Pokemon 8.5 IGN

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

The only way Pokemon is going to become a AAA game is when (if) Nintendo introduces a new, more powerful handheld, and brings Pokemon into a 3D world.

With a 3D world, they should bring about some serious graphical overhauls, reign in the dated sound, and scale back the Pokedex. I remember Red Version - each Pokemon was pretty different from each other - though you had a few similiarities - and you could always tell what animal they had taken the Pokemon from (for the most part).

Imagine Final Fantasy 1 - 8 traditional world map, FMVs, 3D battles, et cetera. It's likely to happen with Pokemon as it is such a high selling game.

In any case, I'd say it's worthwhile if you're a Pokemon fan in the same way a new Castlevania game is worthwhile if you're a Casltevania fan. The difference between the GBA and DS versions? Graphically? Subtle - but noticeable if you go back to the GBA. Audio? Finally have stereo speakers built in. Overall? It's $35... it's not like you can go too far wrong.

Myself? I'm thinking about it.

Kook18

I don't believe they could. Take a look at Viva Pinata on the Xbox 360. Creepy game - but the cartoony animation is very smooth, and the look and lines are clean.

We're okay with seeing a 3D game with primitive looking 3D or some low-res and aliaising because we're used to that. With Pokemon though, there's always been some solid 2D - the lines are smooth, the drawings are detailed, and the Pokemon are distinguishable. FF III (outside of the FMV intro sequence) is not a bad looking game - but not "good enough" to really give us that smooth, clean, professional cartoon appearance that Pokemon game are known for.

Look at the details on the characters faces, et cetera in FF III and Crystal Chronicles - do you really feel it is high enough to show all the markings, patterns, et cetera we expect from Pokemon?

I think it will be the next Nintendo handheld that has a 3D pokemon. The DS will likely get another Pokemon game in the form of an equivelant to the "Yellow" version - but after that I'd prefer them to focus on getting the game out earlier for the next handheld.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Kekira"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="kuza_9999"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Pokemon titles need to change, I wouldn't mind seeing the following take place:

• STOP adding damn pokemon. The original set was fine, and you add some types cool, so add some then. But I don't need 8 different starting Pokemon for the fire element alone. :|
• Make it 3d, the DS can handle it.
• Change the battle system, hell I wouldn't mind a Tales/Star Ocean style battle system.

Kekira

wouldn't work. for your first point, all the starters aren't available in every game, only 3. and they need to change the pokmon in the games to add variety and make every game a new experience. for the 2nd, the DP 3d on the ds is more than enough for me.

for your last point, this could work and might make them more interesting, but the original pokemon battle system is easy to use, and remember their target audince is young children. 

I know not all are available in any single game, that wasn't my point. I don't need different variations that do the exact same thing. Especially between iterations, when all they essentially do is take the odd creature I got used to before and just put a new name and art design on it despite it being essentially the same thing.

Also, changing the Pokemon name and art doesn't make it new, it just a pseudo fix for what's really repetitive/wrong (the actual game and it's repetitive gameplay over all these iterations).

To be honest I give younger gamers enough credit to move around a pokemon, rather than shift through a menu.

If you compare the water starters of all the versions, you'll see that they all wind up differently. It you do the same with the fire and grass starters you can see that they all wind up different. I could go on a full explanation but only if you are willing to hear.

How they end up? I wouldn't really know to be honest, i usually don't use my starters all the way through. This doesn't stop the fact they're overly redundant at start.

I'm simply saying throwing more Pokemon at us isn't the answer to making the titles better. I think it takes away from the games actually.  I like how all these completely common Pokemon aren't even heard of in earlier iterations, but in later ones they're a dime a dozen.

Then you can't talk about how all the starters are the same all the way through if you don't even get them to their third forms. Here's the grass starters compared by type:

bulbasaur(grass/poison)

ivysaur(grass/poison)

venusaur(grass/poison)

2nd gen:

All of chikorita's types were grass.

