately another big debateable problem in the gaming industry. Of course money needs to be made for the time put into making games, I can understand that. But if that's the only goal or the ultimate goal, then the actual gameplay usually suffers from it.

(09-07-2012, 06:38 PM)Koh Wrote: Which is ultimately another big debateable problem in the gaming industry. Of course money needs to be made for the time put into making games, I can understand that. But if that's the only goal or the ultimate goal, then the actual gameplay usually suffers from it.

I do agree, but you also need to consider the target audience. What a lot of people forget is that Pokemon games are not made for us. We complain about how they're too easy, and too linear, and too similar to what we've seen before, but we always forget that the games aren't aimed at us. They're aimed at children. The point of new Pokemon games is so that children have essentially the same experience we all did with Red and Blue, or Gold and Silver. However, the games need to be adapted to fit the modern gaming culture.
Games in the GB era were very limited. They didn't have the hardware capability for much content, or for stunning visuals or in-depth plot. The way this was compensated for was by adding difficulty to the games, to make what little content there was stretch out. Now that this is no longer an issue, games have become easier in favour of more content. The new Pokemon games have been made to mirror the difficulty this generation of children is familiar with. Think of it this way: could you honestly imagine your average child from this generation persevering with Super Mario Bros.? Why would they, when they can have an easier time on a more modern game?
My point is that the aim of the new Pokemon games was never to be something new. In fact, the whole point is that it stays more or less the same.

(09-07-2012, 06:45 PM)Hoeloe Wrote: I do agree, but you also need to consider the target audience. What a lot of people forget is that Pokemon games are not made for us. We complain about how they're too easy, and too linear, and too similar to what we've seen before, but we always forget that the games aren't aimed at us. They're aimed at children. The point of new Pokemon games is so that children have essentially the same experience we all did with Red and Blue, or Gold and Silver. However, the games need to be adapted to fit the modern gaming culture.
Games in the GB era were very limited. They didn't have the hardware capability for much content, or for stunning visuals or in-depth plot. The way this was compensated for was by adding difficulty to the games, to make what little content there was stretch out. Now that this is no longer an issue, games have become easier in favour of more content. The new Pokemon games have been made to mirror the difficulty this generation of children is familiar with. Think of it this way: could you honestly imagine your average child from this generation persevering with Super Mario Bros.? Why would they, when they can have an easier time on a more modern game?
My point is that the aim of the new Pokemon games was never to be something new. In fact, the whole point is that it stays more or less the same.

I see people say that all the time. This is a poor reason/excuse though. Just because it's consistently aiming at the younger kids doesn't mean they can't innovate the systems, even if it is just a little bit like I mentioned above. If the standards for the current gaming age call for an easier game, then so be it, but that doesn't mean other things such as how players can approach the world shouldn't be changed either.

However, innovation is a double-edged sword, and often comes at a price. Think back to the nuclear program that was first started back in the heyday. When the first bomb was dropped, it was an innovative success, and a fatal mistake at the same time. As nukes, A-Bombs, whatever you'll call them were dropped en-mass some of the world was radiated with energy from the after effects of each detonation. Now, look what the damage it has caused, making the area that was hit inhospitable to much life.

But enough of that. In gaming, we look at a certain blue hedgehog.. that was a major innovation, yet what we got out of that were clones ranging from good to terrible. Also, heard of the "innovative" Nightmare System in Mega Man X6? That game has now a bit of a rep because of it. Kingdom Hearts was innovative because of its unique battle system.. unfortunately it got nutty an started showing symptoms of sequelitis.

You see, innovation is when something works, and turns out successful. Pokemon was only innovative because it wasn't attempted at the time, and it's still going strong because of that.

How to improve pokemon: make it for us, not little kids

make the characters more real and make the world darker and more realistic like in the manga

maybe even add funny dialogue and mild profanity so the characters won't be the most boring fucks imaginable (in game atleast the anime and mangas have have some fun stuff)

they changed "hehehe this gyms great its full of women" to "this gym is full of strong trainers" why nintendo why

Koh, they aren't afraid of breaking out of their comfort zone- they don't have any incentive to. As Hoeloe's pointed out, they make a shitload of money from it; changing drastically carries the risk of failure, so they'd rather keep doing what they're doing. To be frank, the only reason the game exists at all is because of money. As a company, they have to appeal to investors, and a constant stream of money is way more appealing than someone who wants to experiment "for the art."

As far as your solutions, they would utterly break the game. If it were completely open-ended, the game would be even easier- you could just go to whatever gym was weak against whatever elements you have on hand. To be frank, Pokemon was always easy as shit, and this would just make it worse. Additionally, coders would have to spend a crapload of time on something that most kids probably won't even notice. It'd just be wasted effort, especially because if kids were having a hard time, they wouldn't try and work through it, but rather just go look for the easiest route and use that all the time.

