BW/BW2 Interesting Interview With Gamefreak; No Pokemon Gray? Doubtful

Status
Not open for further replies.
^expect the next game to be a platformer with power ups and boxing matches and no pokemon at all. :p :p :p

why fix somthing that isnt broken. sure we can change some thing but when you change everything...that is when series die. they wouldnt do that because they would destroy the franchise. sure they have taken it other directions. like mystery dungeon was pretty interesting. instead of catching pokemon you were the pokemon. sure there have been some flops (do i have to mention these...dash, trozei, ummm....i know that are others) but none have been as successful and that is because 1 the fan base and 2 the ideas and the way the games are. if you change the whole concept (what do you mean why are there new poke, old poke? if there are no poke what do you have....you have some guy running around just...idk doing nothing lol) then you lose that fan base. i think that BW was so successful because it seemed so new. sure DP was new but BW just seems like its a new breath of air into the games.

i hope gray comes in 2 years...next year would be to soon.
 
But seriously, there has to be a third version, because there are items and moves that are found in the games code that are obviously related to Kyurem, and that are not currently available. Plus Kyurem is not an event Legendary, so there is no way it can get freeze bolt and cold flare through a event, and he can't learn them normally through these games, so it has to be a third version, in which he can get these moves normally, when he's the mascot of the third version.
 
^expect the next game to be a platformer with power ups and boxing matches and no pokemon at all.

why fix somthing that isnt broken. sure we can change some thing but when you change everything...that is when series die. they wouldnt do that because they would destroy the franchise. sure they have taken it other directions. like mystery dungeon was pretty interesting. instead of catching pokemon you were the pokemon. sure there have been some flops (do i have to mention these...dash, trozei, ummm....i know that are others) but none have been as successful and that is because 1 the fan base and 2 the ideas and the way the games are. if you change the whole concept (what do you mean why are there new poke, old poke? if there are no poke what do you have....you have some guy running around just...idk doing nothing lol) then you lose that fan base. i think that BW was so successful because it seemed so new. sure DP was new but BW just seems like its a new breath of air into the games.

i hope gray comes in 2 years...next year would be to soon.
Click to expand...

Alas, your logic is a case in point – you would keep the old, same thing forever as long as it sold (if you enjoy it as a fan, then so be it). You can't imagine Pokémon other than what it is now because you give change an immediate negative connotation, and like much of this fan base, you seem to be scared of change. If it's a matter of infatuation, and you continue to play Pokémon looking for the same experience you had as a child or whenever you fell in love with the series, you're plain and simple a "nostalgia-whore," you don't like Pokémon, you like the experience you had at that time when it was "old," and that is the nonexistent quality you're trying to find playing Pokémon in the present. In fact it's kind of amusing because there's critics in the industry that complain the the series has been the same dang thing for a decade-and-a-half, and then when Gamefreak changes something, big or otherwise, everyone jumps to controversy and criticism themselves – that case in point would be Ruby and Sapphire; the introduction to modern Pokémon ruffled a ton of feathers, both in good and bad ways, and while many cynical people frown upon the generation, it is in many ways the most important generation in the series entirely since the beginning for building a foundation that nearly ten years later Black and White still build on. That was Gamefreak taking a risk, and if you enjoy Black and White now, it was a risk that payed off (quite literally too :p). That was the legacy of Ruby and Sapphire and in that vein the legacy of change completely. And to be frank, 13 million customers can speak for themselves :)…

Also, your notion of a flop is completely subjective, if you don't "like" a game, Pokémon or not, you can't come to a generalization that the said game is "bad," that's your prerogative and frankly an irrelevant opinion, as is mine, when you consider the potentially millions of people who've bought or played the game over the years. IGN and Gamerankings aren't the final authority on the quality of a game, the final authority is determined by you, me, and anyone else whose experienced the game, and our notion of good and bad applies to ourselves and ourselves only. I happen to have enjoyed Trozei a great deal, does that make it "good"? And especially if you've never even PLAYED the game, just ignore the condescending garbage on the Internet and make your own decision. In video games, the majority and their opinion DOES NOT RULE. If you've played a game and believe it to be bad, that's enough rationale for you, and if you've played a game and think it's good, that's all the good you'll ever need to prove, because you can only prove it to yourself.

