Comment

Comment on Would you like to see a mainline Pokemon game created in the old style?

I’m not totally sure what that would add to the experience. The core battles are still the same, just with more added on. I like pixel graphics and old gameboy music, but I don’t see why people would buy it. It’s seems strange considering it would be the same game as before, but less.

Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.

That was me imagining it if it were limited to gen 1 gameplay. Maybe there’s a case to remake regions in like a style like emerald, but I still think it’s just a game that already exists but with less.

If you don’t know about them already, you should look into pokémon rom-hacks. Some are kinda like what you described, but they add their own twist like changing the story, adding new types, or adding newer pokémon or mechanics. A lot of them are really well made too.

source

Sort:hotnew top

dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I’d say Pokémon is one of the franchises to which the transition to 3D added nothing of value to the experience. Every 3D Pokémon has been ugly as sin.

source
- FRYD@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I definitely think the quality on the 3D models could be better, but I think the move to 3D has made the game more immersive and things like the size variations are charming details that makes “your” pokémon feel more unique. I was mainly questioning whether a product like that would actually sell well enough to be worth the effort, not making any statement of which is superior.
  
  source
  - Elevator7009@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Huge preferrer of 2D here, will admit the size variations made possible with 3D is a point in their favor for me.
    
    source
gradual@lemmings.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
You know, sometimes less is more.

Just because there’s more “stuff” in a game like Violet doesn’t mean it adds to the overall experiences. Sometimes it detracts from it. A lot of times it detracts from it.

This is of course all subjective and if you enjoy that additional mechanics, it’s good you have them. There are of course others out there who would disagree with you and appreciate a more “core” experience in a Pokemon game.

Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.

They can keep everything you’ve mentioned except terastallizing, a rideable legendary, and probably a good amount of your “and so on.” I’m pretty sure Pokemon games have had an open world since the beginning, but maybe some people have different ideas of what constitutes an open world.

source
- FRYD@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  If you want a pokémon game without new things, why want a new pokémon game? That doesn’t really make sense to me. I don’t think most of the gimmicks they’ve made have throughout the gens have been very good, but I appreciate them for the splash of novelty and I just ignore the ones I don’t like because I know they’re not permanent. I almost never tera-ed my mons in violet, I just grinded levels and planned my party like I have for 20 years.
  
  By open world, I meant being able to travel through most routes and towns without a black screen or loading screen.
  
  That said I wasn’t making a quality statement. I was comparing the most recent game with the first and I don’t know how there would be a significant market for a much more clunky version of an existing game with a huge chunk of features removed.
  
  source