3rd gen:

All of treeko's forms were grass. However, Treeko's stats and movepool were vastly different enough to make it stand apart from past grass starters.

Fire types:

Charmander and Charmeleon were fire types while charizard was a fire/flying combo and has a few dragon traits as well.

2nd gen:

All of cyndaquil's forms were  fire type and didn't have too many good attacks or stats IMO.

3rd gen:

Torchic was a fire type, but Combusken and Blaziken were both fire/fighting types.

 The for water types of the first and second gen. They all were pure water type but had different movepools and stats, but in the 3rd gen Mudkip(pure water) becomes a mud/ground combo in it's two evolved forms Marshstomp and Swampert.

 There's enough variety in the starters to make each generation different from the last, but a little familiar as well.

And if you must know why there's always new pokemon, it's because there's always new land to explore. Different species belong to different regions so that could be why the people from different continents wouldn't know much about foreign pokemon well since they all care more about their own homes.

These "new lands" have people in them. You're telling me the run of the mill creatures that you hit from the start of the quest just appeared for these areas where people have been established out of no where? That's a poor excuse imho of why they just happen to tack more and more on. These regions some how have huge communication barriers and all pokemon (even the very common) ones are just unknown to all other regions. That's like saying I wouldn't know of or have any clue about a Lion simply b/c I don't live in a region where they exist naturally.

Not sure why you bothered to describe all those to me, I already said I don't use them all the way through. And they are essentially the same, no matter how hard you look at them. They're designed to be essentially the same thing.

Yeah, I think it would be neat if they changed things up and had the 3 starter Pokémon be something other than fire/water/grass types. It's almost become a trademark of Pokémon games, but I wouldn't mind starting with 3 different types to choose from.jwmakoto

 Yeah but then the only question is, which types to start from, I mean those types all have strengths and weaknesses against eachother. So should they like, just let you pick from more pokemon choices( like 4 or more) or just find substitute types?

You asked why so I gave an answer and again with the new lands thing, can you explain to me why the creatures on one continent on Earth are similar but different to those of other parts and we didn't even know much about them until we started actually becoming curious and going outside our land. The same can be said for why so many differnet pokemon are in different areas and are "discovered" every time a new land is discovered.Kekira

Yes, but then again people have cities built in these other regions on these other iterations of Pokemon. It's not like these lands are some frontier of unknown lands. Like I said they're just tacking on Pokemon and it really doesn't make sense, other than for the sake of "oh look we have new Pokemon".

It'll be mid-A just 'cause it's too identical to the previous Pokemon games, and there's no random-battle online play.DKII

Click Here for Wi-Fi info

[QUOTE="Kekira"]You asked why so I gave an answer and again with the new lands thing, can you explain to me why the creatures on one continent on Earth are similar but different to those of other parts and we didn't even know much about them until we started actually becoming curious and going outside our land. The same can be said for why so many differnet pokemon are in different areas and are "discovered" every time a new land is discovered.-RPGamer-

Yes, but then again people have cities built in these other regions on these other iterations of Pokemon. It's not like these lands are some frontier of unknown lands. Like I said they're just tacking on Pokemon and it really doesn't make sense, other than for the sake of "oh look we have new Pokemon".

Ok, let's just end this here cause it's obvious it's getting nowhere so don't worry about it, k.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

[QUOTE="Kekira"]You asked why so I gave an answer and again with the new lands thing, can you explain to me why the creatures on one continent on Earth are similar but different to those of other parts and we didn't even know much about them until we started actually becoming curious and going outside our land. The same can be said for why so many differnet pokemon are in different areas and are "discovered" every time a new land is discovered.Kekira

Yes, but then again people have cities built in these other regions on these other iterations of Pokemon. It's not like these lands are some frontier of unknown lands. Like I said they're just tacking on Pokemon and it really doesn't make sense, other than for the sake of "oh look we have new Pokemon".