What I mean by new Pokémon and old Pokémon is a concept that has already been employed. When one sets out to make a Pokémon game, is it absolutely necessary to introduce new Pokémon? Of course not! Look at just about every spin-off title, third game, and remake to date. And likewise, is it absolutely necessary to keep old Pokémon in a new game? The answer is the same, now because of Black and White. While some are so resilient to change, others have really embraced this as both an interesting and yet sensible decision, rather than immediately denouncing it as bad, or even worse, "meh" (that one really makes my blood boil, not caring at all is worse than hating).

And finally, I hate to be brash, but your argument kind of defeats itself :p. If Black and White were so successful because they "seemed so new," then how does change alienate a fanbase? If Pokémon existed as a game without Pokémon, and it were in fact a single guy running around, that gives no indication as to the quality or fan reception for that game. Because if you can make that guy running around a solid, enjoyable, memorable, and worthwhile experience, it does the same exact job that Pokémon games do now. Again, you, much like a large portion of any fanbase, are dismissing change, however radical it may be, as negative. That dismissal is completely unjustified. As a developer you can change anything you like to as radical of an extent as you'd like, and as long as you make the changes to foster this "good" experience, from a fan/gamer/recipient's perspective, your actions are justified. Fifteen years without shaking the core concepts of Pokémon down to their foundations, and yes, the fanbase will develop the conservative belief that change will immediately result in the series's "death," as you suggest. However, your argument, the notion that change kills something, is only a theory – until Pokémon makes that monumental leap, whether it lives or dies, we'll never know it as a fact. Personally I wouldn't suggest taking the Pokémon themselves out of the Pokémon series, they're the very entity that's given Pokémon such a unique appeal, but I would consider Gamefreak to undergo some very radical changes, building off of Black and White, be it making a Pokémon Gray or anything else. You can't appreciate what you have now in the games until you can look back on it from a new, different perspective. To that end, you can never anticipate whether or not you'll like change, until you give it a whirl ;).

What I'm saying is that both Pokémon developers and fans need to think outside of the box. Don't blindly follow the same path forever when there's a world of possibilities out there. And amazing possibilities at that.
 
Gary Walsh said:
Alas, your logic is a case in point – you would keep the old, same thing forever as long as it sold (if you enjoy it as a fan, then so be it). You can't imagine Pokémon other than what it is now because you give change an immediate negative connotation, and like much of this fan base, you seem to be scared of change.
Click to expand...

If you're not able to migrate from your previous Pokemon games then what's the point? Gary Walsh you don't realize how the Pokemon video game franchise is embedded with it's competitive play value especially the training for it post-E4.

That's almost like taking the fundamental values of the Pokemon TCG and changing it to the point where people won't be able to enjoy it anymore let alone use cards they had from previous sets. A similiar analogy applies with the Pokemon video games as well and Generation IV has already been proven to be successful.

Sure Pokemon doesn't seem at first designed to be competitive but since Generation III it has been steering into that direction ever since and is it a bad thing? no. But apparently we both see it differently and you just want to see a change in which it hurts the dependence of past versions.

With people buying past versions to migrate Pokemon onto the newer titles that's another great way that Nintendo and Game Freak are making money off of the Pokemon franchise cause who would want their copy of Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, HeartGold, SoulSilver, and the like to sit in his/her room collecting dust? At least you're making good use of it at least.

Gary Walsh said:
What I mean by new Pokémon and old Pokémon is a concept that has already been employed. When one sets out to make a Pokémon game, is it absolutely necessary to introduce new Pokémon? Of course not! Look at just about every spin-off title, third game, and remake to date. And likewise, is it absolutely necessary to keep old Pokémon in a new game? The answer is the same, now because of Black and White. While some are so resilient to change, others have really embraced this as both an interesting and yet sensible decision, rather than immediately denouncing it as bad, or even worse, "meh" (that one really makes my blood boil, not caring at all is worse than hating).
Click to expand...

