- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 3,019
- Reaction score
- 2,779
I think Pokémon Z and having Zygarde as a box legend is wishful thinking. Also, what would be the business rationale to include it in a Gen 8 game?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah. I'd rather have the upcoming games focus on a completely new region rather than trying to salvage Gen 6. I'm upset that some people are still salty that we never got a Z version.I think Pokémon Z and having Zygarde as a box legend is wishful thinking. Also, what would be the business rationale to include it in a Gen 8 game?
When grinding for levels/gold/etc, each battle contributes some amount of what the player is wanting. But in the example of trying to find a rare Pokemon, the repetitive task isn't give you any advantage. Triggering an encounter with a Pokemon they don't want hasn't brought the player any closer to the Pokemon they're wanting. It's only the encounter that gives them the Pokemon they want that's giving them an advantage, and the chance for it isn't increased by the other battles with unrelated Pokemon.The issue is that people usually only use the term "grinding" just for when they are "levelling". That's wrong. I took this citation from Wikipedia:
"In video gaming, grinding is performing repetitive tasks for gameplay advantage. Many video games use different tactics to implement, or reduce the amount of grinding in play. The general use of grinding is for "experience points", or to improve the characters level. However, the behavior is sometimes referred to as pushing the bar, farming or catassing."
While grinding often appears in in RPG games, that doesn't mean it's essential to the gameplay. There's plenty of games that can be played without requiring the player to grind. Saying that people should just not play the game if they don't like grinding is restricting options of gameplay way more than adding an additional way to find rare Pokemon.It would not make sense to remove them because of that reason, because, in addition of having others peoples that not find it annoying but funnny instead, it is also a characteristic of the genre. If some people don't like it that much, to the point of not playing the game because of its existence, we can certainly say that the said person simply doesn't like the genre, and that should not even have bought the game, to begin with (just to make it clear, I'm using just a random example.)
And I'll repeat my question-how is running around in the same patch of grass adding depth?I repeat the question I asked Oriden: It's a JRPG collecting game. How would rare encounters not add depth to it, after all?
That assumes that the hardcore player genuinely enjoyed running around the grass repeatedly. Judging by the complaints of grinding in this thread, that is not always the case.But using a totally imaginary practical example, of two kind of players who are playing the game for the first time, and want to play through the main story by completing the Pokédex as well:
Players on the "most casual side of the spectrum" will go through the routes without catching these rare Pokémon (perhaps one or other by luck).
Players on the "most hardcore side of the spectrum" will go through the routes catching them all.
The two of them played the same game, and had fun with it. The difference of the game used by the example from other games, is that it is able to please the two audiences, because it has depth in it.
Then what other value is there in it? The only reasons I've heard are surprise, people enjoying the repetition, and immersion in the world. Repetition can still be found in other elements of the game (or just by repeating anything in the game, really), and world immersion still happens when rare Pokemon are more likely to be discovered in certain areas. (I'd argue it's more immersive than finding a rare Pokemon by running around in the grass repeatedly)I don't defend the permanence of rare Pokemon encounters in the game just by the possible surprise factor that it can provide. I was just answering the Minya_Nouvelle question.
When people are asking for a difficulty option, they're asking for ways to strategize more in battle, so suggesting difficulty added from things unrelated to the battle itself doesn't help. But when people are asking for a surprise, all they're asking for is that information be withheld from them until a certain point. So why can't closing their eyes work just as well?Also, your example of simply "closing your eyes" is totally unaffordable to the situation. It's the same as saying people asking for a difficulty setting option: "if you just want a more difficult game, try playing without your hands" or things like that, it just doesn't make any sense.
I don't understand how you don't see the difference when the next thing you say is this:I really don't see the practical difference between the two (regarding the subject of this discussion, of course).
Being improved is different from being removed.
And that's exactly what's I suggested?The first is a grinding characteristic, consists of repetitive actions of the player. Also, is something that doesn't require much attention from the player.
The other is a feature more tied to games that focus more on exploration, and requires a high spawn of the attention by the player all the time.
I like both. And as I said, I would like them to add more features as the later example in the games (after all, the games of Pokémon also has "adventure" in its genre). So adding the two, even if it would be for the same Pokémon, would be the ideal scenary.
It's the same thing here. Nobody's asking to remove the concept of rarities entirely, just to make it more engaging rather than purely a game of chance. The examples that Minya_Nouvelle gave still had their Pokemon appear in an easy-to-reach location that someone could repeatedly trigger an encounter in if they really loved the feeling of hours of comMons before the one they were looking for. Letting rare Pokemon become easier to find in another location just makes it to where it's not a requirement.
I rarely see anyone friending someone just for the sake of a rare Pokemon at all, because people won't usually trade for a Pokemon that they can catch themselves. When someone's trading, they either supply a Pokemon with a good nature/Ability/IVs, which requires more grinding on their part, or the person trading the rare Pokemon is willing to give it up for a lesser value Pokemon, which already devalues them.The Pokémon nowadays are already more than devalued. Even with extremely rare encounters, you rarely see anyone interested in adding another person on the 3DS as a friend just to exchange common Pokémon, other than thoses with specific Natures or specific Abilities, for example.