Ok, let's just end this here cause it's obvious it's getting nowhere so don't worry about it, k.

But he's right and you're not really refuting his statement, instead choosing to run from the argument. Early on in Pokemon history, when they started introducing more Pokemon, it was somewhat acceptable that there would be new lands, with new Pokemon. At a certain point, that doesn't matter anymore though. With each additoinal Pokemon you weaken the significance between one and the next - they're not working on infinite creativity here - when we started in Red / Blue there were perhaps one or two Pokemon to each particular animal - getting my favorite animals in Pokemon form was a challenge.

I remember trading for Meowth - it was a huge deal - Meowth wasn't in Red version, and I couldn't get any other Cat pokemon. Now? Skitty, Meowth, probably half a dozen others since I last stopped following it.

His point is that increasing the Pokedex doesn't contribute to making the game better. At a certain point we all liked Charizard, Meowth, Jigglypuff, Pikachu - distinct, recognizable characters. If they keep adding on, it hits a point where Pokemon just don't feel distinct - I'm not excited to meet "rare pokemon #47" as there are so many names that they've all blended together.

Ultimately Pokemon early on addressed the issue of Poke-diversity - each of the regions had different Pokemon, it was like real life. Go to the beach and there are fish, go in a lake and their are carp, you find birds in tall grass and bugs in the woods. Okay, it made sense. The additional "lands" don't. Each land, each with every possible region? It would make sense at this point to move to a Poke-world - complete world map with different climate zones and cities and such.

The only way Pokemon is going to become a AAA game is when (if) Nintendo introduces a new, more powerful handheld, and brings Pokemon into a 3D world.

With a 3D world, they should bring about some serious graphical overhauls, reign in the dated sound, and scale back the Pokedex. I remember Red Version - each Pokemon was pretty different from each other - though you had a few similiarities - and you could always tell what animal they had taken the Pokemon from (for the most part).

Imagine Final Fantasy 1 - 8 traditional world map, FMVs, 3D battles, et cetera. It's likely to happen with Pokemon as it is such a high selling game.

In any case, I'd say it's worthwhile if you're a Pokemon fan in the same way a new Castlevania game is worthwhile if you're a Casltevania fan. The difference between the GBA and DS versions? Graphically? Subtle - but noticeable if you go back to the GBA. Audio? Finally have stereo speakers built in. Overall? It's $35... it's not like you can go too far wrong.

Myself? I'm thinking about it.

subrosian

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

The only way Pokemon is going to become a AAA game is when (if) Nintendo introduces a new, more powerful handheld, and brings Pokemon into a 3D world.

With a 3D world, they should bring about some serious graphical overhauls, reign in the dated sound, and scale back the Pokedex. I remember Red Version - each Pokemon was pretty different from each other - though you had a few similiarities - and you could always tell what animal they had taken the Pokemon from (for the most part).

Imagine Final Fantasy 1 - 8 traditional world map, FMVs, 3D battles, et cetera. It's likely to happen with Pokemon as it is such a high selling game.

In any case, I'd say it's worthwhile if you're a Pokemon fan in the same way a new Castlevania game is worthwhile if you're a Casltevania fan. The difference between the GBA and DS versions? Graphically? Subtle - but noticeable if you go back to the GBA. Audio? Finally have stereo speakers built in. Overall? It's $35... it's not like you can go too far wrong.

Myself? I'm thinking about it.

peacebringer

The TV show Rugrats did that with "All Grown Up", it was kind of cool to see, but I felt like I was one of the few kids who'd grown up with Rugrats who was still following it.


Ultimately the problem is that Pokemon is a mature franchise, and it's changing too much. Introducing new characters, targeting a younger and younger audience (compare season 1 of the show to the current season), distributing direct-to-DVD movies, et cetera.