Why is it necessary to introduce new Pokemon? Because it helps freshen up the metagame that's why. Yes there is a competitive metagame for the video game franchise whether you like it or not. Why is it necessary to keep Old Pokemon in a new game? Nostalgia and still being able to use strategies with old Pokemon with the new Pokemon being released for the game itself. I don't want to see Game Freak turn the Pokemon franchise to what they did where Gold and Silver weren't compatible with Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald.

Gary Walsh said:
What I'm saying is that both Pokémon developers and fans need to think outside of the box. Don't blindly follow the same path forever when there's a world of possibilities out there. And amazing possibilities at that.
Click to expand...

Apparently they didn't do too much of a good job with that in terms of the majority of the new Pokemon designs for Generation V. I see where you're getting at in terms of the possibility of Nintendo and Game Freak shouldn't follow the same path but yet at the same time like I said If THAT much changed occurred then you'd expect to see the death of the Video Game Championships every year let alone the Competitive Aspect of the Pokemon video game franchise itself.

There's other Pokemon video game titles where they've designed outside the box and Pokemon Snap! for the Nintendo 64 was a big hit back in the day and nowadays you have titles with Pikachu going on adventures including Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Pinball (which is amazing btw), among others it doesn't need to be with the mainstream Pokemon games cause the formula that's been used since Generation III still works.
 
If you're not able to migrate from your previous Pokemon games then what's the point? Gary Walsh you don't realize how the Pokemon video game franchise is embedded with it's competitive play value especially the training for it post-E4.

That's almost like taking the fundamental values of the Pokemon TCG and changing it to the point where people won't be able to enjoy it anymore let alone use cards they had from previous sets. A similiar analogy applies with the Pokemon video games as well and Generation IV has already been proven to be successful.

Sure Pokemon doesn't seem at first designed to be competitive but since Generation III it has been steering into that direction ever since and is it a bad thing? no. But apparently we both see it differently and you just want to see a change in which it hurts the dependence of past versions.

With people buying past versions to migrate Pokemon onto the newer titles that's another great way that Nintendo and Game Freak are making money off of the Pokemon franchise cause who would want their copy of Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, HeartGold, SoulSilver, and the like to sit in his/her room collecting dust? At least you're making good use of it at least.
Click to expand...
^You're reiterating exactly the same argument as catutie, except applying it to a competitive setting, which in itself is completely irrelevant to what I'm trying to argue… Firstly you assume that Pokémon migration will not exist if radical changes are made, and furthermore that migration constitutes an ENTIRE GAME'S justification for EXISTENCE :p, and likewise that the Elite Four is a necessity. And again I will say this, "conventional Pokémon." And your foremost argumentative flaw, the same as catutie's, is that you believe radical change would ruin something, in your argument the competitive field. While you're correct in stating that it is a possibility, you're incorrect in assuming it's the only possibility. It is just as likely an entirely new experience could merit the same or even a better competitive arena! Of course "better" is subjective within itself. Again, you are among many fans I know that can't realize change because you can't accept it, and thus fear it. And once, again, you don't know if you find change to be positive or good unless it happens, and as the changes I've mentioned have not happened yet, you cannot shove your, what seems to me condescending claims, in my face, nor anyone else's. The fact of the matter is that we just don't know, it hasn't happened yet. But wouldn't be something to find out, especially if it turned out to be "good"? There's nothing to fear, it's more exciting than anything to dabble in the unknown. And if I haven't made myself clear, I don't want to see "a change in which it hurts the dependence of past versions," I want to see something amazing, new or not. I'd be heartily disappointed if you don't want to see the same.

Why is it necessary to introduce new Pokemon? Because it helps freshen up the metagame that's why. Yes there is a competitive metagame for the video game franchise whether you like it or not. Why is it necessary to keep Old Pokemon in a new game? Nostalgia and still being able to use strategies with old Pokemon with the new Pokemon being released for the game itself. I don't want to see Game Freak turn the Pokemon franchise to what they did where Gold and Silver weren't compatible with Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald.
Click to expand...

