NEW POKEMON SUN AND MOON INFO!

I'm still really iffy on if I should buy the game. From what I've heard about it, and what I've seen, I don't think I'd like it all that much.

its actually really good Llama

LlamaMinister wrote:I'm still really iffy on if I should buy the game. From what I've heard about it, and what I've seen, I don't think I'd like it all that much.

It's definitely not traditional pokemon, I am curious about what you don't like about it though. The cutscenes aren't as bad as people are making them out to be, it just makes the game feel more like the anime, and I doubt a lot of these other things are staying past gen 7. (We'll probably see a return to HMs even though they totally mess up my team roster...)

Well, personally, I'm not the biggest fan of anime in general. That's one of my biggest turn offs. I've also been told by a few people who I trust a fair bit that the first hours of the game are REALLY slow and cutscene heavy. I'm also not a big fan of most of the designs from this gen.

To me, gen 5 and gen 3 are the biggest offenders of cutscenes (ORAS was too much) and it is nowhere near that bad, but there were at least 3 times when I said "Oh my god, shut up and let me play the game." When the game finally shut up I was ok with it because it just straight-up hands you some great/ultra balls at the start of the game and an EXP share, it was the tradeoff for me. Plus something about seeing my character be chosen by my starter pokemon was sort of a big deal to me.

It does have a lot in common with the gamecube games in terms of being directed more by a story than the usual formula though, and I dunno where that story is going so far.

I thought it might've been the HM thing, which eh, if they bring that concept back in gen 8 I really hope they make some major changes to it. (Like letting us get rid of trees/rocks with more than one move or not making us teach our pokemon a useless move in battle just to fast travel.)

Eh, Gen 3 wasn't suuuuper cutscene heavy, honestly. Though ORAS was much more so, admittedly. But that was one of my dislikes of Gen 5. The cutscene in that game basically expected you to care about everything that was happening without directly giving the character any reason to care besides the fact a cutscene was happening. Same kinda goes to Gen 6, but it did have less cutscenes overall, so...

I'd heard that once, and to be honest, I didn't really like the Gamecube games storywise. The stories in those games were, for lack of a better word, very "anime" in style and execution. This game seems like it's going down that path and not even very well, considering I guessed one of the plot points months back. It looks to be rather predictable.

Okay, hope you're ready for a ramble, because that's where this one leads. I am not too happy with getting rid of HMs just like that. HMs were a HUGE part of exploration, as we all know, but the only was they were usable outside of battle were through beating gyms. This gave an immediate connection between what the player wants to do and what the game's story wants you to do. You want to beat the gyms so you can explore more places and find new Pokemon, the game wants you to beat gyms so you can get closer to the end of the game. X/Y, for the most part, made HMs kinda useless besides surf. You almost never needed an HM on your team at all, and that helped lead the game feel more linear and "hand holding" since it never felt like anything was keeping you from advancing forward. Needing HMs made that feeling go away. It gave a better general feeling of progression since earlier in the game, you may have seen this area you wanted to go to, but couldn't because you didn't have the tools you needed to go that way. It made you actually feel like you were advancing to places YOU wanted to go, not places the GAME wanted you to go. They could get rid of HMs in a good way by instead replacing them with tools you get rewarded after beating a gym that would do the same thing as the HMs. So ultimately, getting rid of the HMs isn't that big a problem for me, it's more the way they decided to replace them.

LlamaMinister wrote:Eh, Gen 3 wasn't suuuuper cutscene heavy, honestly. Though ORAS was much more so, admittedly. But that was one of my dislikes of Gen 5. The cutscene in that game basically expected you to care about everything that was happening without directly giving the character any reason to care besides the fact a cutscene was happening. Same kinda goes to Gen 6, but it did have less cutscenes overall, so...

I'd heard that once, and to be honest, I didn't really like the Gamecube games storywise. The stories in those games were, for lack of a better word, very "anime" in style and execution. This game seems like it's going down that path and not even  very well, considering I guessed one of the plot points months back. It looks to be rather predictable.

Okay, hope you're ready for a ramble, because that's where this one leads. I am not too happy with getting rid of HMs just like that. HMs were a HUGE part of exploration, as we all know, but the only was they were usable outside of battle were through beating gyms. This gave an immediate connection between what the player wants to do and what the game's story wants you to do. You want to beat the gyms so you can explore more places and find new Pokemon, the game wants you to beat gyms so you can get closer to the end of the game. X/Y, for the most part, made HMs kinda useless besides surf. You almost never needed an HM on your team at all, and that helped lead the game feel more linear and "hand holding" since it never felt like anything was keeping you from advancing forward. Needing HMs made that feeling go away. It gave a better general feeling of progression since earlier in the game, you may have seen this area you wanted to go to, but couldn't because you didn't have the tools you needed to go that way. It made you actually feel like you were advancing to places YOU wanted to go, not places the GAME wanted you to go. They could get rid of HMs in a good way by instead replacing them with tools you get rewarded after beating a gym that would do the same thing as the HMs. So ultimately, getting rid of the HMs isn't that big a problem for me, it's more the way they decided to replace them.

