Should Pokémon Be Turn-Based Forever?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2022
- Head to www.squarespace.com/arlo to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code "arlo"
Should mainline Pokémon always feature turn-based combat? Or could a real-time Pokémon exist in the future?
If you like what I do, please consider supporting me on Patreon!
/ arlostuff
TWOOTER: @ArloStuff
BOOKFACE: ArloStuff
This video was edited by the excellent Yoshiller!
/ yoshiller
"Reloaded Installer #11" by LHS.
/ @lhschiptunes - เกม
![ถ้าเธอไม่รักทำไมไม่บอกฉัน - PAPER [ Musicvideo ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pfeBhDda7m4/mqdefault.jpg)
Trust me, Arlo. If Game Freak changes mainline Pokemon to action-based instead of turn-based but keeps the same design philosophies the series currently has, it's not going to fix the issues that you have with the series.
It's like you say in the video. Other RPGs prove that Pokemon still has a lot of potential left untapped as a turn-based series. But I don't think current Pokemon WANTS to be that.
That's a very good way to put it.
Pokemon is perfectly happy with mediocre games.
Which is quite sad when you think about it, and more than a small reason why I stopped playing them
Arlo really needs to play an SMT game.
@@BBWahoo the game isn't out yet?
Completely disagree. A action system would instantly make the series feel 5 times better.
The problem isn’t the turn-based combat, it’s that Pokémon never uses it’s combat to require strategic play. If the developers had enemies with teams and resources comparable to the player, the experience would improve. This is what makes Shin Megami Tensei a superior game from a gameplay perspective. As good as Arceus may be, SMTV is probably still already a more refined version of that gameplay experience.
Exactly! Pokemon is an extremely deep game if you look at how actual humans play it against one another. Pokemon's NPCs are woefully unequipped to teach players even the basics, and no real strategy is ever demanded of the player.
Thissss I wanted to say this myself. Turn based battle is boring when you can bring one super effective pokemon and roll a gym
But the thing is, if they make the game too hard, they stop attracting the main audience, children.
I think a 'hard mode', with better AI, higher levels and using nuzlocke rules WOULD be very interesting, but you gotta keep in mind that that kind of game is too hard for your average 10 yr old, so making it optional and not the norm would be ideal, or even, after you beat the game for the first time, you unlock an optional harder mode for more experienced players.
I DO think that the game could be harder, it's just that we should strike a balance between offering a challenge and driving off the core audience
Yeah but MHST and it sequel MHS2 are better than Smt5
Obama Mii
"So imagine if you were running around... but you were also shouting out moves and watching them play out. And maybe even telling your Pokemon how to maneuver so they can better dodge attacks."
You just described Digimon World (the original and the newer ones)! The answer of what that would be like is 'frustrating, for the most part.' It largely depends on the AI of the monster you're directing and the monsters they're fighting. I think it COULD be done well, but as much as I love Digimon I can't say they've managed to do so yet.
this so much. I went back to digimon world ps1 a year ago and I had a blast...raising the mon, the actual combat was dull and tedious. There's so much that pokemons system already did at that time that makes the combat system more dynamic than digimon worlds system and it's only added content since then.
Having only played the latest World game, The AI isn't much of a problem as they attack repliably (as long as you don't fuck up and put them in a bad mood) and you have a lot of option to tell them what to do.
The biggest problem with it is that it's a hard game to get into, there's big learning curve and the game doesn't do enough to teach you it's mechanics on its own.
But i'd be damned if it wasn't one of the most satifying gameing experiences i've had, Everything you get feels earned, If you get your favorite digimon that's because YOU went of your way to figure out how to get them and managed to raise the necessary stats to get them, also having them walk with you and make comments as you walk around is really nice, and their is a real feeling of progression with your town growing with each digimon you help out in the overworld.
It's a niche game that's not for everyone, And I honestly don't think pokemon should go in the same direction as it's meant to be more mainstream, but it's more satifying then most games i've played.
Although I think Pokemon can learn a thing or two from the cyber sleuth games when it comes to turn based combat, those games did more with Pokemon mechanics then Pokemon itself has.
@@ruleofoz2207 Believe me redigitized and cyber sleuth are in my giant backlog. I'm curious what combat elements they added in redigitized (haven't looked too much up because I want to be surprised) because PS1 DMW didn't have a lot of mechanics to play with besides raw power, move cost and status effects.
Almost impossible to design tbh, games that have better ai for enemies generally has better environment design so that the player is sort of limited to use whatever strategy, and giving an illusion of freedom. At best it can be monster hunter but with pokemon, it's funny bc monster hunter story is trying really hard to be like pokemon and pokemon is trying hard to be like monster hunter
It's just impossible, there's a reason why most jrpg are still using the old turn base format, you can present a 4man or 5 man battle easier and it's to manage and control
It honestly makes me happy to see that the majority of the community doesn't want turn based battles to disappear. Just expanded upon.
yeah, maybe do what legends is doing, with skipping a transition into a battle screen but to fight out in the area you encountered them.
You could even have "Mario-Rabbids" type movement but have 4 attacks, either melee or ranged. there's SOOOO much iteration and experimentation they could do just within the turnbased gameplay it's frustrating that what innovations we got last gen was ... "haha, Pokemon go giant" ...
However it is clear to see that the pokemon company isn't versed in or care about games enough to fund that part of their business, instead they WANT TO MAKE MONEY on their franchise and use the games as excuses for people to familiarise themselves with the new set of toys coming out(new gen) ...
I want both. I don’t want there to never be turn based combat but I also want combat like pokken or poke park
@@chainclaw07 there's a spin off called pokemon conquest and I think out of all the pokemon spin offs it is the best by far. I would LOVE to see a sequel or remake of it on switch because it did literally everything right.
Me crying as a final fantasy fan...
To me, Gen 1 and Gen 8 battling is COMPLETLY different. The way Ive always seen it, Pokemon is a turn based combat system with an entire story based around it. If its anything different, it's not Pokemon. Its not like they dont constantly try new things with completely different gameplay all the time since its inception (Pokken, Snap, Puzzle League etc). If you see the Pokemon World Championships, you don't see anything to do with the story or on a map, its a battle simulator. Its also my chill out time. Any game where I have to hold a normal controller and jump and perform actions in time is exhausting when I'm trying to chill. With turn based online play, I can have a joycon in each hand and just think my next move out in good time. The mainline games should always be like that. Run it parallel to Legends games. I'd be happy with both.
One thing to consider: With how many Pokémon there are, is it really even tenable to have each of them have real-time movement and attack styles? I remember games like Spectrobes, and while that game was interesting, there was a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount of monsters to choose from. Food for thought.
and that's without touching the vast majority of the pokemon roster. just having 100-150 different pokemon in such a system would be like having a fighting game with that many fighters, and *that's* before you bring in the ability to have each pokemon learn dozens of different moves
@@Silas_MN Exactly! No one considers how much work that would be!
Spectrobes was LIT!!! I rememeber playing the first one for the first time! Then the other one where you can be a spectrobe in a fight.
@@OldTimeyDragon and that's why i would except them to do this with like only gen one pokemon at first. But even then... They have enough money to do it with all pokemon
@@Silas_MN To expand on your point, there was a game released on the PS1 in the 1990s called "Tobal 2", the guy who designed both Tekken and Virtua Fighter, Seiichi Ishii, worked on it and it had 200 characters. Although most of them were derivative of other fighters, it's still possible to have a fighting game with that many characters.
Mainline 100% yes because that's the only way they can keep up with new animations and models stuff. However, spin offs no it should not remain turn based because with a spin off you have more room to exercise in terms of story, content, and battles.
My thoughts exactly.
New animations and models... Who wants to tell them
@@lordderpingtonII PLA has new animations and models.
Obama Mii
Well, there are already spin off ganes with action, pokepark, of course the pokemon is limited to 4 lol
Through my exposure to the competitive scene and rom hacks, I fully believe that the combat system more or less as is is fully sufficient to provide a much more compelling experience. If gyms had level caps, if trainers has more competent AI, if the main game battles required just a fraction of the strategy that the competitive scene does and they stopped cutting corners with animation and sped up in game battles, I think you don't need to alter the core battle formula at all to make a more rewarding pokemon experience.
Cutting corners with animation. lol
I hate comp strats though
@@NuiYabuko You don't get to say that when we aren't talking about legends arceus
I don't think I've ever seen competent AI in an RPG, really the only problem with the AI in Pokemon games is that trainers don't switch. gyms also don't need level caps, just stop grinding, if you want a combat challenge in Pokemon, play the battle tower, there you will be locked at level 50 with more odds against you as you try to break your record.