But herein lies another flaw: is it necessary to "freshen up the metagame?" I'm afraid that this is just one of many parables for creating something – there are no absolutes, and whenever you want to state that something is an absolute necessity in a game, it just spirals arbitrarily, leading to the ultimate question, "why do we do what we do in a game?" The answer is simple: there is no answer. You do something because you believe it's beneficial, constructive, or "necessary," but when it all comes down to it, your beliefs are subjective, and someone else might not give second thought to the metagame, because from their perspective they feel other facets of the game hold more of their concern, whether or not you or I agree. Again, that's all I'm saying, examine the game from a different perspective, and you'll understand what the game is, and how you feel it can be changed/improved. The same manifests itself throughout the entire franchise, and throughout any franchise. You bring to the table your bias, and I bring mine; it's not until we can swap biases and understand each other (and everyone else) that they disappear, if you understand what I'm saying.

Apparently they didn't do too much of a good job with that in terms of the majority of the new Pokemon designs for Generation V. I see where you're getting at in terms of the possibility of Nintendo and Game Freak shouldn't follow the same path but yet at the same time like I said If THAT much changed occurred then you'd expect to see the death of the Video Game Championships every year let alone the Competitive Aspect of the Pokemon video game franchise itself.
Click to expand...

If you think they didn't do a good job, then again, that's your perspective, THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES! I may think they are great, someone else might think that they're great, and some other guy might think they're atrocious, but can we say there is an absolute, all-righteous fact that the designs are good or bad if we follow only one person's train of logic and bias? For goodness sake NO! :p It's all relative, regardless of "popular opinion," whatever you determine that to be. And again, the competitive aspect is completely irrelevant; I understand where you place your values in terms of Pokémon's gameplay facets, but the VGC and metagame have nothing to do with this, except for the fact that you ASSUME they'd be in ruination if drastic changes were to occur, again because of your seeming resilience and/or fear to change, which I just discussed before…

There's other Pokemon video game titles where they've designed outside the box and Pokemon Snap! for the Nintendo 64 was a big hit back in the day and nowadays you have titles with Pikachu going on adventures including Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Pinball (which is amazing btw), among others it doesn't need to be with the mainstream Pokemon games cause the formula that's been used since Generation III still works.
Click to expand...

I'm probably gonna end up repeating the same argument :p, but all because the formula for Generation III "still works," doesn't mean we should keep it, because if you keep what "still works," you keep the same thing, and change, the whole topic of this already skewed discussion, flies out the window. If you want to change things, if you want to be creative, than you need to leave the nest and take a risk, it's a simple notion that can be replicated in all facets of life, video games being but a tiny speck in that universe of thought. And I never suggested that spin-off mechanics and concepts should be implemented in main-line games – whether or not this is done in the future is completely Gamefreak's prerogative, if they saw it as beneficial and wanted to pursue such a course of action, they'd put it in, regardless of our personal opinions on the matter.


Again, just think outside the box, outside of the conventions that define what Pokémon is at the present. You challenge something to make it better. Otherwise, Gamefreak has its chickens fed forever on the same feed, sheesh…

…Though I agree Pokémon Pinball is amazing, maybe we can make that an absolute? Haha :D.
 
@ Gary

im all up for change. by flop i meant that it was one of the least sucessful. sure some may have liked it. i didnt think trozei was to bad. it was...an experiment i would say. they had great puzzle games before, pokemon puzzle league was great. and my point was taht if they changed the formula it would hurt them more than it would help them. as you said there is the large fan base that likes what the pokemon games are right now. then they make a change and those people hate it. if they radically change the game they would probably lose over half of there fan base, sales would drop drastically, and pokemon would die. pokemon is one of the most profitable series EVER so keeping it how it is is securing that the game will sell and that they will profit. they tried changing it drastically, pokemon mystery dungeon is an example. sure its a pokemon game but it was so different it just never really had as much success, especially compared to the main stream games. it may have been semi successful but it didnt make NEARLY as much as the main games. lets take pokemon channel as another example or hey you pikachu. both good games but still they changed the formula drastically and it didnt work as well as the main games. as i said changing it drastically loses over half the fan base. and just BTW...my fav pokemon game is the pokemon TCG on the gameboy....not the old games

edit: that is weird....ninja'd by the person this post was for lol
 
OK, now I'm getting angry :p, did you guys not read my entire argument! I'm not singling out any particular game, it's not about that, I'm telling you to think conceptually for all Pokémon games, to thing big.