At this point in the franchise, they need to focus on keeping the unique charactrers and nostalgia that made us love it in the first place - they're appealing to old fans here, so you've got to offer them Ash, Misty, Brock, Team Rocket, Pikachu, et cetera - and be careful to keep doing what you're doing.

Introduce too many new Pokemon and you risk watering it down.

I disagree about your statment though. Think about it - what's kept the Simpsons on the air for eighteen seasons is that they don't change. It's comforting. You turn on the show and Homer Simpson is always saying "d'oh" - it makes the world seem smaller and more orderly. Ultimately the secret of all lasting TV shows is that they have unique, relatable characters who we can come back to year and year.

I want to see Pokemon take that on, I really do, I want Pikachu to be the next Mario. Will Mario ever have the same popularity he did when the tv show, toys, lunchbox, games, movie, et cetera were out? No - but that doesn't mean I want to see him decline. I think everyone wants their childhood characters to stay - it's a kind of permenance in a world that's scary because everything else changes so fast.

For an old fan like me, it's a little weird to see the TV show. Team Rocket is still around - that was comforting, Jesse, James, Meowth - all right. But where's Ash, Misty, Brock, Professor Oak, and Gary? Where's Pikachu? May eh? Hmm... I think they under estimate the importance of these characters - it would be cool to see homages to them in the new games - like if I could fight Ash and Gary at some point - run into Brock, Misty, and Ash all hanging out together someplace in the game, and have to foil some plot by Jesse and James, I'd really enjoy the experience 

Pokemon titles need to change, I wouldn't mind seeing the following take place:

• STOP adding damn pokemon. The original set was fine, and you add some types cool, so add some then. But I don't need 8 different starting Pokemon for the fire element alone. :|
• Make it 3d, the DS can handle it.
• Change the battle system, hell I wouldn't mind a Tales/Star Ocean style battle system.

-RPGamer-

1. No, the original set was horribly unbalanced and uninspired. I'd be more worried about ther franchise if they didn't add new pokemon.
2. Oh please. Have you seen the pace of Pokemon Battle Revolution? It moves like a snail. that might be ok for consoles, but on my DS I'd like things to move a little quicker.
3. The tales battle mechanic doesn't suit the pokemon universe. If Game Freak were to move away from the current mechanic (which is deep enough as is anyway) it would be to something closer to Gotcha Force/Custom Robo.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Pokemon titles need to change, I wouldn't mind seeing the following take place:

• STOP adding damn pokemon. The original set was fine, and you add some types cool, so add some then. But I don't need 8 different starting Pokemon for the fire element alone. :|
• Make it 3d, the DS can handle it.
• Change the battle system, hell I wouldn't mind a Tales/Star Ocean style battle system.

Truewiseblade

1. No, the original set was horribly unbalanced and uninspired. I'd be more worried about ther franchise if they didn't add new pokemon.
2. Oh please. Have you seen the pace of Pokemon Battle Revolution? It moves like a snail. that might be ok for consoles, but on my DS I'd like things to move a little quicker.
3. The tales battle mechanic doesn't suit the pokemon universe. If Game Freak were to move away from the current mechanic (which is deep enough as is anyway) it would be to something closer to Gotcha Force/Custom Robo.

They can balance the Pokemon, but they do need to limit the rate of increase. The Pokemon series lives and dies by having unique characters - you can slip a new one in every now and then, but feeling the need to increase the roster by 100 every time a new game comes out is silly. At a certain point, you're either leaving the old guys out, or if you have them in they have to be uncommon so that you're finding the newer ones first.

Moving to a 3D Pokemon is a good idea - on the next Gameboy. A 3D worldmap would be nice, as would walking around in a 3D pokemon universe. Think Oblivion or Twilight Princess, but with Pokemon.

The battle system is fine, but when they move to 3D adding some better animations and letting the stat editing get deeper wouldn't be a bad idea. For example, seperate leveling up of skills would add a huge amount of depth to the game - they could even have skill branching at certain points. It would take away from the "ice-fire-water-electric-metal-rock-paper-scissors" feel of some of the attack / element choices in the game and reward investing time into your team.