@@rpgfanatic9719 you haven't played the good RPGs then
The thing about it no longer being turn based is, that would be good for a spinoff, but I want the main series to stay like that. Imagine if the next mainline mario decided the series was no longer a platformer.
It's hard to know what to change and what to keep.
Well yeah but they could build something different with that turn based combat like how Mario 64 was still a platformer but changed up the game. I think it would be a good idea to shake up the series 25 years in of using a combat system from a time of kilobyte games.
The A.I. from trainers, the level curve, even the layout of the regions are aspects Pokémon needs to improve on. The turn base aspect is the blood and soul of the franchise. Pokémon should never get rid of it, but instead improve on the challenge and strategy of turn base. Legends is honestly A step in the right direction when it comes to how Pokémon should be handled.
This. The turn-based combat is fine, the real problem is how dumbed down and easy these games have become. Make the AI smarter and add difficulty settings to the games. Greatly increase the complexity of the routes and bring back "dungeon" areas with puzzles and mazes. Make it so I don't have to play online with other humans to actually be challenged. Stop holding my hands with non-stop tutorials and railroading me with dumb roadblocks. Let me figure stuff out and explore on my own.
I didn't drop the series because I hate turn-based combat, I dropped it because the new games are designed to be played by toddlers.
I agree fullheartedly. Pokemon's battle system already has many layers of depth and strategy and it's the blood and soul of the game. Any pokemon game that isn't turn based would just feel like another side game to me. I'd be wanting Shin Megami Tensei to be real-time combat. They should just stop treating everyone who plays the game like a 5 year old and actually use their own mechanics to give us a challenge. I think double battles should also be used more to shake things up more and the A.I should be increased dramatically.
@@AlteredNova04 I think I'd be cool if this series introduced full on dungeons where the game has a backup save before you enter and losing would revert you to that backup save.
Been playing since the leak so not gonna spoil anything if I can... But with Alpha Pokemon and the new combat system, this game is HARD sometimes. Like, you have a substantial level gap above trainers and wild mon, but you can get one shot, send out another mon then realize it's not your turn again, and get one shot. it's such an amazing curve I fell in love with it
Really I think Ni No Kuni is a great example of experimental monster collecting turn based combat. It's fun, kind of real time, and interesting to learn. Pokemon isn't interesting to learn anymore, I think that's the biggest issue
we’ve been losing turn based RPGs for a long time now; and while I agree Pokemon needs a shot in the arm, I think taking away the one last big commercially successful turn based franchise would be a big blow to the genre.
On a related note; in a fairer world we’d probably have a ton more turn based RPGs out there; and some of the Pokemon-likes have shown us that the systems can be toyed with to great effect.
I agree in spirit, but actually I think the future's looking a lot brighter for turn-based RPGs than it has for the last decade or so; Persona is basically mainstream now, Dragon Quest is as popular overseas as its always been, and even SMT V got a spot in the limelight for a hot minute. Plus there's indy stuff like Bug Fables and Deltarune putting in work.
there are still plenty of turn based RPGs, divinity original sin and pillars of destiny are *huge* on pc
@@breadone_ divinity has an interesting turn based system. However I wouldn't really call poe turn based. They just added the option cause of divinitys success. Smart idea tho to appeal to classic crpg fans and fans of the turn based.
You'll love legends its the "shot in the arm" without getting ride of turn based combat.
Pokémon isn't the only successful/viable turn based series at all.
Have you even looked at any of Atlus's titles? Megaten is the OG monster collector and is everything Pokémon should be but isn't, Persona and SMT have been doing amazing both with critical reception and popularity, especially 5 for both halves and 4 for Persona.
It"s true that most big RPG companies such as Square are focused on ARPGs moreso but saying PKMN is the ONLY one is plain stupid.
I don't think Pokémon needs to expand more after arceus, between types, weather, buffs, abilities, just different moves and now priority all they need to do is make the player use these systems
Yes. There is depth to the system, it's just a matter of choosing to design encounters that showcase that depth.
And also not be afraid of being dark every now and then.
@Dickgirl Nationalist We need a change to the stale formula.
20:45 I think that this is absolutely valid and is the plan... the key is in the name. It’s not called “Pokémon Legends” or “Pokémon: the Legend of Arceus”, it’s “Legends: Arceus”. Which probably means that there are plans for other Legends games, like maybe Legends: Kyurem, exploring the story of the original dragon, or Legends: Rayquaza, exploring what Zinnia talks about in OR/AS, with Rayquaza stopping Primal Kyogre and Groudon with the first Mega Evolution. It definitely seems like they’re planning a series here.
Absolutely, turn based for pokemon makes sense since, you are not controlling the Pokemon, you are the trainer giving commands to the Pokemon, converting that to Action would be pretty messy. A tactical RPG though would be an interesting change
Pokemon Conquest for DS is a strategy rpg like fire emblem actually
I think they already did this. Check out Pokemon Conquest. (Not saying they couldn't do it again).
So a bit like Pokemon Conquest?
As much as I’m not cheering for a change from turn based, I really don’t think it would be messy. In theory, you just control the Pokemon and button inputs are attacks, whilst the trainer can be seen in the background “giving commands” when you attack.
@@reginlief1 You could just have it be that the trainer gives the command and then you switch to the pokemon and try and implement that command as best as you can. So if the trainer Says iron tail, you now have to put the pokemon in the best position to use iron tail. Not only does that open up to tactics but it offers things like setting up combo commands. Something that pokemon loves to show off in the anime and then never does or even tries in the gameplay. Seriously, there were combination turn based and action games back on the PS2 that even incorporated the environment and some how it looks futuristic in comparison to what they do now.
My two cents: turn-based combat is very important to me in gaming because when every action needs to timed, I panic. I don't think well on the fly, and I enjoy games far, far more when I'm able to take each action at my own pace.
As many others are pointing out, the pokemon combat system is and has become quite rich, at least if you look at the meta. The problem lies within the main campaign, which is why simply adding different difficulty options in-game (MAJOR difference to self-imposed limitations like nuzlockes) would go a long way. Also, y'know, utilizing the hardware to make the battles LOOK way more dynamic. Right now, they are incredibly stale, at least from a visual perspective.
I would certainly agree with you that in its current state the transition to casual to competitive is very steep to the point that the shock for people would be more than a little off putting. And to a degree it seems to be of possible design as Gamefreak has been open that they have been trying to dumb down casual play difficulty-wise, Honestly swsh was so bad in this case for me I couldn't finish it simply because of how bored I was.
So honestly this friction over whether it should be turn-based or not for future game play is Gamefreaks fault and now matter how things progress going forward not everyone is going to be happy with it.
Your idea about making the fights look more dynamic... it's already be done in other games waaaaay before. The first game that come to my mind with that feature would be Wild arms 3 on PS2. It's a wonder why Pokemon can't implement something like that...
Having settings to make Nuzlocke and other self-imposed challenges would be a very welcome idea to be honest. It could be a good way to keep older, more nostalgic fans happy as well.
this!!
I offer a very simple solution: offer both. It's not difficult to do a action system, but to keep the turn-based in the code. FFVII Remake does that.
So anyone can play the games how they like.
Arlo, I’ve been watching for a while and I just gotta say, your content is so unique and charming and I hope you never lose sight of that. I love it
He's really grown on me. The gaming channel I didn't known I needed.
Well I'm always of the mind that you can do anything you want in spin-offs so you can always test before you change like what legends Arceus seems to be doing.
But Pokemon Legends Arceus is a mainline game
I don’t want them to ditch turn based. But I’d be all for them making it more in-depth and strategic for more then just competitive.
indeed. and i dont think they wanna change it. it bringign in money. morons are buying the game,. why would they bother.
I prefer it turn based. Real time stuff like the old school final fantasy games just stress me out
That's just pseudo turnbased
I absolutely hate Final Fantasy’s ATB, oldschool turn-based combat (like Dragon Quest or FFX) is so much better imo
It is totally preference. I like turn base. It is like chess and I think about my moves and watch them play out and beat them with strategy.
You can turn the active part of the Active Time Battle system in the menu to slow things down.
Real time doesn't have to mean that you can't take your time. Take Baldur's gate for example, the game is basically real time but at any point you can press spacebar to freeze time for as long as you want. You can even buffer your party's actions while time is frozen so technically you never even have to take an action under time pressure if that's how you want to play the game.