What I've said seemingly a million times now is that you guys are ASSUMING that change it BAD!!! You're ASSUMING that a radical move would hurt them more than it would help them, you're ASSUMING that the fanbase would leave, and you're ASSUMING that sales would drop, people would hate it, and Pokémon would die! You're assuming bad things will happen. But DO YOU KNOW? I can answer that for all of us: NO! The fact of the matter is that nothing even remotely similar to the degree of change I've mentioned has ever been attempted, and until it IS ATTEMPTED, YOU WILL NOT KNOW! So please, don't carry those kinds of assumptions, because they can only be as true as they are false – both you and I need to, again, think of what Pokémon can become rather than what we think it should be. I can't make it any more clear…
 
^yes....and it is an insane risk. if you label a game pokemon blah version. it has certain expectations...if those expectations arnt met then it spreads...and people dont buy the game. im just giving examples of when they radically changed the concept and that it never really took off. we can think up how we would want pokemon to be or how it should be but if its to far from what it is now they will MOST LIKELY lose in the end because it doesnt meet expectations.
 
And what might those "expectations" happen to be? Please, enlighten me… And also, add some examples of how radically changed concepts have been "successful" (successful for you and I are two separate things). Then it becomes evident that we can't derive an objective view that changing concepts is bad, if you have a roughly equal number of "bad" endeavors and "good" endeavors. I'm telling consistently not to assume, and in reading my argument, you STILL ASSUME that "they will MOST LIKELY lose in the end." It's a flaw in your arguing, you need to provide evidence:

KNOWLEDGE = PROPERLY JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF​

It's a common academic slogan, but until you can provide me with JUSTIFIED BELIEF, your argument is moot. And I can tell you, there's no justified belief because there's no evidence: it's just as likely a change could be a flop as it is likely it could be an immense success, you apparently just don't see the positive side of the debate. Give me all the marketing predictions you like, but if there's one justified, true belief, it's that we'll NEVER KNOW if the changed game will be a success or failure, because it doesn't EXIST. Until Pokémon is redefined from its foundations and changes the way I've said, we just don't know if change is good or bad. My proposition is that we FIND OUT, so until we do, that's that.
 
the expectation is that you run around get a starter catch pokemon train pokemon beat gyms and then beat the champion...that is all a pokemon game is, its about becoming the best. if a pokemon game isnt about being the best and leveling up and what ever then it wont become AS popular. i said sucessful pokemon games that wernt pokemon _____ version BUT they wernt as successful pokemon ____ version. sure mystery dungeon was semi successful but it isnt as successful as the regular games.
 
I honestly give up. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WOULDN'T BE AS POPULAR!!!!! And, you're again ASSUMING that a Pokémon game is solely about getting a starter, training Pokémon, beating the gyms, and beating the champion, you're ASSUMING it's about becoming the best – but tell me, how do you know? All you're saying is that Pokémon is defined solely by its current RPG experience. But what if I were to say Pokémon were all about competitive battling, or contests, or joining online forums to make friends and trade/battle. What is Pokémon then? You have to realize that Pokémon is only what it is relative to one person. No single person can think Pokémon is ALL of these experiences, because its impossible to quantify the number of experiences that define what Pokémon is, they're infinite. And once you can comprehend that, you still assume that a (main-series) Pokémon game not about leveling up and "whatever" (at this point you have know idea what you even want to argue :p) would not be as successful! Again, tell me. HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

