SonOfTheNorthe

Gaming Idea for a Pokemon game

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Alright, so, we all know about Pokemon's turn based combat and all that jazz, right?

Well, I've come up with something.

We turn Pokemon.....Into a 3rd person fighting game with shooter elements mixed in.

Like... imagine it kinda similar to Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm, but you've got crosshairs.

 

 

So, like, here's how it works: As with most pokemon, you've got 4 moves. These moves are performed with the 4 back buttons. Unlike the turn based games, your pokemon doesn't forget moves. While you can only use 4 in combat, when you're not fighting, you can select from all the moves your pokemon's learned, and assign them to the back buttons. A moves PP determines the move's cooldown. Thunderbolt has a PP of 15, so it could be used 15 times a minute, or once every four seconds, maybe. I'm not a game balancer, I don't know how to determine cooldown rates.

 

 

Anyways, if you were to use the move Tackle, your pokemon would dash forward and ram the opponent, but of course, it can miss of your opponent jumps out of the way.

You use thunderbolt or ice beam of something, and it fires through the crosshairs. Projectiles should totally collide, or be able to be blocked with some chip damage with melee attacks.

 

It should have online play, but to keep it balanced, each pokemon should be assigned a tier, and before you choose to battle someone, you will be notified the tiers of their pokemon.

 

A button would be assigned to switch out pokemon, and they cycle in order.

And all the pokemon's health should be boosted a crapload. It would be boring to just one shot everything with a super effective move, and have the match last 20 seconds.

 

One problem: Pokemon are going to have to have their sizes scaled a bit. There's no way a Natu could fight a full size groudon or wailord.

 

 

 

Soooo, how does this idea sound? Great, or am I just being stupid?

Edited by SonOfTheNorthe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like a dick when I say, that is completely not how I'd imagine a Pokemon game and that I would never play it. There is no charm in it. The nicest thing about the turn based battles is that it is very strategic. I wouldn't like to see that fade away into obscurity.

 

In terms of your game idea, it seems like a novelty which won't last long. it seems like fun to do, up to a point. Yet it poses all the balance issues. Balancing nearly 649 Pokemon and just as many moves. It won't be a competitive game.

 

It can work as one of those off shoot games, but it is a wild departure from the old formula that many fans will likely not cross over or simply choose to not buy it. There are ways to mix up the Pokemon formula that don't require you to essentially make a completely different game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good Idea! I Like it! Even though it's not the pokemon game we know and love, it has potential and I'd totally buy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand skepticism. The game would be utter crap if it's not done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The nicest thing about the turn based battles is that it is very strategic.

 

My friend, I would like to point out that the games are only strategic if you yourself choose make them strategic. You can ignore making pretty much any kind of tactic if you straight up play the game like a child would approach it.

 

For instance, you can pick a starter, and since all of these are high-tier pokemon anyway you'll never actually be required to train any other pokemon than your awesome Blaziken or your cool Blastoise. So after that you proceed to power-drill your way through the gyms with said starter, (in between gyms you'll probably catch some party members but seriously, don't bother to grind for them, it would just be a waste of time,) eventually your starter levels up to the point where it completely overshadows anything the game will throw at you, and now you've caught some legendary pokemon (or at least one with a master ball) so you add those to your party. In the end, in the unlikely event that you lose your powerhouse in battle during the final act of the game, you can just switch to:

1) A legendary who will most likely already be level appropriate (or overlevelled).

2) One of your cannon fodder pokemon and hit Hulk-incarnate with a revive/max revive/revival herb.

 

That might seem slightly strategical but trust me, it's basic instinct that everyone already applies naturally if playing the game for the first time.

 

I get that the metagame works differently but you aren't forced to play online to unlock content, you are however forced to play through the story to do so. Besides, I highly doubt that the online gameplay is the selling point of the games, considering the fact that the balancing is really off and you pretty much have to dip into the much used top-tier pokemon list to stand a fighting chance, which I find disappointing because I like to choose my teams based on complimenting designs and connection to the pokemon.

