Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
I know i kind of sound like a broken record, but while I do agree it's nice to see Game Freak experimenting with Pokémon, my experiences with popular open-world games tell me that nothing good can come out of what they are trying to do with Legends.
Is it ok if I ask what your experience was with open world games to make you feel that Legends is going to be terrible no matter what?
I've only played Mario Odyssey and GTA V in terms of open world type games, and I loved both of those, Odyssey being my favorite game of all time. I also did try Breath of the Wild, which I enjoyed until I got stuck on one of the Divine Beasts and quit
Is it ok if I ask what your experience was with open world games to make you feel that Legends is going to be terrible no matter what?
I've only played Mario Odyssey and GTA V in terms of open world type games, and I loved both of those, Odyssey being my favorite game of all time. I also did try Breath of the Wild, which I enjoyed until I got stuck on one of the Divine Beasts and quit
Here are my issues with open world exploration games:
1. Lack of progression in the main form of interaction. In order to be worth the time doing it, the exploration has to be interesting. However, there's a limited number of interesting situations if the given tools are static. This gets worse since many open-world games constrain the stuff in the overworld by forcing it to match a certain aesthetic (BotW has much better content in a sterile blue box than it does in the open wilderness as an obvious example) As a result, I would want to have the tools available expand over the course of a playthrough. Having sections locked off until a tool is acquired because those sections rely on having said tool is a completely fine game design choice, but it inherently makes the world less open. In other words, I want my exploration-heavy games to be Metroidvanias and not open-world.
Though, I suppose instead of limiting the possibility of upgrades or the locations using them, you could just periodically reset the upgrades so that they don't always get a chance to overwhelm the challenges of the game. So, a roguelike. Still generally considered an entirely different genre.
2. Inability to tune the difficulty curve. Arguably a counterpart to the above. Instead of not being able to design around a character having a particular ability, this is not being able to design around the player having particular experience or skill level. My big complaint with Odyssey ties into this: there are so few parts that are designed for the well thought-out base moveset, because everything is set up to use the gimmick you just got introduced 5 minutes ago. It would rather throw out and replace the previous gameplay than build on it. I can't help but feel that this is partially because it cannot assume that what it would be building upon was actually experienced.
3. If you're trying to get me to take in the sights, you're doing a terrible job. I really have no idea why so many open-world games try to be realistic. Realism is boring. Why would I get excited about your forests or cliffs or whatever on my crappy university student screen when I've seen plenty of it in real life? I'm well aware that not every game does this, but I feel it can certainly apply to Legends.
Edit: Right, the actual question for why I'm uncertain about Legends as a result of it pushing being open-world. For basically every RPG that I keep coming back to, 99% of the world doesn't matter to why I'm coming back. If I'm really putting loads of time into an RPG, most of that is going to be within the few rooms of whatever postgame combat arena it happens to have. Legends has shown off a lot of content that doesn't apply to the experience within those rooms if they even exist, so I'm concerned that all the attention is elsewhere.
Is it ok if I ask what your experience was with open world games to make you feel that Legends is going to be terrible no matter what?
I've only played Mario Odyssey and GTA V in terms of open world type games, and I loved both of those, Odyssey being my favorite game of all time. I also did try Breath of the Wild, which I enjoyed until I got stuck on one of the Divine Beasts and quit
Basically, lack of motivation. The open-world content I've played (GTA, Skyrim, the post-game of Mario Odyssey) kind of fails to make me want to do things.
The only game I can think did it right is Forza Horizon, because it specifically has a button for "can you recommend me something to do?".
Basically, lack of motivation. The open-world content I've played (GTA, Skyrim, the post-game of Mario Odyssey) kind of fails to make me want to do things.
The only game I can think did it right is Forza Horizon, because it specifically has a button for "can you recommend me something to do?".
That's fair. A lot of the times I also need a push to actually do things, mostly like a mission or marker telling me where to go. But for me a lot of the fun in open world games like GTA is kinda just doing whatever once I've finished a mission or two. 90% of the fun from that game is just driving around in a car and running over things. To a lesser extent it's the same for Mario Odyssey and the Wild area/DLC of Shield. It's fun to wander around doing nothing and fucking around, but that's just me.