WTF THATS IT 8.5

damn

but it wil make heeps of $$$

[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="subrosian"]

The only way Pokemon is going to become a AAA game is when (if) Nintendo introduces a new, more powerful handheld, and brings Pokemon into a 3D world.

With a 3D world, they should bring about some serious graphical overhauls, reign in the dated sound, and scale back the Pokedex. I remember Red Version - each Pokemon was pretty different from each other - though you had a few similiarities - and you could always tell what animal they had taken the Pokemon from (for the most part).

Imagine Final Fantasy 1 - 8 traditional world map, FMVs, 3D battles, et cetera. It's likely to happen with Pokemon as it is such a high selling game.

In any case, I'd say it's worthwhile if you're a Pokemon fan in the same way a new Castlevania game is worthwhile if you're a Casltevania fan. The difference between the GBA and DS versions? Graphically? Subtle - but noticeable if you go back to the GBA. Audio? Finally have stereo speakers built in. Overall? It's $35... it's not like you can go too far wrong.

Myself? I'm thinking about it.

subrosian

The TV show Rugrats did that with "All Grown Up", it was kind of cool to see, but I felt like I was one of the few kids who'd grown up with Rugrats who was still following it.


Ultimately the problem is that Pokemon is a mature franchise, and it's changing too much. Introducing new characters, targeting a younger and younger audience (compare season 1 of the show to the current season), distributing direct-to-DVD movies, et cetera.

At this point in the franchise, they need to focus on keeping the unique charactrers and nostalgia that made us love it in the first place - they're appealing to old fans here, so you've got to offer them Ash, Misty, Brock, Team Rocket, Pikachu, et cetera - and be careful to keep doing what you're doing.

Introduce too many new Pokemon and you risk watering it down.

I disagree about your statment though. Think about it - what's kept the Simpsons on the air for eighteen seasons is that they don't change. It's comforting. You turn on the show and Homer Simpson is always saying "d'oh" - it makes the world seem smaller and more orderly. Ultimately the secret of all lasting TV shows is that they have unique, relatable characters who we can come back to year and year.

I want to see Pokemon take that on, I really do, I want Pikachu to be the next Mario. Will Mario ever have the same popularity he did when the tv show, toys, lunchbox, games, movie, et cetera were out? No - but that doesn't mean I want to see him decline. I think everyone wants their childhood characters to stay - it's a kind of permenance in a world that's scary because everything else changes so fast.

For an old fan like me, it's a little weird to see the TV show. Team Rocket is still around - that was comforting, Jesse, James, Meowth - all right. But where's Ash, Misty, Brock, Professor Oak, and Gary? Where's Pikachu? May eh? Hmm... I think they under estimate the importance of these characters - it would be cool to see homages to them in the new games - like if I could fight Ash and Gary at some point - run into Brock, Misty, and Ash all hanging out together someplace in the game, and have to foil some plot by Jesse and James, I'd really enjoy the experience

If

Character Design & Battle Visual Director (Square Co. Ltd.) Tetsuya Nomura  did the Charater design OMG would this game destroy game sales.

[QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]

No, the original set was horribly unbalanced and uninspired. I'd be more worried about ther franchise if they didn't add new pokemon.

1. Oh please. Have you seen the pace of Pokemon Battle Revolution? It moves like a snail. that might be ok for consoles, but on my DS I'd like things to move a little quicker.
2. The tales battle mechanic doesn't suit the pokemon universe. If Game Freak were to move away from the current mechanic (which is deep enough as is anyway) it would be to something closer to Gotcha Force/Custom Robo.

subrosian

They can balance the Pokemon, but they do need to limit the rate of increase. The Pokemon series lives and dies by having unique characters - you can slip a new one in every now and then, but feeling the need to increase the roster by 100 every time a new game comes out is silly. At a certain point, you're either leaving the old guys out, or if you have them in they have to be uncommon so that you're finding the newer ones first.