I don't understand your logic here. You say that low-chance encounters in routes are a positive, because they "add depth" and are an optional way to play. But the suggestion of adding extra areas to routes, which would add depth to route design and an optional place to explore, would be a problem?In games like Kalos, where almost in every route has a Pokémon with a rare chance of encounter, it would be simply impossible to substitute it by the mentioned suggested system and still maintain the same difficulty and challenge. Because all the routes would need to be complex and it would totally convolute the game.
It's more immersive to not have extra places to explore?It would be like all the routes were a dungeon. I don't see that happening, and don't want it to, because it would ruin the game's enviroment and immersion. It would look like a bad MMO or something, rather than like a realistic Pokemon world.
I think the number of players who aren't willing to explore to the end of a dungeon or quest is probably smaller than the number of players who don't want to grind.Also, if the rare encounters were completely replaced by Minya's suggestion, many people would not like to go until the end of the dungeon/quest as well, and these people would also have to deal with it by looking for someone else in the GTS, in the same way.
So basically Kiloude City?
That would be terrible. I really love Kalos and only seeing a part would make me want the rest. It would be like making a delicious meal, but you may only have a taste. The rest would be unaccessible.
When people say “southern Kalos”, they usually mean the big chunk of southern France that’s not used in Kalos at all.
When grinding for levels/gold/etc, each battle contributes some amount of what the player is wanting. But in the example of trying to find a rare Pokemon, the repetitive task isn't give you any advantage. Triggering an encounter with a Pokemon they don't want hasn't brought the player any closer to the Pokemon they're wanting. It's only the encounter that gives them the Pokemon they want that's giving them an advantage, and the chance for it isn't increased by the other battles with unrelated Pokemon.
While grinding often appears in in RPG games, that doesn't mean it's essential to the gameplay. There's plenty of games that can be played without requiring the player to grind.
Saying that people should just not play the game if they don't like grinding is restricting options of gameplay way more than adding an additional way to find rare Pokemon.
And I'll repeat my question-how is running around in the same patch of grass adding depth?
That assumes that the hardcore player genuinely enjoyed running around the grass repeatedly. Judging by the complaints of grinding in this thread, that is not always the case.
Then what other value is there in it? The only reasons I've heard are surprise, people enjoying the repetition, and immersion in the world. Repetition can still be found in other elements of the game (or just by repeating anything in the game, really), and world immersion still happens when rare Pokemon are more likely to be discovered in certain areas. (I'd argue it's more immersive than finding a rare Pokemon by running around in the grass repeatedly)
When people are asking for a difficulty option, they're asking for ways to strategize more in battle, so suggesting difficulty added from things unrelated to the battle itself doesn't help. But when people are asking for a surprise, all they're asking for is that information be withheld from them until a certain point. So why can't closing their eyes work just as well?
I don't understand how you don't see the difference when the next thing you say is this:
And that's exactly what's I suggested?
I rarely see anyone friending someone just for the sake of a rare Pokemon at all, because people won't usually trade for a Pokemon that they can catch themselves. When someone's trading, they either supply a Pokemon with a good nature/Ability/IVs, which requires more grinding on their part,
or the person trading the rare Pokemon is willing to give it up for a lesser value Pokemon, which already devalues them.
I don't understand your logic here. You say that low-chance encounters in routes are a positive, because they "add depth" and are an optional way to play. But the suggestion of adding extra areas to routes, which would add depth to route design and an optional place to explore, would be a problem?
It's more immersive to not have extra places to explore?
I think the number of players who aren't willing to explore to the end of a dungeon or quest is probably smaller than the number of players who don't want to grind.
No, it's not. A person who spends three hours in pursuit of a particular Pokemon and comes up empty is no closer to getting the Pokemon that someone who only spent five minutes. Encountering the other Pokemon hasn't increased their chances of obtaining the rare Pokemon, because the encounter rate remains the same, regardless of time or other encounters.With the wild battles it is no different. With each new encounter is a new chance to find the desired Pokémon, you are progressing little by little in the repetitive task in pursuit of your goal, this is grinding, as well.
I was also referring to JRPGs when I said other games that don't require players to grind. Just because a player can grind in a game doesn't always mean that they must grind to finish the game.I know that, but I wasn't talking about those others games, I was talking about JRPGs.
Why is it that you'll accept an extra element to encounter mechanics as depth, but you think that adding to maps will make them convoluted? You can't claim that adding to something is always good because it adds depth and then claim that adding to something else would be a bad thing.Rare encounters adds depth to the encounters' mechanics, specifically.
But then you say later in your post:It adds depth in the sense of expanding the demographic target and being able to please both casual and hardcore players.