 

 

*Ahem...* Back to what I was actually talking about.

 

Basically I'm saying that the pokemon games really aren't as strategic as you give it credit for as most of the combat basically boils down to:

1. - Pick the strongest move in your pool.

2. - Pick it again!

3. - Use a healing item.

4. - Pick that strong move again!

5. - What? You haven't won yet? Maybe you should try step two again.

 

The setup for a game that's being suggested in this topic if nothing else will give moves different areas of effect and will therefore force you to use more than one move per pokemon. Who knows, stat boosts might even become an attractive option/necessity during the main story mode of the game, so... Yeah! I can dig it! (To certain extent anyway.)

 

I apologize if I come across as a whiny bastard, I do have a sentimental attachment to the pokemon series but I'm starting to get fed up with the lack of really involving battles, I've found that not a single battle in the main games is really memorable for its intellect or skill testing challenge.

 

Anywho, those were my two cents, Rant over!

Zhinzo, Awaaaay!

Edited by Zhinzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I think it could work out, but remove the shooter elements and make it more like Dissidia.

And don't have all the Pokemon, only a small selection. That way it'd be easier to balance.

 

And I have to agree with Zhinzo, Pokemon isn't particularly strategic. Most of the time you can just spam your strongest attack moves and plough through everything.

Edited by Tomzoid the EggDroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I think it could work out, but remove the shooter elements and make it more like Dissidia.

And don't have all the Pokemon, only a small selection. That way it'd be easier to balance.

 

And I have to agree with Zhinzo, Pokemon isn't particularly strategic. Most of the time you can just spam your strongest attack moves and plough through everything.

 

*grammar nazi time* 'Ahem... It's spelled "plow". :huh:'

 

Also, I was thinking more along the lines of final fantasy tactics, I assume it'll be a 3DS release so, touch screen attack and team management plus analogue controls to an isometric viewpoint.

Edited by Zhinzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*grammar nazi time* 'Ahem... It's spelled "plow". :huh:'

 

And it's also spelled "Plough", both are correct.

 

 

Also, I was thinking more along the lines of final fantasy tactics, I assume it'll be a 3DS release so, touch screen attack and team management plus analogue controls to an isometric viewpoint.

 

That could work as well, but in real time rather than turn based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

All you are doing is proposing to take away the strategy and turn it into a skill based game, more specifically, a skill based Third Person Shooter. This is an entirely different game. And in a skill based game, all you really foster is the same thing with in terms of style, some moves will simply be superior, for example Earthquake, because their chances to miss are lower. You'll end up with a screwed up game either way, and fostering the same kind of "use this enough and you win" kind of strategies.

 

The only problem is, you could end up destroying any kind of competitive play, and simply have a single player experience left. one which may not be very satisfying.

 

I will go to Pokemon for the excellent turn based game it provides. The style you are proposing doesn't appeal to me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you are doing is proposing to take away the strategy and turn it into a skill based game, more specifically, a skill based Third Person Shooter.

 

...some moves will simply be superior, for example Earthquake, because their chances to miss are lower. You'll end up with a screwed up game either way, and fostering the same kind of "use this enough and you win" kind of strategies.

 

You know he was talking about the Pokemon games as they are right now, right?

 

And that is what he is saying about Pokemon, it's already monotonous in some cases. Such as when you have an over levelled legendary or use your starter pokemon exclusively. As they then can decimate pretty much anything with that one pokemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

A pokemon game like Naruto ultimate ninja storm...

 

YESSSSSSSSSSS! AWESOME IDEA! So many characters might be impossible to do though, they might have to do it like in expansions or something.

 

All you are doing is proposing to take away the strategy and turn it into a skill based game, more specifically, a skill based Third Person Shooter. This is an entirely different game. And in a skill based game, all you really foster is the same thing with in terms of style, some moves will simply be superior, for example Earthquake, because their chances to miss are lower. You'll end up with a screwed up game either way, and fostering the same kind of "use this enough and you win" kind of strategies.

 

The only problem is, you could end up destroying any kind of competitive play, and simply have a single player experience left. one which may not be very satisfying.