I will say this: I want turn-based battles expanded upon, I do NOT want them gone. It’s like Scott the Woz said in his Not an RPG Guy video, if nobody really liked turn-based combat, they wouldn’t be used so much in video games.
yea. thre should be systems of dodging and more in depth combat tactics. same old press attack and win. thats going for women and kids. you cant keep people with same shit every game.
@@marjiman_rts Dodging mechanics defeat the point of turn based. It should be based on evasion stat.
You might think that's unintuitive, unreliable and not very interactive. But try using an evasion tank build with Fie in the Trails of Cold Steel games and you'll see how it can work. If you build her right she dodges literally any physical attack.
@@McCaroni_Supexactly
The turn based format is for me the whole reason pokemon is addicting. It is how to best build a team around the format, and the format itself allows for different ways to solve it i.e. typing, ability, stats, moves, mega evolutions, z-moves, etc... However, I think pokemon should look into how you are being rewarded (exp. share, difficulty) and in what way they present this reward (story, character interaction, items, etc...)
is that it? use and attack , use it again and win....is that combat? maybe for women and kids. Turn based isnt the problem. its how i prefer it too but there should be more to tactics. . the current system is no challenge at all. Company been making money off idiots with same things over and over again. why do people even play i dont get it. there is noting new to combat since the very beginning and i am surprised people ask for nothing. ahahahaha really dumb. combat needs to be improved.
@@marjiman_rts why are you being sexist, tf?
I think we shouldnt discount the importance of turn based combat as a system, turning it to an action rpg is the equivelent to giving two chess grandmasters a pair of boxing gloves and having them duke it out that way, its not to say theres not something interesting with that, but the two are entirely different games and I think you could build on turn based rpgs in their own way, legends arceus having the speed bar in itself is kind of crazy a change in itself, other games include features like moving around a board such as fire embelem, another thing we gotta consider is one of the big sells of pokemon is the pvp elements, i think you could do something with that as an alternate match system, because they have explored alternate match systems such as double and tripple battles and the battle royal and even contests, i think theres something they could do with turn based combat still that shouldnt be discounted
Unrelated to everything except for your contrast between chess and boxing, but have you heard of chessboxing? It’s the ultimate sport, a battle of not only strategy and combat prowess, but also of acumen and fortitude, tenacity and endurance.
" turning it to an action rpg is the equivelent to giving two chess grandmasters a pair of boxing gloves and having them duke it out that way"
CHESSBOXING, LET'S GO!
@@Duplicitousthoughtformentity the funniest thing about chess boxing is that seems to be what Legend Arceus is doing
dodging attacks from wild bosses in real time and switching to the classics strategic battle mode in-between
I think competitive mutliplayer Pokemon is kinda like chess, but the in-game experience is nothing like that. The vast majority of trainers you'll fight have much weaker Pokemon than you do. So it's more like a game between two grandmasters but where one starts with half his pieces missing.
Good turn-based RPGs force you to engage in most of the game mechanics: buffs, debuffs, status conditions, weather, accuracy, timed hits, items, spells, even just guarding. In main line Pokemon, I've never really felt the need to pick any other attack moves than ones that actually...attack. Hit hard and fast and the main story is destroyed. Try that with Dragon Quest XI however, and you'll get BULLDOZED by the game's later bosses.
I don't care about competitive because, in Pokemon, that's like playing an entirely different game. You get to the Battle Tower and your Pokemon that obliterated everything now suddenly suck because you didn't adhere to a specific training regimen. It flips all your efforts on their heads. Before then, any challenge almost needs to be self imposed. Heck, the community invented the Nuzlocke to create artificial challenge. To change the formula would take a titanic shift in design philosophy, and that is way harder than simply saying "just do it already".
i agree. pokemon has all the mechanics there, but they don’t use them in game. During the main story the battles are too easy. But the idea of competitive bores me. You have to grind out EVs, waste hours breeding for IVs, and just end up using the same 10 mons that are “meta” with very specific well-known strategies that someone else came up with.
Exactly this
Right? Like why would I use Leer to reduce the amount Tackles I need from 3 to 2? Or Growl to increase my effective HP from 3 hits to 4? I used a turn to do that so it's still the same amount of turns.
Changing the gameplay to frame perfect combat would kill alot of the main player base. some people are better at strategizing and planning, and not having the dexterity of the FGC. It would be a massive change.
Worked for FF...
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 FF is different, it is strictly single player game. Not a game with a huge competitive scene.
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 The FF fanbase has been split on it ever since.
@@busfare5660 Fuck comp in Pokémon, toxic hive of elitism. Plus RTC would be equally as strategic. It wouldn't be a fighting game because it's not about inputs. It's basically the same mechanics they've always had but added arena changes and you can move around
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 Jesus who hurt you? Every competitive scene has its toxic people.
We really just need Pokemon to be harder. Turn-based combat can stay, as when the opponent is actually threatening, it can make for an incredibly dramatic situation. Take battling against Cynthia for example. Or anyone whose Pokemon are higher leveled than yours. It's epic.
Exactly! There's also no point in changing the game's genre from turn-based RPG to 3d fighting if you are going to half-ass the new game mechanic in the same way they've been doing with turn-based battles for years now.
Turn-based battles still have a lot of unused potential that is only being held back by the developers' insitence on making Pokemon games an unchallenging and repetitive kid friendly experience (which is an insult to kids' intelligence in my opinion).
The best part is that these improvements don't require great amounts of imagination either. Most of them can be achieved by a discrete increase in difficulty (which can always be optional at the start of the game in order to not alienate a part of the playerbase) combined with game mechanics that have already been introduced by Game Freak in previous titles, but didn't bother to implement later as part of the main story. And if for some reason these changes weren't enough, they do not need to look any further than the fanbase's feedback on what makes an exciting game mechanic, or if we are getting desperate, even taking notes from other video game franchises that have succesfully mastered the art of turn-based battles (including Pokemon ROM hacks).
This ended up being a much more nuanced discussion than I feared it might be, so kudos Arlo! Really well done =D Not to speak for you, but as someone who designs RPGs myself, I actually don't think the battle system is your main issue with Pokemon - but rather, it's how that battle system is used. The balance and design of a Pokemon game's content tends to be really flat and uninspired. They don't create unique scenarios or challenges that the player has to overcome in battle; they don't try to teach you the nuances of combat and then put it to the test; and too often they repeat the same few Pokemon in battle, rather than using the immense number of Pokemon to provide constant variety in every fight. Presentation can also be an issue too.
I'm all for Pokemon's combat evolving though, and Arceus looks like it's done exactly what I'd hoped for by introducing a turn order system with attack speeds factoring into battle. To be fair to the devs, the fact that Pokemon maintain a system that's complex enough for high-level PvP, but simple enough for millions of children to pick up, is incredible. Honestly, in that way, the Pokemon devs have a challenge that no other RPG developer I can think of has. But I think the foundations are solid; a lot of the issue is just how those foundations are utilised in the core game.
Also, on the top of turn-based combat being antiquated, that's a bit of a misnomer. While turn-based combat was definitely a perfect fit for the limited hardware of the 80s, it wasn't developed purely because of limitations - but rather spun out of classic war games and tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. The Game Boy and NES had *far* more action games than they did turn-based ones; turn-based just allowed for a more strategic and thoughtful kind of combat. In general, I'd say genres are never antiquated; it just depends on what kind of game you want to develop and play =)
This should be the top comment, not some dumb post with a checkmark calling pokemon battles "balanced".
@@aninymouse1651 Aw, that's kind of you to say thank you. Glad you enjoyed reading my comment! =)
I really enjoyed reading this. Obviously I don't have the insight as you do. It was incredibly well written. I like this.
I like this take
@@erry9895 Very kind of you to say - thank you very much Mark! Turn-based RPG design is one of my favourite things to talk about, so I'm glad that shone through =D
As a player that enjoys the competitive side of Pokémon, hearing "its too simple" or "lacks strategic elements" is so... Jarring. Just because the base game is so easy that you dont need to learn them, doesn't mean those elements arent there. As much as I like Arlo, he seemed to simply ignore the fact that the competitive side of Pokémon is massive and thats because the system itself allows for it. I am super excited for Legends Arceus and would be super excited for a aRPG Pokémon game too, but lets be real, those games would have a really hard time having as much strategic depth as the core series has now. Even if Legends Arceus ends up being overall a better game than Sword and Shield (which I absolutely hope it is!), the competitive side of Pokémon will remain with SwSh, because all points to PLA's system lacking depth in comparison
Agreed. Pokemon offers so many mechanics and different ways to play and engage, but the main story doesn't require and then people just don't discover that. At least is what I feel
Arlo is not a competitive player. He probably has only ever experienced the singleplayer aspect or maybe has battled a couple of times with friends, but the singleplayer never teaches or expects you to use strategy. I didn't know about the need of strategy in PvP either until i saw a random video about it a few months ago.
