5 ms·

I really liked the concept of a Pokemon game for mobile. Unfortunately, they went with the P2Win model that 99% of mobile games use nowadays, chock full of mic

by neivin 9y ago

I really liked the concept of a Pokemon game for mobile. Unfortunately, they went with the P2Win model that 99% of mobile games use nowadays, chock full of microtransactions and devoid of any meaningful content. They stripped the game of all the elements that actually made Pokemon fun and all that was left was Ingress with a Pokemon skin. Maybe some day we'll get an actually good Pokemon game for mobile. Until then, I'll cherish the memories of playing on my gameboy.

haburka 9y ago
I feel like the number one gripe I have is that they are using the branding of one of the most simple and fun games of all time but ignoring it's design. Rather than just copying the mechanics of the Pokemon games, they just made their own game? For example, battles obviously should be a direct rip off of the main games. Coding Pokemon battle seems super easy to do. And in order for it to be fun, they just have to copy the exact system. Similarly with leveling, encounters, missions, everything was just designed around what was easy for the team to do rather than what people liked about Pokemon. It's embarrassing.
- zht 9y ago
  try to take a step back and think about what would actually be involved with coding a pokemon battle. all the possible moves, statuses, mechanics, etc of a pokemon battle is probably not super easy to do. there may be product decisions that you may not have considered. do you think pokemon GO would be as fun if each interaction with a pokemon took 2 minutes instead of 10-15 seconds it takes now?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    I think most people like the concept of catching Pokemon as it is now. But I've of the biggest complaints is that you can't battle other trainers.
  - fredley 9y ago
    Good God yes!
  - Asooka 9y ago
    I just want more PvE content. Right now I'm just walking around collecting pokemon, because actual gym battles have been completely impossible for me since about a month after the game came out. All gyms are 12-stacked with pokemon with super-high CP, that I can't really meaningfully interact with, unless I level up significantly. And even then, there's no strategy involved past "pick the pokemon that does well against this element" and tapping the screen really fast. Their problem with cheaters would be mitigated much better if they focus on PvE.
    - fencepost 9y ago
      The gym situation is pretty unsustainable. I'd like to see them either revise the gym mechanics entirely or introduce "junior" gyms that would make some of the weaker Pokémon viable to use. Heck, a gym with a dynamic CP cap could work - max_CP = 1000 - (15 * gym_level) with too-big Pokémon being forced out. You could boot the strongest protectors in a gym with a flock of (weak) Pidgeys at that point as long as they raised the XP of the gym, then evolve/transfer/both all of those for individual XP. Right now most varieties even fully evolved and with perfect IVs and movesets are simply not worth putting into gyms. Edit: As far as the pay-to-win aspect, I'm not really seeing that. The purchasable items can all be gotten by getting into a few gyms a day to get "coins," which would go along with a social aspect of getting together with a few friends on the same team to go take down gyms. The only item that's hard to come by and I think inconveniently priced is the Egg Incubator, which without real-$ purchases is weighted towards a LOT of walking per stop. Lure modules and incense have never seemed to make much difference to me (and lures can be done by just one person in a popular location with everyone benefiting), and while Lucky Eggs are nice they're not really that important. Buying Pokeballs just seems silly if there's any kind of outdoor art installation area anywhere nearby, because you can wander that for a relatively short time and stock up - or just veg on a blanket in the park between 2-4 art pieces and swipe 2-4 stops every 5 minutes.
      - Asooka 9y ago