Catching and training Pokémon, battling gyms, and doing all these things you've said are only CONVENTIONS, things that happen to be consistent through the entire series. But please make the distinction: they ARE NOT NECESSARY. Gamefreak, through THEIR PERSPECTIVE, felt the need to continue these role-playing traditions throughout the series. Whether this was motivated by financial fears (which you guys have been oh so keen in pointing out :p) or creative decision-making, I don't know. What I do know is that a Pokémon game can be made that uses none of this. The belief is that it would be bad doesn't make it true, no matter who believes it. The belief is that it would be good doesn't make it true, no matter who believes it. Because again, good and bad are subjective, and we'll never be able to form our own opinions on change if it DOESN'T HAPPEN. My claim is that I would like to see it happen, so that WE CAN COME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS. That's it. Wouldn't you want to see it happen too, to see what the possibilities could be like, even if you couldn't go back to convention? Understand the nature of argument and ignorance before you formulate an opinion… It's all about having an open mind. For Pokémon and for everything.
 
hey you pikachu, pokemon channel, pokemon rumble, pokemon ranch, pokemon snap, pokemon mystery dungeon, pokemon dash, pokemon trozei, pokemon puzzle league, any other spin off pokemon games im forgetting...those are all examples that you are asking for. they are when GF took pokemon in a different diretion and it just didnt live up to the pokemon ___ version games. that is what im saying. any time they changed it up it just hasnt been as successful.
 
No offense Gary Walsh but I think you've set your expectations too high on the Pokemon video game franchise. I know we're not going to see eye to eye but at least me and catutie made a valid argument to some extent at least. At least the Dream World was an innovative feature for Generation V, hook your DS up to the internet and do awesome stuff. Grow EV Berries, Breed, catch Old Pokemon with Dream World Abilities, it's exciting so far.

I like the Pokemon video games (well the mainstream ones at least) just the way they are. Sure it's not perfect nothing is however it's kept that tradition of battling that's made the games so addictive for a long time. Yeah Power Creep from past generations might become more of a problem as time goes on but I think Nintendo, TPCi, and such will find a way to fix those problems.

I just don't know If banning all the Old Pokemon for VGC 2011 was the best choice when they could've just split the Championships into 2 formats where you have Gen V Exclusives and Gen IV and V Pokemon combined in the other.
 
Neither of your arguments would seem valid if neither of you can understand mine :p. I'm not discussing the games themselves per se, it's the concept of Pokémon that should be experimented in the same way the gameplay and mechanics has been in the past. All I'm trying to get across is that we can't assume anything as a given when we consider a new Pokémon game. We should see what happens if we remove everything that's defined Pokémon thus far and replace it with something new, or a conglomeration of new and old, because that's exactly what would constitute a new experience, an exciting prospect to think about right now. Gamefreak has been adding on and refining the franchise rather than "rebooting" it to a complete extent, and if we could all remove ourselves from the pre-concieved notions of what Pokémon is already, we could, again, focus completely on what it can become. People are stubbornly stuck to "what's next" for Pokémon, not "what's new," and while an entirely radical change of everything we've come to know does spark fear in some who are dead-set on convention, it's that risk that makes such a change incredibly exciting, even more so than "just the next game." Because while it's likely that an entirely new Pokémon experience could "flop," it's equally as likely it could be a success, maybe even more so than what we have now. It's about expanding the experience, not the game, and showing the initiative to embrace such a risk or change is to show an utmost compassion for this great series and its future. What I'm saying is that there are infinite possibilities of how you can expand and craft a game; the idea of Pokémon straying from its conventional ways could make these possibilities reality, in ways that playing Pokémon now, you could never even fathom. Even if there's no way to improve, there's always a way to change, and change doesn't immediately mean something negative, as you guys suggest. It means something different, you don't know whether it's good or bad unless you try it, unless it even exists in the first place. People such as yourselves have been conditioned by Gamefreak to immediately assume that a new Pokémon game will absolutely have certain things (i.e. starters, trainers, marts, you name it, a respective generation, third game, etc.). But what if you could leave that alone for the time being and try something new from scratch? My expectations are not at all high, they're just not popularly accepted, because people can't even form a vision of what Pokémon would look like without the things we so readily assume should be in a Pokémon game. There's a distinct difference between a sequel and a new game, and I think especially moving into a not just a new generation but a new era with Black and White, it would be amazing and satisfying to see a decade-and-a-half of culture and history close, with a brand new horizon ahead of which we know absolutely nothing. Not only would it allow people to experience and contemplate a whole new game universe, it would show us really just how far we've come. It's not ambitious, all it takes is for Junichi Masuda to walk into Gamefreak's office building and use a ctrl/command-a delete on a line of code. It's a willingness to imagine – that's what gave birth to this idea and franchise over twenty years ago. And now, it should be a willingness to say, "why don't we do it all over again?" That's creative, artistic, and honorable game design, and if you've done so much as to come on this forum, it should be what you believe Pokémon to be. That's my argument:

What if?​

And from that, we can make our own future. It's a beautiful thing.
 