The game is way too easy so everyone can play it. Competitive is comparitively niche. I wouldn't blame anyone for not knowing about the strategic parts of the combat system, because the game never tells you about it.
@@Smeik2901 And that is the root of the problem, Gamefreak is not only neglecting but in a way undermining cometitive in how they make the campaign part of the game. If in single player it taught how to think cometitively I don't think there would be as much growing frustration over the casual to competitve transition.
Just because depth is in a game or series doesn't make it rewarding to explore or enjoy. How many gym battles or regular npc fights do you actually stall an enemy out or use substitute or defensive moves or abilities. Even change enemy stats. To the average person they don't. Because it just draws things out.
@@Smeik2901 Yeah. I hoped Pokemon incentive more experiment, even if is not difficult. That would help people understand why the turn base has it fans. Temtem is a example of what I look for, even if not perfect or hard for newcomers
I think with the stylistic change of the models in arceus, this will probably a series of it’s own. They remade models, a lot of extra little details went into making them. (Eyes now have eye sockets!) So i dont see why they would put the effort if its not to at least maintain some sort of longevity for such investments.
With main series, altho id love to be able to have full control over my pokemon like in pokken, that sadly is a massively radical and demanding change, considering the series is reaching its 1000th monster, and it would drastically shift the playerbase
BUT with how the switch seems to be going through its half life and the next generation might offer compatibility with older games.
I can see pokemon games taking the assets they built and just add onto them in each generation.
As in now they have about 600 pokemon bc of sw/sh animated, rigged and given the small slice of life. They can now build on the rest, the new, and even add more to the older ones. As in give mons more personality, more animations, more adjustments. All of these would be great additions (they can clutter, but hey, an on/off option could resolve that for those who wish not to see every animation for every move that every pokemon can make)
Maybe even once they deem those to be perfected, add voice overs for the characters in game develop on new game modes, the sky’s the limit, well… maybe just the wallet
Models weren't changed for PLA, it's the same models that have been present since the 3DS. How are we two generations into the "BBND" bullshit and people still don't realize they're identical models? The textures have been the same the whole time too. They just trim the model and compress the resolution of the texture for older hardware so it'll fit. PLA simply has had the least amount of trimming so far, pretty simple.
I loved turned based for Pokemon. It takes strategy and team building. Action based could hurt that.
Yes. It's basically chess and it's the reason people have kept coming back. I can put the game down without having to worry about pausing and come back to it and start right up again or just stay in a battle and watch TV.
Every time Arlo talks about Pokemon, I wish more and more that he would give Shin Megami Tensei a try.
As a longtime Pokemon fan, branching out into other JRPGs, and especially the SMT franchise, has given me a fresh perspective and a lot to think about regarding Pokemon.
I think that Pokemon's combat system has a lot of things going for it, the 1v1 format is different from any other long running JRPG series I can think of, and there's a lot of mechanics that are simple to understand, but can have a huge impact on how a battle unfolds. Held items, abilities, having PP instead of an overall energy pool, the 4-move limit, move types vs pokemon types, status effects, etc.
I'd argue that ultimately the biggest problem with Pokemon's combat system is how slow the games present these battles to you. Showing a text box for *every* instance of a pokemon's status effect, and *every* time a pokemon takes damage from weather. Then there's the fact that the camera almost never changes, it's not very dynamic at all. The most the camera moves is for some move animations, and panning around if you're taking too long to select your next move. It's boring to watch. God help you if you're in a battle with a weather effect, poison, confusion, and leech seed all active at once.
Discussion about Pokemon's difficulty and balancing is also relevant to this conversation- even if they switch to the most enjoyable action combat system anyone could ever hope to see, if you can still beat 90% of the game's combat by just spamming super-effective moves, that will still feel boring because players aren't having to make meaningful and strategic decisions.
A system similar to monster hunter stories 2 might work as well.
Really tried to play pokemon but man you are right thr slow combat with all the text is just too much. Smt press turn even strange journey battle system is strategic and very snappy. Yes, smt is my pokemon. Its has good atmosphere, strategic battle especially in hard mode also some sexy demons, whats not to like. Smt 5 story though was the worst from all the smt ive played, gameplay and exploring carried it big time, so fun to play.
Don't forget the love/attract side effect and accuracy and critical hits! There's way too much dialogue but I think PLA is speeding the process up
DRAGON QUEST IS THE GREATEST , the first and the best , completely classic but still incredible, equipment, tons of moves and different party lineups , engaging story that’s amazing and it’s just a blast , leveling up feels so meaningful and every new ability or move you learn really makes an impact , the newer games such as 11 have awesome skill trees , I truly mean it dragon quest as a whole is the masterpiece
I remember seeing Persona 5's battles for the first time, and as a long time Pokémon fan, I was absolutely floored by how quick they were.
i think that it’s time for change and that legends arceus is exactly what i wanted from the series. something that makes me feel immersed in the universe, and that my choices actually matter. traditional pokemon battles are alright, but as mentioned, sword and shield really made me recognize how straightforward the battle system is. there isn’t much to it and it gets old fast. i recently got to trying older pokemon games before x and y and found it pretty fun, as the difficulty was much harder than newer pokemon games. maybe even a difficulty option would make the game more invigorating for older players. i think it would be kinda cool if we had a choice between real time battles or traditional battles, that way everyone is happy. but i realize it might not be as easy as it sounds to make.
Cracking video and script mate!! I love you Arlo!
I recently played Persona 5 Royal, and then went on the next day after seeing those sweet sweet credits to play Pokémon BDSP. To say that it was a shock to the system is an understatement. I went from absolutely *requiring* good party buffs and remembering how long it’s been since I set things up and literally throwing my old and weak personas into a dual guillotine in order to get a bigger and better one constantly in order to barely squeeze through to the next battle to spamming the a button and finding myself at the 3rd gym. I can accept the current exploration and simple side quests and stuff, but dear god the actual battles are asinine.
Go try Shin Megami Tensei V if you can. It will shock you again, in a different way
@@KenBladehart I think that I will, my friend. Atlus has earned my trust and honestly that exploration stuff combined with what I’ve heard about the press turn system is making V look like a banger.
The difference is Pokemon games are still meant to appeal to children. In my opinion the best thing Game Freak could do would be to have difficulty settings. The one we know would be easy, a step up would be normal (stronger Pokemon to verse), ideally another step up to hard (better EVs and IVs, etc.), and then a system where the AI plays like a comp player could be a mode called competitive. All the trainers in this final mode would EV train and the IVs would get better with each gym. They’d focus on natures and abilities and items. More 2v2 battles, maybe all battles would be 2v2 in fact. This would make the games fun and challenging for everyone.
@@takeyourheart3030 To add, have difficulty settings unlocked by default and not, say, lock a specific difficulty setting behind a specific version and beating the game, and then trade an item with the person with the opposite version to get the other difficulty.
@Logan McGlynn Just get rid of the Exp share.
That's basically what ruined any Sense of difficulty from the game
switching up the combat can be interesting, but the main reason I like the turn-based combat is that it's not reaction-based, so I get a chance to think and strategize. if it was full real-time action, I know I'd definitely struggle, especially because in games like smash bros I end up just button mashing.
however, this is why the spin offs exist! pokemon ranger, mystery dungeon, rumble, pokepark, GO, even the stadium and colosseum games provide alternate gameplay and we're at the point where there's something for almost everyone. I definitely understand the frustration from people that don't like how the main game gameplay has been pretty stagnant over the years, but again I both like the combat as it is and I'm not keen on changing it drastically in general 😅
with legends arceus though, I hope that it's enough of a change to keep people happy, but similar enough that people like me don't feel lost. I'd argue that Pokémon is in a unique position, the sheer size of the franchise means that a change of any size will be even more noticeable. from what I've seen of pla though I'm definitely looking forward to it, including the combat system
That's like saying mario kart and smash are stagnant. How can you possibly understand people like that? To put it simply, people just don't like turn based, and instead of playing something they like they instead vote to change something they don't.
I could see the company going the direction of having two different departments making games, one keeping to a turn based style and one to more experimental gameplay? Like how they have bdsp and legends, .. they could just have two different titles to release, one per year around the holidays, alternating between the two styles to give each game at least two years of development time (so they won’t be so rushed), and please both sides of the fan base!