        Personally what I really want is some sort of randomly generated pokemon adventure based on your local landmarks. Just take a bunch of linked quests, scatter them around landmarks that are a good distance away from each other and let me walk to and from collecting mcguffins. Turn parks into Safari Zones. If I live in the middle of nowhere, then make up some virtual landmarks and put the quests there. There's so much you can do if you think of it as generating a roguelike on top of the landmark, road and park data they have.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Honestly, coding a battle setup up to the level of, say Red/Blue is not hard. Lots of elements, sure, and newer games make things somewhat harder, but it's such a convenient structure that things aren't hard. It's a common sophomore/junior college assignment, and far easier than features Go already has like location management and anti-cheating. The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. But I think full PvP against other players would have been a huge hit - certainly it's why I never joined.
    - squeaky-clean 9y ago
      > The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. Only because the whole point of the game became grinding on simple pokemon to turn into candy to level up / evolve other Pokemon. It's a circle of crappy game mechanics requiring other crappy mechanics to work. Sure, it would suck to need to actually fight 800 other magikarp to get a Gyarados, but that's not how any other pokemon game works. I can have my magikarp fight any other pokemon and gain xp. I was able to do a red/blue style combat game for a homework assignment in Java. Not saying it's really easy, but it's not incredibly hard, and like you say, it's not harder than anti-cheat or many other things in the game. Also, if using a normal pokemon battle mechanic, you don't have all the issues with cheating at gym battles, and latency that the current game has.
  - CM30 9y ago
    Yeah, I think it'd be as fun. I mean, every single battle in the main Pokemon series uses those mechanics. Every wild Pokemon encounter, every trainer battle, every gym leader battle, etc. The time it takes obviously varies based on what exactly you're battling and how strong your team is, but it's clearly something that millions of people consider fun when done thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per game. It'd also only need to be the case for gym battles, so hey, most people wouldn't be spending tons of time on these battles anyway. As for the coding required... I see what you mean (the amount of work they put into the mechanics in the main series is absolutely insane given all the strange possibilities for moves and strategies), but it's apparently easy enough for fan game developers to be able to copy it. If amateurs can code similar systems for fan games like Pokemon Uranium, Niantic can code it for Pokemon GO.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  I was extremely excited when I heard about Pokemon Go initially. Pokemon battling is actually a fantastic game mechanic, and one I have fond memories of. I'd love a game where I do it against other people, but the competitive scene is way too intense to appeal - I want a simple, Clash Royale style game where I could battle against players of similar intensity. Capture mechanics, like the ones Pokemon Go actually used, could keep teams feeling novel and interesting. But instead, we got Go. No story, no battles, just captures and microtransactions. I'm honestly baffled that it ever saw such energy - it seems like Pokemon sans Pokemon.
BookmarkSaver 9y ago
You can't trade, and you can't have head-to-head battles. The interactivity is extremely limited, and heavily rewards grinding.
logfromblammo 9y ago
There is an acceptable Pokemon[-style] game for mobile. It's called "Pocket Mortys". While it is based on a show that is inappropriate for children, the game has intentionally avoided including any content that would push it past an E rating. It has in-app purchases, but all content is available to gratis players, given enough grinding.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Honestly, I find Pocket Mortys more fun than Pokemon Go. That's pretty depressing, since it's mostly supposed to be a funny tie-in game.
- pilsetnieks 9y ago
  Everything in Pokemon Go is available freely to anyone as well, given enough grinding. The ones griping about play-to-win and microtransactions just don't want to grind.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Metaphorically, Pokemon Go grinds with jewelers' rouge, while Pocket Mortys grinds with coarse emery. The reward to effort ratio is lower. Besides that, when you put free-to-play players in direct competition with paid players, and give the latter an enormous advantage over the former, that's when people start griping about pay-to-win.
hatsunearu 9y ago
Maybe 5 months ago I would have said "good news everyone, handheld consoles are dying rapidly!" But the Switch was a smash hit and Nintendo gets to keep their Pokemon IP platform exclusive for another decade or so at least :(