Gary Walsh said:
It's not ambitious, all it takes is for Junichi Masuda to walk into Gamefreak's office building and use a ctrl/command-a delete on a line of code. It's a willingness to imagine – that's what gave birth to this idea and franchise over twenty years ago. And now, it should be a willingness to say, "why don't we do it all over again?" That's creative, artistic, and honorable game design, and if you've done so much as to come on this forum, it should be what you believe Pokémon to be. That's my argument:
Click to expand...

If that ever happens (which I hope not) then I'm quitting Pokemon. Nintendo and Game Freak have already come this far with the Pokemon video game franchise and they're not just going to throw it away like nothing ever happened. Doing so would alienate their own playerbase and they would lose money, I understand that you're entitled to your own opinion and I am as well. Just because you're trying to force your opinion on me doesn't mean that I have to accept it.

Gary Walsh said:
My expectations are not at all high, they're just not popularly accepted, because people can't even form a vision of what Pokémon would look like without the things we so readily assume should be in a Pokémon game.
Click to expand...

Your expectations are not popularly accepted because I think you're in a state of denial. What's wrong with the Pokemon video game franchise the way it is, aren't you happy? You're never satisfied are you? Generation IV was just fine like I said before but as was mentioned earlier the Pokemon video game franchise has ways of keeping the same formula that's made the series addicting for years without oversaturating itself like the Guitar Hero franchise which without very much innovation died due to oversaturation. Nobody expects ALOT of innovation with Pokemon but quite a bit is enough to make it better at the very least while not trying to change too much of the game itself that's made it successful for years.

I take it you never heard the old saying, "Curiosity killed the Cat".
 
There must be a 3rd version, there is no explanation for the freeze bolt and the cold flare moves yet, other than that they were just betas, I would be infuriated if they did not bring a 3rd version. Also why do I seem to have one of the shortest posts in this thread? The others were just TLDR.
 
If that ever happens (which I hope not) then I'm quitting Pokemon. Nintendo and Game Freak have already come this far with the Pokemon video game franchise and they're not just going to throw it away like nothing ever happened. Doing so would alienate their own playerbase and they would lose money, I understand that you're entitled to your own opinion and I am as well. Just because you're trying to force your opinion on me doesn't mean that I have to accept it.

Your expectations are not popularly accepted because I think you're in a state of denial. What's wrong with the Pokemon video game franchise the way it is, aren't you happy? You're never satisfied are you? Generation IV was just fine like I said before but as was mentioned earlier the Pokemon video game franchise has ways of keeping the same formula that's made the series addicting for years without oversaturating itself like the Guitar Hero franchise which without very much innovation died due to oversaturation. Nobody expects ALOT of innovation with Pokemon but quite a bit is enough to make it better at the very least while not trying to change too much of the game itself that's made it successful for years.

I take it you never heard the old saying, "Curiosity killed the Cat".
Click to expand...

My god, and I say this with all due to respect, but did you read anything I have to say?!?! I've repeated this upwards of ten times to both you and catutie, and I'll repeat it again: YOU CANNOT ASSUME!!! You are ASSUMING that a big change would alienate the playerbase, you are ASSUMING that they would lose money, and you are ASSUMING that it would FAIL!!!!!! The fact of the matter is obvious:

WE. DO. NOT. KNOW.​

It's a simple fact of the universe. We don't know if it would be "bad" or "good," we DO NOT KNOW whether it would fail or succeed. And why?