This would probably get my gamer card revoked but I never cleared a single GTA San Andreas story mission, all I did there was just roam around and have fun with the cheat codes before getting gunned by the authorities.
This would probably get my gamer card revoked but I never cleared a single GTA San Andreas story mission, all I did there was just roam around and have fun with the cheat codes before getting gunned by the authorities.
If anything that just increases your gamer credit. Playing around with invincibility cheats and crashing planes into the ocean is the most fun part of GTA V for me, I couldn't tell you what the actual story was
How Pokemon handles this remains to be seen but I'm still really excited
Basically, lack of motivation. The open-world content I've played (GTA, Skyrim, the post-game of Mario Odyssey) kind of fails to make me want to do things.
The only game I can think did it right is Forza Horizon, because it specifically has a button for "can you recommend me something to do?".
I feel this. I get overchoice pretty easily in games, so I'm not super into open-world games that flex the amount of things you can do whenever. I can usually enjoy open-world games well enough when there's a direction to follow if I don't know what to do, so whether I'll be into Legends or not remains to be seen.
Here are my issues with open world exploration games:
1. Lack of progression in the main form of interaction. In order to be worth the time doing it, the exploration has to be interesting. However, there's a limited number of interesting situations if the given tools are static. This gets worse since many open-world games constrain the stuff in the overworld by forcing it to match a certain aesthetic (BotW has much better content in a sterile blue box than it does in the open wilderness as an obvious example) As a result, I would want to have the tools available expand over the course of a playthrough. Having sections locked off until a tool is acquired because those sections rely on having said tool is a completely fine game design choice, but it inherently makes the world less open. In other words, I want my exploration-heavy games to be Metroidvanias and not open-world.
Though, I suppose instead of limiting the possibility of upgrades or the locations using them, you could just periodically reset the upgrades so that they don't always get a chance to overwhelm the challenges of the game. So, a roguelike. Still generally considered an entirely different genre.
2. Inability to tune the difficulty curve. Arguably a counterpart to the above. Instead of not being able to design around a character having a particular ability, this is not being able to design around the player having particular experience or skill level. My big complaint with Odyssey ties into this: there are so few parts that are designed for the well thought-out base moveset, because everything is set up to use the gimmick you just got introduced 5 minutes ago. It would rather throw out and replace the previous gameplay than build on it. I can't help but feel that this is partially because it cannot assume that what it would be building upon was actually experienced.
3. If you're trying to get me to take in the sights, you're doing a terrible job. I really have no idea why so many open-world games try to be realistic. Realism is boring. Why would I get excited about your forests or cliffs or whatever on my crappy university student screen when I've seen plenty of it in real life? I'm well aware that not every game does this, but I feel it can certainly apply to Legends.
Edit: Right, the actual question for why I'm uncertain about Legends as a result of it pushing being open-world. For basically every RPG that I keep coming back to, 99% of the world doesn't matter to why I'm coming back. If I'm really putting loads of time into an RPG, most of that is going to be within the few rooms of whatever postgame combat arena it happens to have. Legends has shown off a lot of content that doesn't apply to the experience within those rooms if they even exist, so I'm concerned that all the attention is elsewhere.
BotW did succeed by making its open-world very engaging and giving out rewards for exploring no matter where you went. It's a ridiculously deep game.
On the other hand, we've seen what happened when GTA got open-world games popular in the first place.
A bunch of soulless clones and an outbreak of franchises trying to slam a square peg in a round hole to make their games open.
Which brings to attention the two regions that were somewhat open, or at least non-linear.
Kanto and Johto.
Kanto allowing for sequence breaks was pointless at best. Why? Take for example Lt. Surge. Why exactly would you skip him? When you come back, he will be the exact same chump he was when you went around him. Nothing changes. The levels don't scale.
Johto actually had a split route which *did* have a major impact.
What was that impact? The level curve got fucked up beyond repair.
This raises serious concerns for Legends, but, there was also another experiment that gives us some insight in how they seem to be planning Legends.
Levels all over the place, segmented by areas with certain roamers that were stronger than the norm all over the place.
This kinda works, sure, but then again, where are the trainers?
Legends is looking very different from what we're used to, which does explain BDSP being a parallel side-project.