I never minded being locked out of doing certain things until I beat a gym so I sort of agree. I mean they can just as easily say you're a skilled enough trainer to direct pokemon in more ways than battling, like cutting down trees or smashing rocks or riding them, instead of just allowing you to use one move. I mean, I've seen ash break rocks with steel wing in the anime, or fly on pokemon without ever teaching them fly, and why exactly can't moves like leaf blade cut trees just as easily as cut? I mean, who doesn't teach their sceptile leaf blade? It'd be something you already have, that's viable for that pokemon, but that you can suddenly use outside of battle once you beat a gym. It'd still be progression but it wouldn't mandate dragging a bibarel across the map with you.

Plus fly is just one of the shittiest moves ever. It takes 2 turns to use, yet it only does 80 damage? I can get more damage off with acrobatics! Yet until gen 6 if you wanted convenience with eggs you'd need a pokemon with flame body and a pokemon that could fly, and only gen 6 really combined the two. (Finally.)

I actually like feeling like my pokemon help pave the way for me but HMs have always broken that illusion just by how "game-y" they are, I mean, they make no sense and you cannot even see which pokemon you're riding on so they always just became a means to an end for me instead of something that pulls me in.

I don't really know what to say about the anime thing, except, how did you get into pokemon? I mean, the anime has been a huge part of it since the 90s and to my knowledge that was how most people got into it, not to mention it's clearly very japanese with how the art style looks. Plus a common anime trope is friendship and teamwork and that's been in pokemon since gen 1. I can understand not liking anime, I'm just curious what appeal pokemon holds for people who don't, considering all those factors.

Just gonna mention that I think team skull are my favorite bad guys though just because I find them hilarious. I'd like the pokemon anime so much more if they replaced team rocket but I suspect team rocket will never sod off just for the sake of fanservice. -.-

Something that irks me a little is that the HM's are completely gone from what everyone seems to be saying. Since people seem to still want them, they could've just made them into TM's instead. That way people can still have them for whatever purpose and their pokeride feature can still be in place.

See, I've studied game design a fair bit, and when things are made solely for story and ignoring good game design choices, it just irks me, and that's part of my problem with getting rid of HMs.

Now, that's an interesting story, actually. I didn't really "get into" Pokemon, since I've genuinely been playing the games for as long as I can remember. Back before my memory remembered things, my family had purchased a used Nintendo 64 from my neighbors, games and all. With that, we got Pokemon Snap, Pokemon Stadium, and Pokemon Stadium 2. I still have those exact cartridges, actually. So, I've literally loved Pokemon most of my life. I eventually got Pokemon Crystal, then Sapphire, all before I'd ever even heard about the anime. Then I watched it, and  I didn't like it. I wasn't the biggest fan of complex stories back then because I was a dumb kid who only liked games and watching stuff explode. The games, while some had story elements here and there, never focused on them, and thus I never cared. Obviously, now that I've tried writing stories and have studied game design a fair bit since I was a dumb kid, and am now a dumb adult, I do appreciate stories in video games, but I like realist stories, with believable characters and relatable motives. That is part of why I don't like stories in Pokemon, and most jRPGs in general. They are typically less intricate and less believable than other stories, while also simultaneously being over the top and ridiculous. Those types of stories just aren't my thing. So, basically, I like Pokemon a lot for the gameplay, not the art style or the stories they present.
Also, friendship and teamwork are general common story tropes in LITERALLY HUNDREDS of non-anime stories, so that's mostly a mute point.

I'm the kind of person who will forgive mediocre gameplay or just gameplay I do not like if a game has a good story, or a story I do like. (Literally the only reason I beat sonic adventure 2, it's not like the gameplay saved it.) I can also suspend disbelief a little so long as the heroes of stories represent virtues I agree with or appreciate, and almost all anime characters do, especially in ghibli films. The ironic thing here is that I don't actually like how pokemon plays that much, I stay into it for the general theme of the game, the art style, and the collection aspect. I'm not huge on turn-based combat, I view it as something old RPGs did to ompensate for lack of processing power and the only reason it's still used today is for legacy purposes or to appeal to nostalgia, I feel like pokemon should've opted for realtime 3 generations ago on the DS but the only reason it didn't was for those two things. But even so, I probably wouldn't have played the main games at all if it weren't for the anime and the gamecube games having a story I liked.