That would actually be a good idea
So instead of buying two nearly identical games with minor changes in it (e.i red/green, diamond/pearl, ruby/sapphire etc) we can have 2 drastically different games with similar concept but different play style, I think I quite like that idea but I'm unsure if GF is capable of making 2 games with unique playstyle due to how Nintendo is notorious for pressuring GF into rushing the games
I think one side should just move on to a different game if they don't like the style.
As long as its fun to do the new radical type of gameplay and its made well, then its possible both types can exist, eventually though if this new style becomes more popular than the old turn based style, then its possible Pokemon Company can abandon that and move away from it.
what a nice classic feeling arlo video just woke up and am about to go to work thanks for starting my day good arlo : )
Yes. The problem isn't that it's turn-based, it's that it's not evolved like every other turn-based series has. Even dragon quest, which prides itself on being a child-friendly, nostalgic and 'classic' experience has modern polish, options and plenty of extra difficulty modes to make things more exciting. Legends is finally a step towards modernity... admittedly a step that it's peers took back on the gamecube and PS2, but still, it's SOMETHING.
No Dragon quest,FF and Persona not to knock those games are Strictly single player experiences.
Pokemon is much more, importantly The competitive scene etc.
Game Freak could have "Evolved" the gameplay with every new game but that's a big risk that will cause shock waves everywhere.
That's why they probably Made Legends Arceus a strictly single player experience to test things out and see how people react.
Yeah, it is ironic that a series where evolution is a part of the game, chooses not to evolve like other series.
Most complaints could be boiled down to the series choosing gimmicks over innovations. (Dexit based complaints are more rooted in SwSh being rushed whilst removing a feature a significant amount of the fan base cares about)
To be fair as well, people tend to downplay some of the changes that had happened between generations. It's arguable that they did do improvements to the core game out to around gen 4/5 (the physical/special split, and hidden abilities), it's just that around gen 6, they decided instead to create flashy subsystems that were easily thrown out (megas and z-moves are tied to items, which are unable to be transferred between generations, and gen 8 are literally tied to the ground you walk on and didn't even go into the remakes of the gen)
The changes were there, it's just to someone only playing the campaign and not focusing gen 1 and gen 3 and 4 look 'exactly the same' despite all the improvements especially 3 made with abilities, not to mention the modern EV and IV system only forming at that gen
@@thoughts9856 if they really cared that much about competitive dynamax wouldn't have broken the game in half.
For real though, there are other ways to evolve WITHOUT changing anything about the core gameplay or affecting comp. Graphical polish, difficulty options, accessibility options, new modes (dragon quest has a whole suite of 'draconian quest' modes that add nuzlocke-esque self-imposed challenges), increasing overall system speed for messages (pokemon DESPERATELY needs this, as you'll know if you've ever been in a dynamax raid against a pokemon with intimidate), overworld mechanics (legends is finally adding some of these), adaptive music (gen 5 had this then it was unceremoniously dropped), skipping story scenes and tutorials, fast-forwarding text boxes, the list of what are now expected common JRPG conveniences, modes and time-savers that pokemon has missed out on just goes on and on.
To me, it is a problem.
When you talk about giving commands to a pokemon that is taking part in the fight, you start moving into very strange territory. Turn based battles are extremely simple to the point that you always know given x input what the output would be (ignoring some RNG). When you move to a "real time command" style battle, you introduce innumerable complexity. Move cooldowns? Pokemon AI? Default behavior? How does something like Tail Whip transition to this? Knockback? Flinching? There are so many questions. Not to mention, the emergent gameplay which would come from this (which might be cool) would mean there would almost certainly be strange glitches and bugs to exploit and it wouldn't be clear at all what "good strategy" is. In other words, you would move incredibly far from "traditional pokemon"
Yeah, but it makes me stressed out. Even the timed turns in final fantasy games stress me out. This could all kill the series for me.
Ni no Kuni already figured it all out
i would imagine it would work similar to V gameplay in Devil May Cry 5
I'm guessing the trainer would be controlled by thecleft analog stick and be somewhat on rails. Each move could be mapped to a button, probably the 4 shoulder buttons. If you want to move the Pokemon too, maybe use the right analog stick and click it to flinch.
That would be too confusing for casual players though.
Games as far back as the PS2 have implemented this. The problem isn't figuring out what to do it's actually trying to do it with such a large number of characters. But if gamefreak really wanted to, they could.
After finally playing Shield last month, I think the main thing they need to do is streamline the combat system. It's so slow and tedious. Arceus looks faster and more engaging.
legends arceus is a vast improvement
Yeah I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Wish they had more trainers to battle.
Seriously, there's no trainers in the wild who want to battle. It's all been characters from the plot stopping you every now and then to be like, "hey, wanna battle since we haven't in awhile"
It makes sense for the story but still..
@@skuggikuwa8989 i havent played arceus yet, but i wonder if this is because pokemon battles and training is still a novel concept and not a lotta people aredoing it yet
As a long time fan of the series, I always viewed Pokemon to be more so of “simplistic fun”. It wasn’t really meant to be a super intense game with quick reflexes required to win, but more so of a game that was just chill for those who wanted a relaxing video game experience. But then again, there are those people who don’t like simplistic gameplay, and do want a different combat system instead.
If there’s one thing I learned, its that its impossible to please an entire crowd. No matter how hard you try, there will always be at least one person in this world who doesn’t like what is being presented to them. Not a single video game will interest everyone, even those that have been critical successes. Perhaps the best way for TPC/GF to solve this would be adding more types of combat systems, but even if they did, I still am sure the series will not be without those that aren’t appealed by it
Please kiddo someone else’s opinion isn’t some attack on you. Just because it’s “simplistic” and you like it the gameplay is not exempt of criticism. Please stop being a sad little fanboy.
@@TheUnoriginalDrCorgi ??? where did i say or imply it was exempt from criticism, just because i like it doesn’t mean others have to
@@mlau490 You didn’t say anything wrong that other person got super defensive out of nowhere.
@@erikstrickland96 yeah i realized that, i just got super confused about what he said since he clearly didnt read my comment lol
@@TheUnoriginalDrCorgi you say: "someone else's opnion isn't some attack on you" yet you respond in a quite hostile manner to their opinion, almost like you feel you've been attacked.
As a competitive player, I think turn based is perfect for Pokemon.
The depth of competitive Pokemon is insane, the other parts are what's lacking behind. Stories and graphics could straight up be better, they could add stuff like side quests and they could increase difficulty in the main game or add a challenge mode like they already did in BW2. Also why aren't features like the battle zone iterated on or at least brought back. At least it's been made easier to get Pokemon competitive-ready.
Seriously every time I see one of Arlos videos complaining about pokemon I just think to myself, "so you just don't care about the competitive aspect so you'll ignore it?"
@@van4life I you took your time you would see that in the comments he has a comment on the competitive scene that he said he should have said in the video.
@@jari5230 exactly, and fun too. Hoping on showdown proves that. It’s everything else that is the problem like you said.
@@jari5230 Pokemon has plenty of lore for story to be bothered with, there are lots of sidequests if you actually paid attention, increasing difficulty in the main game is unnecessary because the campaign still has battle tower and other similar modes, BW2's challenge mode was poorly handled. Because we've had other battle facilities, no other rpg has even bothered to do what Pokemon does in terms of battle facilities, go complain to them, and masuda already said too many people don't even bother with battle frontier and proved it.
The best case I think would indeed be a scenario where the mainline series remain turn-based but Legends: Arceus creates a spinoff series that innovates more.
The simple fact is that action-oriented games are not inherently superior to turn-based games, just like open-world games are not inherently superior to linear-based games. Open world can provide more content, but linear can provide a tighter and more cohesive experience. Action games provide an adrenaline rush and reward quick reactions, whereas turn-based games focus on long-term planning and strategy. To call turn-based games archaic or outdated would be like the calling Chess outdated. They are really just different genres and styles that appeal to different people. That is one of the best things about gaming; there are so many styles and genres to appeal to different people. There are also those of us that see merit in an enjoy multiple styles.
You expressed my thoughts 100%. One of the things I love about Nintendo is that their first party offerings include such a wide variety of gameplay styles. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Kirby, Mario Kart, and Smash Bros are all such different games, and that makes it so that no one style of game gets stale, and if I don’t like a certain style (like Smash isn’t really my thing), they have so much more to offer.