I feel this. I get overchoice pretty easily in games, so I'm not super into open-world games that flex the amount of things you can do whenever. I can usually enjoy open-world games well enough when there's a direction to follow if I don't know what to do, so whether I'll be into Legends or not remains to be seen.
I feel this...I'm plagued by overchoice in real life so obviously when I play a video game as a means of escape, I'm seeking the opposite. I want a clear sense of progression that is oftentimes lacking in real life. And that's one thing I love about most Pokémon games is a clear set of goals.
Having said that, I'm still intrigued by Legends. Even BotW had gaps compared to its predecessors, despite the acclaim, so I'm seeing Legends as more of a testing ground similar to BotW. Though we'll have to scale down expectations for Legends comparing the Pokémon franchise to Zelda, but I still give GF credit for taking a big risk, finally.
This would probably get my gamer card revoked but I never cleared a single GTA San Andreas story mission, all I did there was just roam around and have fun with the cheat codes before getting gunned by the authorities.
Yeah, I'm much more of a story person and, while I like exploration, I'd like it to be a background thing while there's a linear main story I can always go back onto and do. I'm a bit bad with directions so a game which is an open world "do things in whatever order you like" I feel like I'd get lost and not sure what to do next. Also games like Metroidvania's where you have to do some exploration to find the story bits I find a bit intimidating and afraid I'd get lost in. It's kind of why I liked Gen V's paths being so "linear" as they are yet they do make them their own enclosed places you can explore and have unique bits to them (and since I was familiar with BW's routes all the new additional paths in B2W2 didn't feel so overwhelming).
This would probably get my gamer card revoked but I never cleared a single GTA San Andreas story mission, all I did there was just roam around and have fun with the cheat codes before getting gunned by the authorities.
Which brings to attention the two regions that were somewhat open, or at least non-linear.
Kanto and Johto.
Kanto allowing for sequence breaks was pointless at best. Why? Take for example Lt. Surge. Why exactly would you skip him? When you come back, he will be the exact same chump he was when you went around him. Nothing changes. The levels don't scale.
Johto actually had a split route which *did* have a major impact.
What was that impact? The level curve got fucked up beyond repair.
I agree. I find the non-linear aspect of Kanto and Johto to be very overrated. As you say, it is pointless in Kanto and harmful in Johto. I strongly disagree with those who praise the non-linearity of those two regions. Personally, I prefer linearity when it comes to Pokémon regions. Game Freak have shown that they are good at making linear regions, with Unova and Sinnoh being the two best ones IMO, but they have yet to succeed at making a more open or non-linear region.
Regarding the Wild area, I think it is ok, but it really needs to be improved. I think both DLC areas improved upon it a bit, but there are still things several that can be done better. The lack of trainers really needs to be adressed. They had no reason to repeat the mistake they did with Mount Lanakila in S/M (which was fixed in US/UM, thankfully). The wild area feels a bit "empty" to me, and I think the lack of trainers is one of the reasons for that. I also think the levels of the wild Pokémon could be handled better. Having the levels show up outside of battle (like in the Xenoblade series) would be a good and simple solution IMO, that would let you know the strength of the opponent before getting into battle with it (or if it is too strong/weak, you could just avoid it altogether). In addition to that, I don't really approve of how they made all wild Pokémon in the wild areas reach level 60+ once you have beaten the main story.
I feel this. I get overchoice pretty easily in games, so I'm not super into open-world games that flex the amount of things you can do whenever. I can usually enjoy open-world games well enough when there's a direction to follow if I don't know what to do, so whether I'll be into Legends or not remains to be seen.
Same here. As much as I liked BOTW, I often got to experience overchoice when I played it. The game usually presented me with 10 different things to do, and I wanted to do all of them at once! It was quite annoying. I got all things done eventually, but it was often hard to choose what to do first. As well as what to do next, and what to do after that...
Speaking of BOTW, I like it. I think it is a really fun and enjoyable game. But I think it succeeded mainly because it was a good game, not because it was open world. And as much as I like it, I think it could have been even better. In fact, I would have liked it to be a bit more linear, that would have made me enjoy it even more.
I have some thoughts on L:A as well. Putting this in a spoiler... if that is even necessary since it seems like everyone is discussing the game outside of its thread (and outside of spoiler tags as well).