I basically go out of my way to hunt down TMs so I will likely confirm for myself whether or not they're in the game. I don't understand why they'd remove them entirely since some of them are actually useful, or at least good for clearing out hordes of geodude.

Personally, I feel the turn based RPG style makes the most sense for Pokemon because of the strategy the games allow you to employ. If it were to be real time, then the types of strategies would be very different game play wise, and it wouldn't feel like you are commanding your Pokemon, but instead it would feel like you ARE your Pokemon, which just isn't what Pokemon is about.

And no, that's not at all why turn based systems are still used today. It's a matter of preferences. Look at the game Secret of Mana. It's an RPG from the SNES era that uses real time combat. Now look at Final Fantasy 7 on the Play Station. It's a much more powerful console, but it's still turn based. You know why? Because they play very differently from one another. Some people prefer turn based combat over real time combat. That's just how it is. It's never been a problem of processing power. It's just how they wanted the games to be designed.

(Probably not a good time to go off on a tangent about how much I hate FF7.)

The real-time VS turn-based thing has existed among pokemon fans for ages though, it's probably a 50/50 split, especially since the battles look a lot more exciting in the anime.

The biggest problem I have with the vanilla turn-based system in any game is that it always involves navigating menu screens and menu screens aren't that immersive nor do they make you feel like you have any real agency, and wha has always been my biggest gripe with pokemon is the sheer disconnect you have with these monsters you supposedly care for.

This is one reason why pokemon-ami was a big deal to me, it was basically offering me what I actually wanted out of pokemon which was a way to interact with them. Plus, battles are supposed to be these intense high-priority things like any combat situation but you can basically sit there for an hour and make your choice unless the 120 second timer is active in PVP, and outside of PVP there isn't a whole lot to think about in terms of strategy, you just match types or tank with the highest level and you basically win the game.

I prefer yo-kai watch or monster rancher for engaging combat. You have to worry about several things at once, in yo-kai watch's case it's team positioning, what everyone should direct their fire on, who needs healing, who needs debuffs removed, and who's soultimate is near ready and you have to worry about that all at once while switching around who's out in realtime, making sure you're fast enough to get into your bag and toss out a healing item before someone gets KOed, doing a little minigame to remove debuffs or charge a soultimate (again, trying t obe quick about it), and also keeping an eye out for those bonus things that float across the screen and sometimes drop good shit.

In monster rancher's case it's worrying about how much energy you have mostly. You use your monsters for everything from dungeon crawling to tourneys and when they run out of energy, you get booted from a dungeon or lose a tourney and just wasted an in-game week. Everything takes up energy including attacking in battle which you need to worry about the distance from your enemy because it effects your attacks as well as how much energy it's likely to take so you can't just spam your strongest move the whole time and sweep, you actually have to be careful especially in dungeons where just walking around depletes energy as well.

Also worth mentioning digimon world on PSX had a sort-of real-time arena combat system where you stand on the sidelines and direct your digimon from there, and depending on how well trained it is depended on how well it listened and how many commands it knew.

Pokemon had the perfect chance to try out some more engaging gameplay with the MD games where you actually do control the pokemon but they stuck to the menu screen approach instead which is why I will continue to consider those games wasted opportunity. (At leat the newer ones let you pick your pokemon without looking up answers in a personality quiz though, I got tired of getting cubone. >_>)

Pokemon X and Y sort of implemented working with the environment 9aside from weather) but it was mostly just to get berries and the only environmental interactivity still remains using really specific moves on really specific objects. The pokemon ranger games were a little more robust with using pokemon to clear field hazards with one move having multiple applications, and sun and moon actually let you ride pokemon for that purpose although sadly they still aren't /your/ pokemon that you raised. (Worth mentioning you can and had to ride your own monsters that you raised just to get past environmental hazards in monster rancher's dungeons.)

So I guess tl;dr I wish pokemon were more interactive and had a more engaging battle system because the one it has now is, for lack of a better word, really vanilla compared to every other monster tamer game I've played.

This game is kind of amazing holy crap! I had kind of big expectations for it and it exceeded them! Even my two major hopes came to fruition, which doesn't make thing any worse for me. I still can't find any more hairstyles though, so Llama's probably right when he said that the other hair styles are probably a post-game thing.