This isn’t about this video specifically, but I feel like a lot of gaming discourse (especially after BOTW) has turned into “why isn’t this game open world” and as someone who adores well made linear experiences, it’s getting old lol
While yes you are right, you can also make action combat about long term planning and strategy, for example adding a little bit of action into turn based, has the best of both worlds imo
@@chronicallycal Thing is there's really not that much keeping a relatively open world game from providing a very good almost linear experience. Just like there isn't a lot keeping an action game from feeling like a turn based game. They aren't superior for sure and vice versa is equally as possible (I've played my share of turn based games that absolutely feel like action games and it's such an amazingly sweet experience, yet so extraordinarily rare.) IT's just if you actually TRIED just about any of the games you stated could pull off an FF7R and translate gameplay into a different genre (Mario has done it SEVERAL TIMES now.)
At the end of the day Pokemon seems to really only listen to half or even a third of its audience and that's becoming a big problem. It focuses too much on only one aspect of the game at a time (which is usually preserving the gameplay elements because they have to protect competitive I guess) but after the national dex controversy, graphical fidelity issues, side games like snap and pokken, it's becoming clear that their base is fracturing from the games seemingly single mindedness.
Questions like this are important because rarely do I see pokemon fans look at the perspective of other pokemon fans and this comment section reaffirms that because so little of it focuses on the players experience with the pokemon and how the gameplay effects that and more on trying to convince people why it shouldn't change but rather be made harder.
@@tsunertoo9149 I may have expressed myself poorly, but I think you’re responding to an argument I didn’t intend to make. I’ve played 4 whole mainline Pokémon games, all in the last year, and quit two partway through. I honestly don’t have much stake in Pokémon staying turn based. I don’t even play any other turn based RPGs besides Fire Emblem. I don’t super love that particular genre-it’s often not for me. And I have definitely never argued that the solution is to make the games harder-the EXP share that everyone hates is probably the only reason I actually beat SwSh and BDSP. As someone who straight up can’t play a lot of difficult games due to my disability, my solution to games’ problems is never “make it harder.” (In fact, in this debate, one of the reasons I hesitate to say I want Pokémon to go action based is that, depending on how combat is implemented, I may straight up not be able to play anymore.)
My point is that while, yes, any franchise could pull a FF7R, I don’t think every franchise needs to or even should. As I stated, I wasn’t even talking specifically about this debate. Pokémon is, in my opinion, one of the franchises that is so big and mainstream that it could definitely benefit from diversifying. But I don’t need, or even want, every game franchise to be like Mario. I don’t need every game, or even franchise, to be the biggest most high budget AAA game it can be, especially when the industry seems to be making a Lot of AAA games quite similar in terms of genre, gameplay, graphical style, etc.
I really enjoy that different franchises offer different experiences, even if they’re not all for me. Pokémon is so big that I personally think doing a Zelda-style branching off into 2 different game styles could be awesome. I don’t mind the idea of an action based Pokémon at all, beyond possible accessibility barriers. My point was only that a lot of gaming discourse seems to want most franchises to move towards a similar design end goal, and I personally don’t want that.
(Sorry if this came off as a rant. I do recognize what your saying and, for Pokémon, agree that a lot of fans are fairly displeased and should be listened to.)
chess is archaic though, lol
The final minute of this video is so good, probably my favorite Arlo gag in memory.
Arlo’s unique ability to neatly tie together whatever’s going on with one franchise in with the rest of the Nintendo universe - whether it’s developments in other games, Nintendo’s marketing strategy, or gaming history in general - is one of his greatest strengths and what distinguishes him from the rest. Well done Arlo.
The thing is that turn-based combat and real-time combat are two completely different beasts. Turn-based combat relies more on long-term strategy and battles of the mind, while real-time combat is far more about quick thinking and reactions. I think that the former complements Pokémon battling far more than the latter from a gameplay standpoint, especially with the increasing complexity of the games over the years. I get that this makes the battles appear slow, and it's every child's dream to play like in the anime, but this will come with costs.
If Pokémon were to suddenly switch to real-time battles, they would have to GREATLY simplify the game's mechanics so players can actually keep track of everything in the time they are given. "Accessibility" is something you brought up in this video, and I think it's very important to emphasize. At the end of the day, the Pokémon series is marketed towards children, and while I think the games _should_ be a bit more difficult in general, adding a real-time element would be the "wrong" type of difficulty because it would compromise so many strategic elements.
Even if turn-based combat was sometimes due to hardware limitations in the past, that era has long passed, and all modern games that still use it do so deliberately. This is because they want to have complex battles with tons of possible strategies, but also need to give the player time to understand everything that's happening and plan their next move. Some may call it "laziness," but I also think that in a long-running series like Pokémon, it's better to build and expand on the system from previous games, rather than tear it all down and start fresh.
12:47 I highly doubt that the turn-based battle mechanic came to be as a result of limited hardware. Video game RPG's have changed a lot over the years but when tracing their routes you'll find them to be a digital adaptation of D&D. D&D is the grandfather of RPG's and defined what it means to be one. D&D itself is a turn-based fantasy adventure. To me, turn-based combat in early video game
RPG's is nothing more than a mechanic lifted from D&D and eventually became synonymous within the genre. Action-RPG is a change based on design and not on an increase of hardware capabilities.
The fact so many people believe it was because of hardware limitations baffles me when Action games and action RPGs also existed in that time period. In fact, Action videogames are older than turn based ones.
@@ChaddyFantome if I had to guess. Other than a lot of people not really looking to in deep into gaming history. The fact that crags are a thing and many of the older ones.. and some of the newer actually mimic (to an extent) d&d, use versions of rules etc from those types of games. And is its own genre, they only equate that with d&d
Turn-based RPGs were technically harder to do as shown by the compromises made to fit them onto the same systems that ran the likes of Zelda I & II, Crystalis, and Faxanadu with ease; I think this is the reason why the 16 and 32-bit eras were the time when turn-based RPGs really blossomed from obscure pixel clickers with niche audiences to the stories everyone still remembers for all time, such as FF 4, 6, and 7, Chrono Trigger and Cross, Xenogears, SMT I & II, Persona becoming a thing, Super Mario RPG, etc.
To me the answer is a resounding "no", simply because I don't trust GF to skillfully create a whole new type of combat when they're already unable to make good use of the one they have.
Especially when it seems like they are pressured to rush out new games.
Catching Pokemon is good use of the system, so is competitive, and on a slightly lower scale, so is battle frontier and battle tree.
Arlo: I want Pokemon to change from turn-based combat!
Also Arlo: I never want Paper Mario to change from turn-based combat!
Y'know I came to defend Turn based games but I'm SO HAPPY that so many people are already doing that. It encourages well thought out moves and thinking about the future and how you affect it. I think my brain has grown from having to essentially play a funner version of Chess.
Side games with alternate play modes are great but Pokemon is really only truly competitive when you have it where it is. They just need to make it a better experience for the casual player (Cause besides the nat dex and Dynamax...Gen 8 has a LOT of things that were great for competitive Pokemon.)
That PFP is some sweet nostalgia.
Obama Mii
Then Competetive Pokémon players should just have a game made for them. Like an official version of Showdown.
On the flip side, players who care more about the single-player experience can have their adventure-focused game which focuses on innovation and experimentation.
It's a shame that Pokemon (excluding competitive) doesn't require any attention and thought.
That's honestly how do you recognize someone who has been following the franchise for years vs a very casual player. The issue is not the system, but rather the lack of dept on the singleplayer campaign. That's why i pretty much prefer the Distant Kingdon's review over Arlo's one on BD/SP because he knows where the real issues are. I mean, the game doesn't even explain why switching after a KO is OP, nor allows natural challenge.
I think pokemon just needs to be harder. The core pokemon battle system is a lot of fun but its hard to sink your teeth into it when the games never push you.
Yep, you nailed it. Games aren't engaging if they're not challenging. It has nothing to do with the them being turn-based or that being a bad formula.
As much as I enjoy the games, a lot of battles are definetly on the easier side for me. Most route trainers are typically easy, and the bosses vary from surprisingly challenging to easy. I think Alola (particularly the Ultra games) was the only recent title when the bosses felt consistently strong, and those are incidentally my favorite of the modern times by a longshot.
I found most of Brilliant Diamond to be easy until the end where the League triggers a huge difficulty spike. It made for a really memorable finale, I just wish it was spread out more consistently throughout the game.
Agreed 1,000%. It's not the battle system that's the problem, it's that the games are designed in a way that never asks the player to engage with the depths of the battle system beyond "This type is strong against that type." And switching from turn-based to real-time wouldn't be a solution to that problem if Game Freak are still designing the games A) with only kids in mind, and B) under the idea that everyone under age 13 is a total idiot that can't comprehend complex gameplay.