Regarding L:A, I am a bit worried about how it will handle the open world concept. I forgot to mention this in my previous post in the L:A thread, but it is one of my biggest remaining questions/concerns/fears for the game. Seeing how Game Freak haven't handled the non-linear or open world concept very well in the past, I can't help but worry about it. I am still willing to give the game a chance, but I'm not sure how it will turn out.
Also, as Ironmage pointed out, I wonder how it will handle levels and the difficulty curve. I think it worked in BOTW, but Pokémon is an RPG which is different from an action-adventure game. I can see some issues here unless they have a way to handle it correctly. For instance, what if you want to "restart" from the ground and train a new team or just a new Pokémon, but the opponents in the game are set to be adjusted to your current overall progress, or your overall strongest Pokémon? Now we don't know much about the game yet so there's a chance they will handle this very well, but who knows? I should also mention that I haven't played any real open world RPGs, so I don't know how this has been handled in other games.
Right now, the whole open world concept is not a selling point for me regarding L:A. But there are other things I am interested in. New regional variants and evolutions? That the game is set in ancient Sinnoh? Now we're talking! I am still not completely sold on the game, but there are some things regarding it that look very interesting.. I also need to check out that gameplay video that I got recommended in the L:A thread... whenever I can find the time to do that.
One other thing I think would work very well for Pokémon in regards to more open or non-linear aspects would be if the games were "linear open world" as I call it. Don't know if there is a better term for it. Basically, like Xenoblade 1/2. You travel across the world in a linear path, but most/all areas have extra optional places to explore. I think some of the Pokémon regions have done this very well, notably Sinnoh and Unova, but also Hoenn and Kalos, as well as Alola to an extent. It can still be done even better though.
Sorry if I got too much into wishlisting here, I just wanted to write down some of the thoughts I have on this subject.
I agree. I find the non-linear aspect of Kanto and Johto to be very overrated. As you say, it is pointless in Kanto and harmful in Johto. I strongly disagree with those who praise the non-linearity of those two regions. Personally, I prefer linearity when it comes to Pokémon regions. Game Freak have shown that they are good at making linear regions, with Unova and Sinnoh being the two best ones IMO, but they have yet to succeed at making a more open or non-linear region.
Personally, while I like clear progression I think there is a distinction between that and linearity. The difference to me is with the former there is a clear order in terms of goals meant to be attained, but still embraces the idea of backtracking to solve certain puzzles you may not have been ready for earlier. This describes Hoenn and Sinnoh I believe, which are my two favorite regions geographically.
The original Unova on the other hand I would describe as linear. Which is a negative for me in what I otherwise consider a terrific game. I find the original Unova map to be a bit bland honestly with its circular design and limited puzzles, rather than Sinnoh's for example which is so intricately, vertically woven around Mt. Coronet. I do appreciate new Unova switching up the map a bit midway through but that still wasn't enough to compete with the likes of Hoenn and Sinnoh.
However, these regions at least have clear progression which is certainly lacking in Johto especially. After you get Surf, the map opens up completely to the point that trainers across the region all have beatable levels until the Goldenrod Radio Tower events. Which doesn't give you nearly enough experience in preparation for the Elite Four, especially Lance. Which turns that fight into a luck fest rather than a battle of planning and skill. Which unfortunately mirrors "real life" a bit too closely.
One other thing I think would work very well for Pokémon in regards to more open or non-linear aspects would be if the games were "linear open world" as I call it. Don't know if there is a better term for it. Basically, like Xenoblade 1/2. You travel across the world in a linear path, but most/all areas have extra optional places to explore. I think some of the Pokémon regions have done this very well, notably Sinnoh and Unova, but also Hoenn and Kalos, as well as Alola to an extent. It can still be done even better though.
I think that might be what they're going for? The demonstration of the map and dex showed that Hisui is divided into 5 Kalos-esque subregions with their own splits of the dex and such. Not much to go off of but I could see them having you explore around one area before heading to the next
Personally, while I like clear progression I think there is a distinction between that and linearity. The difference to me is with the former there is a clear order in terms of goals meant to be attained, but still embraces the idea of backtracking to solve certain puzzles you may not have been ready for earlier. This describes Hoenn and Sinnoh I believe, which are my two favorite regions geographically.