Spoiler:

I'm... Not going to bother reading all of the comments on the battle mechanics thing. Though there is a fan game (that's more like a Final Fantasy game than it is Pokemon) called... Something like "Super Eevee Edition" or whatever, that has a Final Fantasy time based system instead of a turn base, and even though I love that game to death, I just feel like the turn base system is better for Pokemon. Especially since... Y'know just how OP the fastest Pokemon would be in a time based RPG? At least it's fair in a turn base system.

Edit: I just remembered that there's an NPC in the graveyard that, if you battle him and then talk to him, will talk about how... Well, I suppose I could just show you.

Spoiler:

I didn't bother battling this man, and now I never will. Thanks Vinny, for doing it for me.
And yes, this is the same Makuhita you just battled. I think this is a nod to Nuzlockes or something.

Edit again: I progressed a little more. Holy crap I love this game.

Eh, I still think the old guy in XY who dies is a lot more impactful, myself.

LlamaMinister wrote:Eh, I still think the old guy in XY who dies is a lot more impactful, myself.

That was sad. This... This Nuzlocker in the game, is just messed up.
"Well, you just murdered my Pokemon. What is this game rated again?"

Wait. Reread what the Nuzlocker says.

meanwhile I'm still on the second island because I play games slowly.

You know there's something fishy when you get swept by a glaceon. >_> IT'S IN FRICKIN NU TIER ;_; (also the worst eevee)

w/e found a good way to troll wild pokemon douchey enough to call for help

>catch growlithe with flash fire
>fight smeargle who only knows sketch
>only calls for smeargle who also know sketch
>keep using ember on them, they can't do shit to you
>I grew 2 levels in 1 battle gg

can't wait to get to the third island so I can get an alolan exeggutor

Eh, what have I missed?
Pokemon is a strategy game at its core, so they cannot change the main series gameplay. If you want more action, that's usually provided in the spinoffs, like Pokepark or Super Smash Brothers.

I'm on the fourth island, most of the team is level 50. So far my comments are the design of the islands are beautiful, but the story is horrible. GG gamefreak.

http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-sm/037.shtml#

HUWHAT?!

ok there is NO WAY that is fair. Those sun-loving heathens cannot possibly appreciate the grace and majesty of this pokemon. They should've gotten that sonic-lookin thing instead of us. >:O

Dragon Arbock wrote:Eh, what have I missed?
Pokemon is a strategy game at its core, so they cannot change the main series gameplay. If you want more action, that's usually provided in the spinoffs, like Pokepark or Super Smash Brothers.

I'm on the fourth island, most of the team is level 50. So far my comments are the design of the islands are beautiful, but the story is horrible. GG gamefreak.

What I want is more engagement with my monsters, there are many other ways to employ strategy in a game besides using a system right out of 1988, which I gave examples of in a previous post.

And the anime has real-time combat so why can't the games? The battles look so much cooler in the anime anyway.

At least half the pokemon fandom agrees with me so w/e.

Edit: The day-care no longer forces pokemon to level up and is on the second island which means I can get me an alolan vulpix to raise while on my adventure that I didn't get through a stinkin' trade. >

Sandslash is cooler than Ninetales.

LlamaMinister wrote:Sandslash is cooler than Ninetales.

ROLLIN AROUND AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
GOT PLACES TO GO GOTTA FOLLOW MA RAINBOW

Ariakai wrote:What I want is more engagement with my monsters, there are many other ways to employ strategy in a game besides using a system right out of 1988, which I gave examples of in a previous post.

So all platformers need new gameplay? Because those are even older than RPGs. Something like Shovel Knight has bad gameplay because it uses game mechanics from Mario, Zelda 2, and Mega Man, all of which are NES games based on that logic.

There is a new online battle type they're implementing with global link for something close to having real time battles titled "Your Time"

'When using this method of time accounting, players will have a maximum of 60 seconds each turn to select a move or Pokémon, and they will also each be awarded 10 minutes of “Your Time.” Under these rules, if a player runs out of their 10 minutes before the battle ends, that player loses the match. This will mean matches can be decided more quickly than in the past, allowing players to enjoy thrilling battles.'

Something I've covered before but no-one seemed to care about, this still has the turn based mechanics but pushed people to make quick decisions or face losing and is closer to a real time thing. As for actually fighting in real time, it's not gonna happen in a mainstream game. They found a formula that worked and made it easy for young players of the game, because of it's simplicity and the fact it drew in more customers, they didn't change it to real time, instead adding onto it. The only ways they'd change it is by deciding it as a company, the least likely to be why. Or by the majority of their fan-base wanting a new system, again unlikely because their major target audience is kids who just want an easy and fun game to play and this would make it considerably harder.