You can't say that it pleases both groups and then argue that it doesn't matter that it pleases both groups.The fact of it being depth and the fact that some hardcores players may don't like it at all, have no direct relationship to each other.
The depth is there. Grinding is an essential part of JRPGs. Whether people like it or not.
Yes, but my question still applies.And wait, I'm not just talking about random encounters solely. You already noticed that, right?
If they're rare, why would they be everywhere and in places easy to access?It is expected to have rare creatures everywhere, and not only in difficult places to access.
I showed you many values, now can you show me the cons? Besides someone finding it "annoying"?
Please do not accuse me of playing dumb. I genuinely do not see why a surprise that comes from the game is any more significant than a surprise that comes from the player hiding information from themselves, and I'd appreciate it if you tried to actually explain why instead of accusing me of being dishonest.No, you know that's not how it works.
The two cases (of telling people who want more difficulty to play without their hands, and of telling people who want more "surprise" to play with their eyes closed) are equally flawed arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with game design, at all.
The problem that people have with Masuda's reasoning was his choice to remove the Frontier. If Masuda had just looked at a way to improve the Frontier, people wouldn't have been as frustrated, even if he still thought it originally had problems. So, the difference in those thought processes is the choice to remove vs the choice to improve.What does that have to do with the fact that I don't see practical difference in the Masuda's case? Sorry, I didn't understand the correlation. Were totally different things, to me.
Then go quote their posts. I don't see why you would argue with my points to argue against someone else's.Yeah, but as I said, that wasn't what was being said on the previous pages. Some people would like it to be removed and replaced, or just removed. Not to be improved.
People are capable of doing tasks that annoy them? Again, look at the posts on this thread-there's plenty of people who said they did it, but they weren't happy about it.If "they can catch it themselves", it's because even for people who find grinding "annoying", the rare encounters are not such a serious problem for them, otherwise they would require them in trades, right?
Yes. I never said they weren't, just that they had been improved on.It seems then that Pokémon with good Natures, IVs and Abilities are harder to obtain, then?
Again: I am not advocating for anything to be completely removed. If you want to argue against someone that suggests the total removal, then talk to them, not me.So, if anyone finds these systems "annoying" too, can we pull them out of the game as well? (it's just a rhetorical question)
How does this contradict myself? Saying that competitive breeding requires the hassle of step grinding doesn't contradict the fact that finding rare Pokemon has required triggering countless encounters.But you said that Pokémon with good IVs/Natures/Abilities require more grinding. Doesn't that mean that Pokémon that only require griding of the rare encounters are less valuable, and that way, would not it be advantageous for the player you quoted later trading them for competitive Pokémon? (Again, it was just a rhetorical question. But you are contradicting yourself.)
You're assuming that those dungeons would be poorly implemented, when there's no reason to think so. Minya gave examples from Pokemon games, do does routes look "like a poorly developed MMO"?What I meant is that in a game like XY, where we have on almost all the routes Pokémon with low chances of encounters, replacement it by Minya's suggestion would convolute the game.
Because in the example that I was using, about totally replacing the rare encounters by Minya's suggestion, but still keeping the same requirement of time and energy expended of the rare encounters in it, it would mean that there should be added so many complex giant dungeons in Kalos, everywhere.
That would be convolute the game. I want as many dungeons as possible, but I still want the game world to look natural too, not to look like a world of a poorly developed MMO or something.
That's an argument for adding extra areas to routes, not against. The world doesn't naturally carve itself into one path with nothing on the sides, offshoots and hidden locations can be found all the time.It's more immersive to play in a natural world, where things (even dungeons) look like natural things of that world. So, if those extra places looks more like natural places of that world: yes, it is.
Playing in a world where you can realize that you are playing in a world in a video game that was built by someone, and not something that looks natural, isn't immersive.
And if you look through this thread, you'll see plenty more people in the latter category.I don't know about the numbers, but there will certainly be the two cases: people who like grinding (as the user that said him find it relaxing) and that would find the giant dungeons/quests tiresome, and people who would like giant dungeons/quests and that find the grinding tiresome.
Doubt it means much. Sounds TCG related. But I am not familiar with the TCG so yeah...There's a new trademark, while it is in Japanese, it translates to Miracle Twin.
Poke X Perto on twitter said it was a console related trademark, meaning that this has to do with the games and not the TCG.Doubt it means much. Sounds TCG related. But I am not familiar with the TCG so yeah...
Man, we really need some news even if it's just a silhouette or something.
So what do we think this means for Pokemon?Some more info:
Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
No idea. Might be all the Gen 8 merchandise. Not familiar with trademarks since this is only my third time involved in the buildup to the next games.So what do we think this means for Pokemon?
Some more info:
Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
Some more info:
Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Co., Ltd. and Game Freak Inc. have applied for a trademark in Japan for ミラクルツイン (literally ‘Miracle Twin’) for purposes including for controllers, joysticks, chargers, and parts and accessories for household video game machines, cards, toys and more. - Japanese Nintendo
So what do we think this means for Pokemon?