 

I will go to Pokemon for the excellent turn based game it provides. The style you are proposing doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

That's like saying Super Smash Bros has no strategy just because it's not turned based.

 

Problems with the core pokemon games have tons of problems that destroy competitive play for a LOT of people and I could make a thousand arguments why those games shouldn't be continued either, but I won't because I like them despite the single player not being particularly satisfying the hundredth time around

 

Not every pokemon game has to appeal to you, they can make a few different games here and there and still make games for you too, so why are you so critical of this...?

Edited by Hollowshield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I'm back and forth with this idea. It seems like a fun change, but at the same time I'm kinda with Tich for the same reason.

 

Another problem with it is, just as Tich said, you get one powerful move with a high accuracy and all you have to do is spam until you win. Thats the exact same thing as the regular games now, well, campaign atleast. The only difference is if its done this way then the whole game will be just that. >Acquire decent pokemon>Acquire high level move>Spam move>????>profit. Yes, you could add in some kind of strategy, but for the most part I see it working out like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Meh, I'm back and forth with this idea. It seems like a fun change, but at the same time I'm kinda with Tich for the same reason.

 

Another problem with it is, just as Tich said, you get one powerful move with a high accuracy and all you have to do is spam until you win. Thats the exact same thing as the regular games now, well, campaign atleast. The only difference is if its done this way then the whole game will be just that. >Acquire decent pokemon>Acquire high level move>Spam move>????>profit. Yes, you could add in some kind of strategy, but for the most part I see it working out like that.

 

Thank you, you remind me of a point I forgot to make. I under no circumstances want the moves to work on (exclusively) a cooldown system, that again would bug down the battles to:

- Flamethrower!

- Run away to recharge

- Flamethrower again!

 

The PP system is a great concept but it never really feels like you're in danger of running out of it. I think a great deal of strategy would naturally form if the maximum PP of all moves were lowered. 'Struggle' would be a lot more prominent that way, and it would require a little thought to avoid getting into a situation where struggle is your only option.

 

Also I do realize there will always be overpowered pokemon, and I'm not saying they should spend all their time making all pokemon equal and balanced. But they shouldn't just hand powerhouses to you at the beginning of the game, nor should they make them easily available before the supposedly climactic final showdown. Make the player work for their Chuck Norris, make the destroyer of all things that breathe available after the end of the game!

Edited by Zhinzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when does a game have to be viable for competitive level play to be good? You never see SO3 multiplayer arena tournaments, but that doesn't mean it has a crappy battle system.

And Pokemon does have a problem with spamming the strongest moves and teams and stuff. That's why certain pokemom, items, and moves are banned at competitive level play.

 

Anyway, I think it could be good. It'd be more like how the battles in the show are. It'd be really easy to screw it up, though. There is a real problem with having that many characters, as well. I think they could take out a lot of them, though. For example, kadabra and alakazam would probably play the same way, and abra can't even fight, so we'd only need alakazam. Growlith, arcanine, houndour and houndoom would all probably play the same way, so we'd only need one of them. And each generation has its own version of the generic bird evo chain.

Alternatively, we could just start with the original 150, and only include one evolution stage of each pokemon, unless several stages would have a drastically different play style. And some could just be left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, one of my favorite parts of pokemon is being able to run around with a Charizard, Blastoise and Venusaur and destroy everything in my path. Taking away the strategic elements of knowing when to use fire, grass, water and others would kind of make it worse, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd, I've actually thought a Pokemon game in that vein would be a nice change in pace. Admittedly the system used past gen. III has made the games feel cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the biggest concern you people have is the strategy.

You seem to be concerned about move spamming as well.

Keep in mind that most moves would be relatively easy to dodge most moves if you kept on moving, and your pokemon didn't have crap speed.