Though the main reason why they'll not change it is from a programming point of view. Switching to real time would involve a complete rework of the entire battle system, they'd have to add in older code and create new code just for things to work and it'd take far too long to get it to a presentable state in a game because you'd have to include ALL the content in that and other areas from the previous games and the design companies can't go that long without releasing something. That's why instead of taking years to create something completely different, they just build onto the code they have with each generation, making it better year by year, such as adding the faster paced "Your Time" battles. I don't understand the design process entirely, but I know it's hell to code a good fighting system for a game. Just be thankful Pokemon has such a well polished fight system instead of a real buggy if not unplayable real time system.

LlamaMinister wrote:

Ariakai wrote:What I want is more engagement with my monsters, there are many other ways to employ strategy in a game besides using a system right out of 1988, which I gave examples of in a previous post.

So all platformers need new gameplay? Because those are even older than RPGs. Something like Shovel Knight has bad gameplay because it uses game mechanics from Mario, Zelda 2, and Mega Man, all of which are NES games based on that logic.

I think having you navigate a bunch of menus just to play a game is pretty boring. I can give a perfect example, just now I was looking for new pokemon in a route and ran up on a mudbray, after a few turns we both lowered each other's accuracy. Then one of the turns progressed exactly like this: Both pokemon just stood there while approximately 6 text boxes scrolled across the screen and told me that they tried to attack and missed each other meanwhile one of the moves used doesn't effect either pokemon. I didn't see anything happen on-screen, it was described to me in text, and I've played VNs with better visual cues.

There are better ways to make a strategy game, I don't see why this has to be something you blow way out of proportion with hyperbolic comparisons like that, but I guess I will mention that platformers actually have changed since one of the original platformers was pitfall on the atari and platformers have long since adopted the scrolling camera approach over the scene transition one except in the case of puzzle platformers like oddworld, and a lot of metroidvania games actually use both.

Istas wrote:There is a new online battle type they're implementing with global link for something close to having real time battles titled "Your Time"

'When using this method of time accounting, players will have a maximum of 60 seconds each turn to select a move or Pokémon, and they will also each be awarded 10 minutes of “Your Time.” Under these rules, if a player runs out of their 10 minutes before the battle ends, that player loses the match. This will mean matches can be decided more quickly than in the past, allowing players to enjoy thrilling battles.'

Something I've covered before but no-one seemed to care about, this still has the turn based mechanics but pushed people to make quick decisions or face losing and is closer to a real time thing. As for actually fighting in real time, it's not gonna happen in a mainstream game. They found a formula that worked and made it easy for young players of the game, because of it's simplicity and the fact it drew in more customers, they didn't change it to real time, instead adding onto it. The only ways they'd change it is by deciding it as a company, the least likely to be why. Or by the majority of their fan-base wanting a new system, again unlikely because their major target audience is kids who just want an easy and fun game to play and this would make it considerably harder.

Though the main reason why they'll not change it is from a programming point of view. Switching to real time would involve a complete rework of the entire battle system, they'd have to add in older code and create new code just for things to work and it'd take far too long to get it to a presentable state in a game because you'd have to include ALL the content in that and other areas from the previous games and the design companies can't go that long without releasing something. That's why instead of taking years to create something completely different, they just build onto the code they have with each generation, making it better year by year, such as adding the faster paced "Your Time" battles. I don't understand the design process entirely, but I know it's hell to code a good fighting system for a game. Just be thankful Pokemon has such a well polished fight system instead of a real buggy if not unplayable real time system.

At least it'll be a way to check those tools who go look on wikis or smogon whenever they come up against something they don't recognize.

They'll pretty much never change it for the main games, but that doesn't mean it doesn't look dated and vanilla to me when every other JRPG plays the same way and has since the 80s. It's just a shame games that have much more engaging and strategic battle systems get overlooked because of the monopoly pokemon has.

Also the MD games came out on the DS/GBA and had the perfect chance to try a different battle approach but didn't. That just comes off as either lazy or pandery, I wouldn't respect either of those.

But whatever, my cousin likes the way it plays - or did, before he found dark souls and now thinks it should play like that. I'm not sure I'd go that far. But we always have monster rancher.

Ariakai, you seem to completely be forgetting that in the Mystery Dungeon games, you can make a hot key for a move amd never, and I mean NEVER, go into a menu to have to attack. And the battle style of those games are still VERY different from the main series games. And yes, it still works on a turn based system, but when some enemies in those games can kill you in two attacks, a real time combat system would completely break those games. Plus, the addition if the fact that, at most, you and your party can fight 14 different opponents at once, it...it just wouldn't work. Additionally, that is how Rouge Like games play. They didn't bring that mechanic over from Pokemon because of "pandering." That mechanic is a staple of Rouge Likes.