Harder just really placates to the needs of the people who already have what they want in the games. Pokemon lacks way more than that and the issue is Pokemon refuses to change with the turn based being the lynch pin of the whole issue. THe turn based is fine, but they refuse to change because people keep saying it's fine so other parts of the game refuse to change too. It's like ash's pikachu. THe problem isn't Pikachu, Pikachu is fine and making pikachu stronger makes people who like pikachu happy. The reason people are mad that Pikachu hasn't evolved yet is because it's become a symbol of how the series as a whole refuses to change and as long as he doesn't evolve, ash will probably remain 11, and the series as a whole will stagnate.
@@tsunertoo9149 Don't get me wrong, pokemon has a lot of problems, I just don't think the core battle system is one of them. You are right that the fear of change is holding pokemon back but they changed a lot with legends arceus and it still looks bad. I think that the whatever system they go with the games need more polish and more development time.
DRINKING GAME :
watch 5 arlo videos and take a shot every time arlo says "paper mario" or "mario"
Surely our sweet Arlo cannot do the blue puppet thing forever.
We want a face reveal, and for you to start covering the entire industry.
Yes, other than it being important to the structure of battles
It's also just . . . Impossible to turn it into something like Pokken tournament. As much as I wholeheartedly want that as well.
Games that have left turnbased style battles don't exactly have hundreds upon hundreds of individual characters that have to be worked on.
At most we can maybe get something like the battles in Pokemon Masters I guess
Pokemon Masters has a lot of potential gameplay wise. But for some reason it seems to still work off of a turn system while also having cooldowns?
Ah yes pokemon masters the game where my pikachu can't beat golden because only flying type moves are effective now for some reason......that game is crap and most of it is just a wall of text telling you what said trainer/pokemon can do and in the end its still not enough because the new boss is only weak to this new gacha trainer and the rest suck! No thanks i rather play pokemon dash.
@@HandheldGamer1991 I mainly meant that the idea of moves having cooldowns and controlling multiple mons at once is cool, but alright.
@@HandheldGamer1991 I meant the battle structure. We're talking about the way the battles are held. That cooldown based fighting style they use
Not the entire thing
I think yes. Being able to take time to think about moves is what makes competitive Pokemon interesting. If they want to bring this interesting-ness to single-player, they just need to make the battles harder, so you actually have to utilize all the in-depth mechanics and form strategies
I used to think Pokemon games were incapable of being difficult until I went to the battle tree in pokemon sun and got absolutely washed with the team I beat the game with. It was very surprising and it got me wanting to get into the more in-depth aspects of pokemon battling
I think a mainline series where double battles were the default could bring a lot to the table
@@calebolds9609 Pokemon Colosseum on the GameCube. Every battle was a double battle.
I would love a new game in that series that implemented all of the new meta to it. The game's sequel, Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness, was really just more of the same, just with different Shadow Pokemon and a small handful of Quality of Life features.
If they make it a arpg with comp it would just be a worse pokken
@@calebolds9609 Yes, I completely agree!
Here is my take : main line games should stay to their genre and have the spin offs experiment with changes
Which they have and people like Arlo continue to complain.
@@rpgfanatic9719 "complain"? also why didnt you make this an ACTUAL comment? That seems like something too important to be just a reply.
@@shadowguarder2857Yes, complain, Arlo early on talked about being in the camp that games need to change and sometimes ideas need to be replaced entirely so it doesn't become a convoluted mess, which is inherently a complaint that Pokemon games haven't changed the formula only expanded and therefore have "too much content." Ridiculous. Also complaining about where I'm addressing this comment is giving me a feeling that you don't get out much.
Thanks for the content Arlo, I appreciate you 👍
So I may have missed it, but where are we gonna factor in competitive?
I get really tired of people with short attention spans that don't like RPGs to begin with complaining that turn based RPGs exist and obfuscate it with the argument of "turn based is outdated".
No it isn't. Turn based was created as an intended element of game design, not as a response to the restriction of hardware. RPGs have their origins from DnD. The whole point of an RPG is abstraction and creating a system that focuses on decision making, manipulating variables and resource management.
The ability to have all that information keeping and variable checking done by a computer was enticing when it came to the prospect of bringing the table top RPG experience to video games. THAT was why we have turn based RPGs.
Pokemon was not made a turnbased RPG because it made it easy to make. It was made an RPG because Dragon Quest was stupidly popular and influential in Japan, and turn based RPGs as a genre are exceedingly popular there in general.
Removing turnbased would not enhance Pokemon beyond making it into a different game that would in theory appeal to people that, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, don't even like the RPG gameplay of Pokemon to begin with, but rather were attached to the brand and social elements of playing a pokemon game.
If the turnbased gameplay in pokemon isn't cutting it, it is because the games themselves have been so dumbed down over the years they have ceased to be engaging.
Can I unironically cheer yas Queen slay?
I feel your disdain for detractors, conflating old with bad, when the two are not inherently connected.
THIS. THIS. THIS. GOD I hate it SO much when people puke that dumb "HURR DURR RPGS ARE OUT-DATED MAKE AN ACTION GAME OUT OF IT XD"-shit.
You’re preaching and testifying rn and I’m all for it, NOTHING is wrong with the formula
Bro I swear I have no clue how people don't get tired of action games. So many of them just look like Devil May Cry rip offs
Agreed 100%. Calling turn based "antiquated" is so braindead.
I came into this video with dozens of counterpoints prepared, (i've also thought about this a lot) and you literally covered all of it, thank you!
Love your videos Arlo!
Yes. Yes it does. It's the entire formula pokemon has been since forever. You can't ask for an entire genre change, it makes the game lose it's identity.
I feel the same way about people who think the next f-zero game should have a lot of captain falcon outside of his racer.
Maybe it could have that mario rpg "click button at right time for better damage roll" thing though. That wouldn't be bad
Honestly a captain falcon game might be cool and even sell better than F-zero since his smash fame.
But it would not be f-zero
@@turtleanton6539 No, no it would not. And I don't play f-zero for captain falcon, so...
I am strongly against the idea of moving away from turn based combat. The one thing that Pokemon has going for it is that it is one of the few games that has excellent turn based multiplayer. I would hate to see that go because they decide to switch genres to "improve" the game. instead of doing some of the dozens of other things that they could to improve the single player aspect.
I mean, who said they would have to completly scrap it, the turn based system is already there and they could just make it a mode in the Multiplayer section.
Or maybe even make it like final fantasy 7 remake
Just do a fake action system like Baldur's Gate or Ni No Kuni. Something that feels active but is actually built upon a turn based structure.
agree, but i also feel like legends arceus is a move in the right direction to re-ignite main game experience. dunno, i feel like a compromise could be to try and strike a balance, like say experiment with how the main game is played, but keep the basis like stats, abilities and moves the same so you can use your main game pokemon in PVP where for the sake of "sportsmanship" traditional rules apply.
@@ListenToPumpkinMusic Ni no Kuni's combat isn't that great though. On top of there being only like 30 monsters and metamorphosis hardly changing the models.
I have definitely always dreamed of a real time game like you, but hadn’t considered what might be lost by getting rid of the “classic style” of play.. Thank you! Awesome vid x
I absolutely love turn-based combat, if I lose ANOTHER rpg series I like to action combat I'll be quite upset
maybe not entirely on action, but rather strategic based combat. not button mashing
@@R3in_Ch I don't think that changes much for people who prefer turn-based.
I think the games just need to give NPCs (especially the gym leaders) teams and pokemon actual players would use. I'm playing brilliant diamond right now, and when I got to the 3rd gym Maylene's Lucario destroyed me, and it's because it's a pokemon that has an actual moveset. It felt like I was playing against an actual human rather than it feeling like the computer just randomly choosing from the 4 moves it has access to.
Yeah you go to the old games and get dragon danced then 1 tapped by a cloud bird and now you go into a water gym and a lvl 11 magikarp uses flop and another unoriginal fish pokemon drops water droplets on your head and uses the tail that all fish have to tail whip your defence to negative and then never attack you so you just win ez pz bc exp share is built in and all your pokemon are over levelled in every fight.
Really sets the mood.
@@IOwnKazakhstan older Pokémon games aren’t harder at all. I don’t know where you got that. The AI is easily exploitable and the move sets don’t have good coverage.
@@Sergio-wc1wn no. someone datamined it. the old ai is legitimately smarter than pokemon arceus and S&S
@@IOwnKazakhstan it isn’t. The old Ai basically boiled down to hitting a Pokémon with a super effective move. Even if the move doesn’t deal damage.
It was incredibly easy to exploit. Why people think the older games are more difficult is because you needed to grind a lot and you had fewer options of Pokémon and moves.