by neivin 9y ago

haburka 9y ago

I feel like the number one gripe I have is that they are using the branding of one of the most simple and fun games of all time but ignoring it's design. Rather than just copying the mechanics of the Pokemon games, they just made their own game? For example, battles obviously should be a direct rip off of the main games. Coding Pokemon battle seems super easy to do. And in order for it to be fun, they just have to copy the exact system. Similarly with leveling, encounters, missions, everything was just designed around what was easy for the team to do rather than what people liked about Pokemon. It's embarrassing.

zht 9y ago
try to take a step back and think about what would actually be involved with coding a pokemon battle. all the possible moves, statuses, mechanics, etc of a pokemon battle is probably not super easy to do. there may be product decisions that you may not have considered. do you think pokemon GO would be as fun if each interaction with a pokemon took 2 minutes instead of 10-15 seconds it takes now?
- s73ver 9y ago
  I think most people like the concept of catching Pokemon as it is now. But I've of the biggest complaints is that you can't battle other trainers.
- fredley 9y ago
  Good God yes!
- Asooka 9y ago
  I just want more PvE content. Right now I'm just walking around collecting pokemon, because actual gym battles have been completely impossible for me since about a month after the game came out. All gyms are 12-stacked with pokemon with super-high CP, that I can't really meaningfully interact with, unless I level up significantly. And even then, there's no strategy involved past "pick the pokemon that does well against this element" and tapping the screen really fast. Their problem with cheaters would be mitigated much better if they focus on PvE.
  - fencepost 9y ago
    The gym situation is pretty unsustainable. I'd like to see them either revise the gym mechanics entirely or introduce "junior" gyms that would make some of the weaker Pokémon viable to use. Heck, a gym with a dynamic CP cap could work - max_CP = 1000 - (15 * gym_level) with too-big Pokémon being forced out. You could boot the strongest protectors in a gym with a flock of (weak) Pidgeys at that point as long as they raised the XP of the gym, then evolve/transfer/both all of those for individual XP. Right now most varieties even fully evolved and with perfect IVs and movesets are simply not worth putting into gyms. Edit: As far as the pay-to-win aspect, I'm not really seeing that. The purchasable items can all be gotten by getting into a few gyms a day to get "coins," which would go along with a social aspect of getting together with a few friends on the same team to go take down gyms. The only item that's hard to come by and I think inconveniently priced is the Egg Incubator, which without real-$ purchases is weighted towards a LOT of walking per stop. Lure modules and incense have never seemed to make much difference to me (and lures can be done by just one person in a popular location with everyone benefiting), and while Lucky Eggs are nice they're not really that important. Buying Pokeballs just seems silly if there's any kind of outdoor art installation area anywhere nearby, because you can wander that for a relatively short time and stock up - or just veg on a blanket in the park between 2-4 art pieces and swipe 2-4 stops every 5 minutes.
    - Asooka 9y ago
      Personally what I really want is some sort of randomly generated pokemon adventure based on your local landmarks. Just take a bunch of linked quests, scatter them around landmarks that are a good distance away from each other and let me walk to and from collecting mcguffins. Turn parks into Safari Zones. If I live in the middle of nowhere, then make up some virtual landmarks and put the quests there. There's so much you can do if you think of it as generating a roguelike on top of the landmark, road and park data they have.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Honestly, coding a battle setup up to the level of, say Red/Blue is not hard. Lots of elements, sure, and newer games make things somewhat harder, but it's such a convenient structure that things aren't hard. It's a common sophomore/junior college assignment, and far easier than features Go already has like location management and anti-cheating. The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. But I think full PvP against other players would have been a huge hit - certainly it's why I never joined.
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    > The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. Only because the whole point of the game became grinding on simple pokemon to turn into candy to level up / evolve other Pokemon. It's a circle of crappy game mechanics requiring other crappy mechanics to work. Sure, it would suck to need to actually fight 800 other magikarp to get a Gyarados, but that's not how any other pokemon game works. I can have my magikarp fight any other pokemon and gain xp. I was able to do a red/blue style combat game for a homework assignment in Java. Not saying it's really easy, but it's not incredibly hard, and like you say, it's not harder than anti-cheat or many other things in the game. Also, if using a normal pokemon battle mechanic, you don't have all the issues with cheating at gym battles, and latency that the current game has.
- CM30 9y ago
  Yeah, I think it'd be as fun. I mean, every single battle in the main Pokemon series uses those mechanics. Every wild Pokemon encounter, every trainer battle, every gym leader battle, etc. The time it takes obviously varies based on what exactly you're battling and how strong your team is, but it's clearly something that millions of people consider fun when done thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per game. It'd also only need to be the case for gym battles, so hey, most people wouldn't be spending tons of time on these battles anyway. As for the coding required... I see what you mean (the amount of work they put into the mechanics in the main series is absolutely insane given all the strange possibilities for moves and strategies), but it's apparently easy enough for fan game developers to be able to copy it. If amateurs can code similar systems for fan games like Pokemon Uranium, Niantic can code it for Pokemon GO.
Bartweiss 9y ago
I was extremely excited when I heard about Pokemon Go initially. Pokemon battling is actually a fantastic game mechanic, and one I have fond memories of. I'd love a game where I do it against other people, but the competitive scene is way too intense to appeal - I want a simple, Clash Royale style game where I could battle against players of similar intensity. Capture mechanics, like the ones Pokemon Go actually used, could keep teams feeling novel and interesting. But instead, we got Go. No story, no battles, just captures and microtransactions. I'm honestly baffled that it ever saw such energy - it seems like Pokemon sans Pokemon.

BookmarkSaver 9y ago

You can't trade, and you can't have head-to-head battles. The interactivity is extremely limited, and heavily rewards grinding.

logfromblammo 9y ago

There is an acceptable Pokemon[-style] game for mobile. It's called "Pocket Mortys". While it is based on a show that is inappropriate for children, the game has intentionally avoided including any content that would push it past an E rating. It has in-app purchases, but all content is available to gratis players, given enough grinding.

Bartweiss 9y ago
Honestly, I find Pocket Mortys more fun than Pokemon Go. That's pretty depressing, since it's mostly supposed to be a funny tie-in game.
pilsetnieks 9y ago
Everything in Pokemon Go is available freely to anyone as well, given enough grinding. The ones griping about play-to-win and microtransactions just don't want to grind.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Metaphorically, Pokemon Go grinds with jewelers' rouge, while Pocket Mortys grinds with coarse emery. The reward to effort ratio is lower. Besides that, when you put free-to-play players in direct competition with paid players, and give the latter an enormous advantage over the former, that's when people start griping about pay-to-win.

hatsunearu 9y ago

Maybe 5 months ago I would have said "good news everyone, handheld consoles are dying rapidly!" But the Switch was a smash hit and Nintendo gets to keep their Pokemon IP platform exclusive for another decade or so at least :(