The original Unova on the other hand I would describe as linear. Which is a negative for me in what I otherwise consider a terrific game. I find the original Unova map to be a bit bland honestly with its circular design and limited puzzles, rather than Sinnoh's for example which is so intricately, vertically woven around Mt. Coronet. I do appreciate new Unova switching up the map a bit midway through but that still wasn't enough to compete with the likes of Hoenn and Sinnoh.
However, these regions at least have clear progression which is certainly lacking in Johto especially. After you get Surf, the map opens up completely to the point that trainers across the region all have beatable levels until the Goldenrod Radio Tower events. Which doesn't give you nearly enough experience in preparation for the Elite Four, especially Lance. Which turns that fight into a luck fest rather than a battle of planning and skill. Which unfortunately mirrors "real life" a bit too closely.
Good point. I have never really thought about it that way before, but I think this is a better way to view it. Unova (as well as Kalos, Alola, and Galar to various extents) are more completely linear while Hoenn and Sinnoh are also linear in a way, although they are more focused on clear progression and feature a bit of backtracking as well. However, Unova, Kalos and Alola also has some backtracking, but not to the same degree as Hoenn and Sinnoh (it has been a while since I played through the main game of most regions so I don't remember it all too clearly). As for me, I like both approaches, they are both fine when it comes to my tastes.
I agree about how the lack of clear progression in Johto is a big negative. I think your playstyle is very different from mine, and I can handle a bit of grinding in the games, but I'm not sure if I could manage to go through a Johto game with a full team nowadays. I could in the past, but I think my playthrough of HG in 2010/11 was the last time.
I think that might be what they're going for? The demonstration of the map and dex showed that Hisui is divided into 5 Kalos-esque subregions with their own splits of the dex and such. Not much to go off of but I could see them having you explore around one area before heading to the next
More L:A spoilers: Now I really regret not watching the latest Presents since it seems like I missed out on a lot of info by skipping it. I decided to watch the L:A part of it now (was planning to do it at some point anyway to see if it answered my questions about the gameplay). And after watching it, I didn't really get this impression. It never really felt clear to me how the exploration is going to work in terms of how you can explore the different areas. They didn't talk about it very much. Unless there is something I am missing. Either way, I can see it going either way, hopefully you are right.
On a different note, the video didn't really answer any of my remaining questions about the gameplay. Oh well. Guess I'll have to wait a bit longer before learning more about it.
Pokemon and Fate/Stay Night should have a crossover. Alternatively, a Pokemon game that plays like Fate - a more serious story mode-esque game where you bond with one specific Pokemon and fight other trainers in a tournament with their own Pokemon over an item of enormous power could be really cool. You should be able to play as one of many characters and each character has different attributes that give them passive and active benefits or disadvantages in battle, different signature mons (and can eventually obtain 2 more mons for their teams), and different stories and endings. For instance, one character should be a ''normal'' kid that just wants to be the best trainer as usual, another wants the item so they can rule the world, another wants the item so they can keep it out of the hands of bad guys, another wants the item to impress their mentor, etc etc...
Seems like the worst of both world tbh. Don't know why you'd want to play Pokemon with a single mon or do Fate without badass historical figures. Making Pokemon into a Battle Royale doesn't just automatically make it a more serious story.
The only story-related idea I could think of implementing into Pokémon is having multiple POVs of the same story.
Something like having three protagonists that don't encounter the same events (e.g. Character A fights the bad guy at one point, but Character B does not have that battle), and when you had to fight a protagonist you already played as, you battled the same team you had at that point.
I was actually thinking about a Pokemon game set in an academy more so like Fire Emblem: Three Houses and Persona 3 the past two days. Simple premise being a general academy that educates older students in a career with Pokemon i.e. research with professors, being a trainer for companies, working with Pokemon leagues. Add in some shady dealings happening within the academy's higher-ups, field trips to different regions, and of course, dating simulation, and you get an idea I'm surprise no one has attempted at all with fan games. The idea came when I came across some people discussing Pokemon Sors, a ROM hack, and its story based romance, which lead me wondering how would a Pokemon game with romance work, leading to me comparing it to the two previously mentioned games.