You also forget about non-attacking moves. Use double team, and an indistinguishable illusion appears for about 3 seconds. Use Agility, and get your movement speed boosted. However, most stat-boosting moves would need to be charged, making the pokemon sit still and be easily hit. You could lay down spikes, which when hit, damage a little and make the pokemon flinch. Lay down some stealth rock, and your opponent will be reluctant to switch in something new. Use sand attack, and your opponent has trouble aiming through the temporary blotches of brown all over their screen. use encore at the right time, and your opponent would be stuck using the same move for a while. Manage to confuse your opponent, and their attack inputs would be randomized for a short while.

All of these, however, come at the cost of a damaging move.

 

Some moves might need charging, and some cause flinching after use, and some make you immobile during use, so you can't just jump around like a monkey, spraying and praying.

 

There are protection moves too: protect, dig, fly, substitute, safeguard, in addition to projectile clashes.

 

I would say it would take good thinking to get your opponent into a favorable position, and exploit it. It would require prediction and mind games. It would also require that you have the perfect balance of set-up moves, offensive moves, and defensive moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I approve your idea, SonOfTheNorthe. I'm always open for new concepts to the Pokemon series but i don't want to see them replace the original pokémon games. Skill based game could work in this scenario if properly executed but most of the time it's really hard to achieve that because you have additional game elements to balance out, in this case real-time battle, cooldowns, projectile radius, skill range, skill speed, etc. I could go on with a lot more but i hope you get the idea, it's not easy to put everything together which might be why Nintendo haven't approached the idea yet. Who knows, they might approach it soon, we have seen real-time battles in the SSB series and in Pokepark Wii 2 (even if it's silly.. it's still something. x) )

 

And Pokemon does have a problem with spamming the strongest moves and teams and stuff. That's why certain pokemom, items, and moves are banned at competitive level play.

 

The first is an issue with the casual pokemon gaming, NPCs aren't very smart, you simply destroy theirs by using STAB + 100 power moves most of the time (as far as i'm aware of, NPC's pokemons have no EVs calculated which makes them much weaker). This could be solved by simply put every pokémon at the same tier (Legendary tier etc) but then, do we really want game changing additions to the pokémon game we all have played/seen for several years? No one have really complained about the system, those who want the more competitive experience, play by some specific rules. (As Evilshy mentioned) Pokemons are divided into even more tier groups, mainly Uber, OU, BL, UU, BL2, RU and NU. Those tier groups have their own tournaments and their own item/move bans, yet there are some tournaments who allow more than 1 tier group. (Read up on Smogon)

 

The game experience is what you make it to. At least i think the games are good at its current state, could need a few minor changes. (base stats for some pokemons etc)

 

Anyway i said earlier, i'm open for completely different approach in the franchise but then it should stay as spin-off/side game of the core games. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real time fighting Pokemon has already been experimented with in the Pokepark games, not to mention Smash Bros.

*grammar nazi time* 'Ahem... It's spelled "plow". :huh:' Also, I was thinking more along the lines of final fantasy tactics, I assume it'll be a 3DS release so, touch screen attack and team management plus analogue controls to an isometric viewpoint.

A DS game called Pokemon Conquest was just released this week actually that is exactly that I believe, seems really interesting. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real time fighting Pokemon has already been experimented with in the Pokepark games, not to mention Smash Bros. A DS game called Pokemon Conquest was just released this week actually that is exactly that I believe, seems really interesting. :)

 

Friend literally just told me about it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, you want Monster Rancher?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sd2bRqRT-A

 

At least, thats what I'm imagining from what I'm reading.

 

But personally, I don't see this working, at least not in the mane games. It would alienate long term players, and the battle system is fine as is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, as well as many others, believe that Pokemon is so great because of the strategic turn-based battling. There's already games that are sort of like this, such as the battling in Poke Park 2. I personally think it's fine the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how pokemon is currently. I rarely play pokemon now anyway. I wouldn't mind trying an new battle system though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, you want Monster Rancher?

 

[media]http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sd2bRqRT-A[/media

]

 

At least, thats what I'm imagining from what I'm reading.

 

But personally, I don't see this working, at least not in the mane games. It would alienate long term players, and the battle system is fine as is right now.

 

That is TOTALLY not how I imagined it. It's more like Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm, but with pokemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.