Moving to a 3D Pokemon is a good idea - on the next Gameboy. A 3D worldmap would be nice, as would walking around in a 3D pokemon universe. Think Oblivion or Twilight Princess, but with Pokemon.

The battle system is fine, but when they move to 3D adding some better animations and letting the stat editing get deeper wouldn't be a bad idea. For example, seperate leveling up of skills would add a huge amount of depth to the game - they could even have skill branching at certain points. It would take away from the "ice-fire-water-electric-metal-rock-paper-scissors" feel of some of the attack / element choices in the game and reward investing time into your team.

Originality is a debateable issue. IMO, the Kanto Pokemon were the least original, with most being real life pokemon with nothing more than an anime face. Krabby, Seel, Goldeen  and the like all reek of this. whereas the Hoenn pokes in particular seemed a lot more unique to me. things like Blaziken and swalot are what I want to see.

 I have nothing aginst moving to a 3D world, just as long as battles aren't slowed down to the pace of PBR. a 6 on 6 battle could easily last 20+ minutes on that game. it's just not feasible on a handheld.

The stat editing IS deep. most peopel just choose to ignore the the features of pokemon that make it so. GFreak could definately do with exposing EVs/IVs though.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]

No, the original set was horribly unbalanced and uninspired. I'd be more worried about ther franchise if they didn't add new pokemon.

1. Oh please. Have you seen the pace of Pokemon Battle Revolution? It moves like a snail. that might be ok for consoles, but on my DS I'd like things to move a little quicker.
2. The tales battle mechanic doesn't suit the pokemon universe. If Game Freak were to move away from the current mechanic (which is deep enough as is anyway) it would be to something closer to Gotcha Force/Custom Robo.

Truewiseblade

They can balance the Pokemon, but they do need to limit the rate of increase. The Pokemon series lives and dies by having unique characters - you can slip a new one in every now and then, but feeling the need to increase the roster by 100 every time a new game comes out is silly. At a certain point, you're either leaving the old guys out, or if you have them in they have to be uncommon so that you're finding the newer ones first.

Moving to a 3D Pokemon is a good idea - on the next Gameboy. A 3D worldmap would be nice, as would walking around in a 3D pokemon universe. Think Oblivion or Twilight Princess, but with Pokemon.

The battle system is fine, but when they move to 3D adding some better animations and letting the stat editing get deeper wouldn't be a bad idea. For example, seperate leveling up of skills would add a huge amount of depth to the game - they could even have skill branching at certain points. It would take away from the "ice-fire-water-electric-metal-rock-paper-scissors" feel of some of the attack / element choices in the game and reward investing time into your team.

Originality is a debateable issue. IMO, the Kanto Pokemon were the least original, with most being real life pokemon with nothing more than an anime face. Krabby, Seel, Goldeen and the like all reek of this. whereas the Hoenn pokes in particular seemed a lot more unique to me. things like Blaziken and swalot are what I want to see.

I have nothing aginst moving to a 3D world, just as long as battles aren't slowed down to the pace of PBR. a 6 on 6 battle could easily last 20+ minutes on that game. it's just not feasible on a handheld.

The stat editing IS deep. most peopel just choose to ignore the the features of pokemon that make it so. GFreak could definately do with exposing EVs/IVs though.

Orginal 150 own all others FACT 

Pokemon titles need to change, I wouldn't mind seeing the following take place:

• STOP adding damn pokemon. The original set was fine, and you add some types cool, so add some then. But I don't need 8 different starting Pokemon for the fire element alone. :|
• Make it 3d, the DS can handle it.
• Change the battle system, hell I wouldn't mind a Tales/Star Ocean style battle system.