(09-07-2012, 08:03 PM)Amon Wrote: How to improve pokemon: make it for us, not little kids

make the characters more real and make the world darker and more realistic like in the manga

maybe even add funny dialogue and mild profanity so the characters won't be the most boring fucks imaginable (in game atleast the anime and mangas have have some fun stuff)

they changed "hehehe this gyms great its full of women" to "this gym is full of strong trainers" why nintendo why

That might actually make it lose part of it's charm, depending on what you mean by "us." You're 18 (according to your profile at least), and I don't really feel that late teens as the best target audience for it. I would probably aim the content along the lines of a Disney movie or something. There are quite a few mature jokes in the games that some miss, like that one boyfriend/girlfriend team that has the guy using an Onyx and the girl using a Cloyster. Which I guess is in line with the Special/Adventure's brand of humor.

As far as the characters, they're intended as blank slates for the player to use in place of themselves, so that could go either way. You could probably go the RPG route and have dialog options to help with giving them personality though.

The dialog change did bug me, but that was probably because Nintendo didn't want parents to complain about that again.

(09-07-2012, 09:07 PM)Keiang Wrote: Koh, they aren't afraid of breaking out of their comfort zone- they don't have any incentive to. As Hoeloe's pointed out, they make a shitload of money from it; changing drastically carries the risk of failure, so they'd rather keep doing what they're doing. To be frank, the only reason the game exists at all is because of money. As a company, they have to appeal to investors, and a constant stream of money is way more appealing than someone who wants to experiment "for the art."

As far as your solutions, they would utterly break the game. If it were completely open-ended, the game would be even easier- you could just go to whatever gym was weak against whatever elements you have on hand. To be frank, Pokemon was always easy as shit, and this would just make it worse. Additionally, coders would have to spend a crapload of time on something that most kids probably won't even notice. It'd just be wasted effort, especially because if kids were having a hard time, they wouldn't try and work through it, but rather just go look for the easiest route and use that all the time.

That might actually make it lose part of it's charm, depending on what you mean by "us." You're 18 (according to your profile at least), and I don't really feel that late teens as the best target audience for it. I would probably aim the content along the lines of a Disney movie or something. There are quite a few mature jokes in the games that some miss, like that one boyfriend/girlfriend team that has the guy using an Onyx and the girl using a Cloyster. Which I guess is in line with the Special/Adventure's brand of humor.

As far as the characters, they're intended as blank slates for the player to use in place of themselves, so that could go either way. You could probably go the RPG route and have dialog options to help with giving them personality though.

The dialog change did bug me, but that was probably because Nintendo didn't want parents to complain about that again.

It's really not as hard as you guys make it sound. All it takes is some boolean arithmetic to add on the extra levels, and then a function call to make any possible evolutions should it be needed. And it wouldn't break the game; people do type match ups from the beginning of the game, so there's no change in that regard. People would find an efficient route, but there are 16777216 different combinations for 8 gym leaders, so it'd take a while to find the "best" one, but even then people would have their own preference. And this also makes the journey more PERSONAL, since you can go wherever you want. Think about it, in what world do you live in where people say there's an easter egg hunt going on (badges) and you have to get them in a certain order? You just need to get them! Who cares which one you find first or not? The games should follow the same logic.

Though I agree that it would be cool to see Game Freak mix it up a bit, we all know it's not going to happen. The problem with your suggestions is that they change the system TOO much. I'm all for allowing people to do certain gyms out of order again, but allowing people to go in ANY order would be a lot of work for something that not a lot of people would really appreciate. Everyone else has made the point that WE AREN'T THE TARGET AUDIENCE so I hope that's clear by now. Branching paths can get confusing, and if you allowed full exploration, unless they made sure it was easy to tell what places you still didn't have a badge from, it'd be really easy to get lost. Not to mention, Pokemon's really rooted in "J"RPG mechanics and other than having the main character be more of a blank slate character that their own person, it doesn't have much to do with Western RPG mechanics, like leveling up your surroundings.

One thing I wish it did have from Western RPGs is character customization, it gets kinda boring seeing the same trainer over and over, especially with how easy it is to connect with people wirelessly now. I'm all for branching paths and more freedom but your suggestions are way too radical.

Oh, and they already did away with HM requirements in BW, so... that's not an issue anymore. Oh and there's always been a darker side to Pokemon. Check out what the trainers on the subway in Nimbasa say, there's some pretty depressing stuff in there, neglected children, people fighting to keep the spirit of their dead best friend alive, old couples that compare the train to them being on the way out, a little girl who talks in Cockney rhyming slang (that one's a joke, but there is). So yeah. And there's always the manga.

(09-07-2012, 08:03 PM)Amon Wrote: they changed "hehehe this gyms great its full of women" to "this gym is full of strong trainers" why nintendo why

I believe they changed that back in FireRed and LeafGreen? I still love the fact that the Gym Guide is gambling in the Game Corner instead of helping you out at the Celadon Gym. They did change Gamblers to Gamers in that game... plus, they've done away with Game Corners entirely from Gen V onward, it seems. (which I'm indifferent about, I never cared enough to get stuff from them).

Um, this is longer than I thought it would. Point is, Pokemon could stand to be less formulaic, but I'll still find them fun, and so will tons of other people, and Game Freak/Nintendo doesn't see a point in changing it.