The only story-related idea I could think of implementing into Pokémon is having multiple POVs of the same story.
Something like having three protagonists that don't encounter the same events (e.g. Character A fights the bad guy at one point, but Character B does not have that battle), and when you had to fight a protagonist you already played as, you battled the same team you had at that point.
All I really want is more customization options for protags, namely age.
There are 0 reasons why the protags gotta be literal children.
As for the Fate crossover idea... Yeah, I don't think this franchise should crossover with a former hentai game at all. And Gardevoir shouldn't be in it no matter what.
The main reason for protagonists being children is to help the intended audience to immedesimate themself in the player and get a good immersion for them. Which makes perfect sense.
(Also, the protagonist being a child makes the writing easier as you can fling all the dealing-with-kids stereotypes on the NPCs)
The main reason for protagonists being children is to help the intended audience to immedesimate themself in the player and get a good immersion for them. Which makes perfect sense.
(Also, the protagonist being a child makes the writing easier as you can fling all the dealing-with-kids stereotypes on the NPCs)
And yet, they've done nothing with that besides making it look ridiculous when a 10yo suddenly pulls up, dismantles a criminal organization, catches a legendary and becomes the champion until Leon showed up and did reasonable adult things and everyone hated it.
PBR did just fine with options, yes, including the literal kid.
And yet, they've done nothing with that besides making it look ridiculous when a 10yo suddenly pulls up, dismantles a criminal organization, catches a legendary and becomes the champion until Leon showed up and did reasonable adult things and everyone hated it.
Well, I've never said they've done it *well*, I've only said why they've done it
I would disagree though (which would fit as unpopular opinion), I think in fact SwSh did it *best* of all the mainline Pokemon games, as it's the first game where they give a focus on "let adults deal with the dangerous shit, you guys go have fun", and you only come in when the adults actually *fail* to do what they were meant to.
Obviously there is the fact that the main theme of SwSh is "passing the torch to newer generations", and arguably why the finale more or less requires you to take over where the adults failed, but in general I think SwSh pulls the "kid protagonist" much better than all of the previous games where for arbitrary reasons people decide they rather let a 10-12 year old (depending on the game) fight the evil guys and catch+control almost literal gods than do their job.
Idk I think pokemon is meant to be a fantasy for children who want to do cool things with cool monsters, not really worried about having its conflicts be solved realistically
The whole schtick of Fate is not really about the sex scenes anyway, it's about a big Battle Royale where people summon awesome historical figures and go all out in what is known as the Holy Grail War (or the Heaven's Feel ritual), and that's really what draws you into it, not the graphical hentai bullshit.
Other Fate related media that isn't the OG Stay Night VN doesn't have that kind of shit, fortunately.
I was actually thinking about a Pokemon game set in an academy more so like Fire Emblem: Three Houses and Persona 3 the past two days. Simple premise being a general academy that educates older students in a career with Pokemon i.e. research with professors, being a trainer for companies, working with Pokemon leagues. Add in some shady dealings happening within the academy's higher-ups, field trips to different regions, and of course, dating simulation, and you get an idea I'm surprise no one has attempted at all with fan games. The idea came when I came across some people discussing Pokemon Sors, a ROM hack, and its story based romance, which lead me wondering how would a Pokemon game with romance work, leading to me comparing it to the two previously mentioned games.
While that doesn't sound like a bad idea, Pokemon will have to really establish its own identity in this regard to separate itself from P3/4/5 and Three Houses in that regard. It sounds like a fun idea but Persona does that so well and if Pokemon fucks up in the hypothetical execution of such a game that would leave the game to be condemned as a poor man's Persona game. Also you neglect to mention Trails/Kiseki games which are also a very similar premise and Pokemon will have to really nail the execution considering what it's up against (Persona, Kiseki, etc.)
With that in mind considering ATLUS is rather shitty when it comes to romance in their games, I really don't trust Game Freak to be any better if they put that in a Pokemon game. Especially considering they're still a Japanese company in the end with many Japanese devs still holding onto old and shitty values, and as such I don't count on them to really do much better when it comes to romance than Atlus has thus far. I'm not saying romance is inherently bad to have in a game, but I'm not counting on GF to really execute romance routes particularly well.