-RPGamer-

Before tackling this, let me just say that Pokemon to me is similar to TCGs. Personally, I prefer it kept that way.

1.  Adding Pokemon keeps the strategies in combat fresh. Having the same set over and over keeps the collection aspect stale, precombat strategy stale and the combat strategy stale. 
2.  Truth.
3.  Hell no. As I stated, Pokemon is suited to the slow turn based combat because of it's similarities to TCGs. Things like Pokemon Makeup (Deck Building), Ability/Type Builds (Deck Types) and the turn based elements keeps players relaxed and thinking. Making things frantic and making it into a pseudo-action game kills the strategy elements and makes the game into something it's not. I would not mind an ATB that FF has used, however. Aside from that, I only want more battle mechanics added such as the weather elements the later games added in.

Orginal 150 own all others FACT 

Xbox360gamer1

One question: do you know what a BST is?

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]

No, the original set was horribly unbalanced and uninspired. I'd be more worried about ther franchise if they didn't add new pokemon.

1. Oh please. Have you seen the pace of Pokemon Battle Revolution? It moves like a snail. that might be ok for consoles, but on my DS I'd like things to move a little quicker.
2. The tales battle mechanic doesn't suit the pokemon universe. If Game Freak were to move away from the current mechanic (which is deep enough as is anyway) it would be to something closer to Gotcha Force/Custom Robo.

Truewiseblade

They can balance the Pokemon, but they do need to limit the rate of increase. The Pokemon series lives and dies by having unique characters - you can slip a new one in every now and then, but feeling the need to increase the roster by 100 every time a new game comes out is silly. At a certain point, you're either leaving the old guys out, or if you have them in they have to be uncommon so that you're finding the newer ones first.

Moving to a 3D Pokemon is a good idea - on the next Gameboy. A 3D worldmap would be nice, as would walking around in a 3D pokemon universe. Think Oblivion or Twilight Princess, but with Pokemon.

The battle system is fine, but when they move to 3D adding some better animations and letting the stat editing get deeper wouldn't be a bad idea. For example, seperate leveling up of skills would add a huge amount of depth to the game - they could even have skill branching at certain points. It would take away from the "ice-fire-water-electric-metal-rock-paper-scissors" feel of some of the attack / element choices in the game and reward investing time into your team.

Originality is a debateable issue. IMO, the Kanto Pokemon were the least original, with most being real life pokemon with nothing more than an anime face. Krabby, Seel, Goldeen and the like all reek of this. whereas the Hoenn pokes in particular seemed a lot more unique to me. things like Blaziken and swalot are what I want to see.

I have nothing aginst moving to a 3D world, just as long as battles aren't slowed down to the pace of PBR. a 6 on 6 battle could easily last 20+ minutes on that game. it's just not feasible on a handheld.

The stat editing IS deep. most peopel just choose to ignore the the features of pokemon that make it so. GFreak could definately do with exposing EVs/IVs though.

Yes, I know all about that - but Hidden Stats are lame. Base stats, deposit-withdraw stat recalculation, fighting battles to increase these mostly hidden points.

I think they either need to reveal what is basically a hidden secondary tier of statistics, or they need to rethink how they do them. The rules need to be expained in the game and it needs to be up front for the gamer the entire time. It's like Disgea... another example of a game with a lot of deep stat editing (diving into weapons to improve them - going through in one dive and eliminating every enemy on a field to unlock stats and multiplyers is important).

In Disgaea, the game *tells you* a bit about unlocking these bonuses - in Pokemon it's very hush hush. For a game that's aimed at a general audience, the strategy should have apparent depth - rather than appearing to be a "you're ice type, your ice attacks are more powerful, ice beats dragon, but his hyper beam might be bad for you because his stats are high"


This was there in Red Version, and it's time for it to go. Effort points need to be shown and attainable - base stats need to be easily seperated from the effect of the hidden points without pages of formulas and FAQs.