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST! IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, AND UNTIL IT DOES, YOU CANNOT STATE YOUR CLAIM AS FACT BECAUSE WE DON'T YET KNOW IF IT WILL BE TRUE!!!​

What is there not to understand about that! I'm not forcing anything on you, rather, I'm suggesting that you open your mind, and see both the negative and positive possibilities of change. Instead, YOU ARE FORCING YOUR CONDESCENDING VIEWS ON ME, BECAUSE YOU ASSUME YOUR CLAIMS AS ALL-RIGHTEOUS FACT FOR EVERYBODY!!!

And that, with all due respect sir, is ignorant, foolish, and STUPID.

And, with respect to the debate at hand, you cannot assume curiosity to kill the cat either, because it is just as likely the curiosity could improve the cat and its quality of life. "Throwing it away" and change are two different things. We just don't have an absolute fact on the matter, we just don't know, until the cat has taken that risk and played with curiosity. Until then, we can only guess what will happen, as you and I can only do. But as I've repeated SO MANY TIMES now, I would like to find out. I would like to see us change Pokémon to find out what will happen, because I believe that is the spirit of wonder that Pokémon has always represented, the spirit that makes all of us fans, whether we embrace change or not. That is all I've been talking about, that's the whole point I want to make for myself. Is that clear to you? Sir, if you can't respect that, even if you disagree, shame on you. That's all I can say.

And also, if a SINGLE CHANGE would cause you to QUIT POKÉMON ENTIRELY, you have no respect for the series, past or present, and you are not a fan. To the Pokémon franchise you are only a temporary, disposable customer, just like the countless young children who played Pokémon when it was a fad, when they were younger, and then moved on. The people who don't move on are fans. These are the people that stick with Pokémon no matter what, because they have a vested interest in it. Because they LOVE it. I grew up with Pokémon, I continue love Pokémon, and it is my own wild guess that I will love Pokémon for the rest of my life, each and every single game, card, and everything else to come – it has defined me as a person in so many ways that I cannot even begin to describe, as it is nigh impossible to understand the magnitude of just how much Pokémon means to me. But even so, you CHALLENGE something you love to make it better, you strive to see it grow, like a parent would do for their own child. I want to see Pokémon continue to climb to new heights rather than just polishing the old, because anything can always improve, and no matter how popular or successful Pokémon is or will ever be, the universe of possibilities is endless. There is an infinite number of untapped ideas, there is an infinite amount of inspiration, but you can only make an idea or an inspiration a reality with change, because you have born that new idea into a universe that already exists. To what extent you would like to see this change happen, from the smallest features to the even the entire series, is up to your discretion, I cannot force you to pledge absolute allegiance to the Pokémon franchise, I cannot make that decision for you. But in my personal opinion, I would like to see anything, changes small or big, including the redefining of the entire series, because it is my desire to take a walk on the wild side. Because for every one thing you hate, there's another thing you love, and you never know if change is good unless you give it a try. Whether or not it lives or dies, I would embrace that change, because I love Pokémon. And it is my hope that you love Pokémon as well, regardless of if you embrace this change.


So, in short and back on topic, I am both supportive and indifferent to the existence of a Pokémon Gray Version. I have come to accept a third version as a norm, but that does not mean I accept it as a given in the series. I would like to see Pokémon Gray just as much as I would like to see anything else, whether or not it has been attempted before, as long as Pokémon is producing something new and of high quality subjective to my opinion of quality. That is my desire, period.
 
Gary Walsh I still have a deep respect for the Pokemon franchise, and I'm not going to leave the franchise it just depends on how big the change is that decides my judgment on the matter, I might stick with it who knows. It wasn't my intention to annoy you, does it make a difference If my claims are fact or not?

So I apologize for angering you. :(
 
as i said before...if you take games like mystery dungeon or pokemon rumble or what ever...they changed it up and it wasnt good reception (mystery dungeon is good but the big complaint is that its boring...and it kind of is and has kept its sales down). BY THAT we can assume taht if they changed the main game...it would fail yes its assuming but its kind of obvious. i see where you are coming from. if you havnt tried somthing you dont know the outcome but you can look where they did change it and it didnt work out to well. chill out its just different views
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top