@@Sergio-wc1wn the only reason you felt you had to grind is because the game was harder. Naturally any amount of challenge can be overcome by grinding, but maybe you would have found some of the older Pokémon games more challenging if you didn’t.
I personally don't think you're giving the battle system in Pokemon enough credit here. How many PvP turn based RPGs are there? Games where you can fight against other players, and is really incredibly well balanced around that concept? Not many if any. The battle system works so well because there's so much extra depth to it. Kids can finish the story and have fun, hardcore fans can spend 100's of hours making the perfect team. Basically what I'm saying is Pokemon does not fail when compared to other turn based RPGs in terms of its battle system. It's an amazingly well thought out system. I feel like this video is solely from the perspective of the single player campaign and nothing else.
So lets say they scrap that and do real time battles, with some action elements, like say, Xenoblade. I feel like you'll have just lost decades worth of refinement in an instant for a battle system that has been done 100 times already. Turnbased RPGs are the minority now, it's not an over crowded genre. Like, the battle system IS Pokemon for the games. If you dislike the battle system, you simply dislike the Pokemon games at the core really.
So personally, I don't want them to change the battle system. I'd rather just play another game instead. Like Ninokuni. (which I'm pretty sure is the exact game you're picturing the future Pokemon to be)
*Preach.*
I personally have played every Pokémon game since childhood and am I big fan of the series. But have personally felt a lack of innovation in the recent games and would rather seem something different or at least the implementation of meaningful changes to the combat.
You said “if you dislike the battle system, you simply dislike the Pokémon games at the core” when in my case it simply isn’t true. I’ve just grown tired of the same. I still play each through and play PVP and enjoy it but that doesn’t mean I love it.
You can eat a meal you loved may the first couple of times, but sometimes as times goes on that love can just turn into momentary enjoyment. No longer does it feel special or meaningful. Or maybe you can love it forever. I guess in this case I’m the ladder.
So while I do enjoy the gameplay, I am not against change
nah, it's just boring. If the game want to be pvp then just go full pvp
I agree. Turn based is the very essence of Pokémon. But what I’d like is a more refined TB system. Eveytime I think of the perfect turn based system I always go back to Pokémon and PS5 R. What I’m saying is, yes to turn based. Yes to keeping its current nuances in its intricate battle system. But also yes to adding slight improvements and innovations. I think PLA and it’s turn based system but switch up of the order system is 100% what the series needs and what should be used forward.
True, but to me the main problem is how underutilised that system goes in the story. Although from a competitive player's perspective, the PVP community is really large, it's not even a 1% of the people who play Pokemon, it's not even the target audience of the games. The vast majority buy the game, play the story content, maybe do some postgame if there is any, and leave. And it's there where the game absolutely fails to use its battle system.
I think they should just make Double Battles the default format in-game. They're much more strategic; Colosseum was very interesting due to this.
Single battles have plenty of strategic depth to them, the problem is that AI trainers almost never switch Pokémon, which makes them highly predictable. I’d actually say that singles and doubles have the same level of depth, they just emphasize drastically different skills from each other
@@Kosecant Now that you mention it, they really are predictable for not switching Pokémon, but at the same time I think of what might happen if they made the A.I. switch too much. I fear it could become a hazard battle with Stealth Rocks and Spikes all over the freaking place, just like the competitive scenario.
That last combat system you described really made me think of Ni No Kuni's battle system. You wonder around the world were you can see the monsters. Once you enter in battle, you can use familiars for combat choosing between attacks in a menu, but you also control how they move so you can evade enemy attacks or position yourself better, changing just enough the combat to make it interesting.
Having two series run side-by-side, or the occasional spin-off series with real time, would probably be the best situation. It's not that the games are not all that great right now because they're turn-based, but that they're like that because they haven't changed. So many games have shown us how good, unique and interesting turn-based combat can still be. Pokemon just has to change itself enough to be unique and interesting again. But as far as a real-time battle Pokemon game series, I think running along side the main series would be perfect, rather than completely replacing... because some people love the turn-based, and we shouldn't just throw them out the door because of it (I love both turn-based and real-time, so ofc I'm biased towards both existing lol).
Without even watching, I say yes. You can find your real-time games elsewhere.
After having finished Arceus, I can only say that I hope all Pokémon games are like this going forward, because I loved it!!
combat has never been touched.................. whats so forward about any game?
Arlo, you gushing in the middle of the video about how as a kid, you thought pokémon was about the immersion of making a super strong team of friendly creatures?
THAT'S SO RELATABLE TO ME.
I have vivid memories of me as a younger lad, getting HYPED up when Pokémon Go was announced with that slick trailer in which pokémon would pop from bushes and run away from the player. It promised me pretty much MY perfect Pokémon experience.
In my head, what I was expecting was this: a game that is just a camera. It locates you, scans your surroundings, calculates the presence of a pokémon nearby through GPS and, if you're near a creature, it places it somewhere in your surroundings. Then, it's a safari hunt: cautiously approach it, throw the ball and catch it; if not, it runs away in real time or you have to battle it.
Think of it as a mix of Pokémon Snap and Legends Arceus, in foresight: the former's characterization of the pokémon you find and the latter's open-ended glory and in-overworld combat. Add a spice of Pokémon-Amie, allowing you to actually interact, feed and pet your buddies, and put it IRL through a phone camera. You get my DREAM Pokémon game: I'm not roleplaying as a trainer catching pokémon, I AM a trainer catching pokémon.
Of course, I was still a child and didn't understand tech isn't as advanced as I had in mind. Still had fun, from the time it launched to a handful of months later, but it just couldn't be what I SO desired.
I wish we get something like that in the future; when Nintendo decides to mess with VR or when AR tech becomes so highly advanced it can scan everything and calculate every inch of free space around you.
Pokémon is a series I hold dear to my heart due to the enthralling concept of building your own team of friends to win, above all. If there was one thing that would get me sold instantly in Scarlet and Violet, is if they just allow the player to have a camp where all of their pokémon are out and about and you can interact and pet and play with them. Doubt they'll do it, but a man can dream...
I just finished Brilliant Diamond yesterday and honestly, the League fights, especially Cynthia, really highlighted the benefits of the turn based format, imo. The Cynthia fight kicked my ass multiple times and I needed trial and error to map out the best strategy and which teammates to use when. It was a very satisfying victory in the end.
Honestly BDSP elites 4 and champion fight shows what could be done for the whole game with better move sets. Maybe not iv and ev since that is something very tedious for people especially those who only do single player
If anything, that shows how much potential there is in the main campaign if the AI tried to test the players more. Pokemon games do feature strategy, so we need to see more of that reflected in the main campaign.
I’ve yet to finish BDSP (sat outside sunny shore). Are you not laughably overlevelled? Or is it really that well adjusted? I’ve noticed ACTUAL STRATEGIES being used by the boss trainers, and it makes me smile, up until my one-of-twelve overlevelled monsters mops up the competition, and I sigh.
@@reginlief1 funnily enough, I actually WAS somewhat overleveled for a good deal of the game (this is the first time I actually DID find the exp share to be overpowered), but the League has a huge level spike, and when I did my first couple of attempts Lucian and especially Cynthia outclassed my teams levels (thankfully, my team caught up naturally during my retries, so I didn't need to go back to Victory Road to level grind.)
Even when my team got stronger, however, Cynthia's setup still ended up being very threatening. In my last couple attempts, my team was generally stronger than hers (I'm pretty sure most of my mons were higher leveled than Garchomp when I finally finished) but the items and movesets she used still made the fight pretty stressful. Her Milotic was infuriating and I had to make absolute sure that Roserade stayed in the match long enough to deal with her, and Garchomp is the powerhouse most would expect it to be.
The majority of the game was easy for me, but the League was a big stepup and they went all out with Cynthia.
@@digitaltailsmon4096 It would also help the difficulty curve, making sure that players are better prepared for the League and not blindsiding unsuspecting people with a massive difficulty spike right at the end when your fighting against the final bosses.
I'd hate for Turn-based battle systems in JRPGs to die off, as people just..seem to hate them for reasons that make no sense.
Pokemon is a good, broad appeal way of keeping them alive XD
I think people hate them because the turn based combat from the two biggest JRPG companies, Gamefreak and Square Enix, have been stagnant for so many years. I firmly believe if the more innovative turn based games being made got more if the spotlight their reputation would be much better.
@@sitodev Deltarune is basically the perfect example of that. The reason people don't like them is because they are so easy to let sit after being implemented that the games stagnate and become boring. Final fantasy lasted so long because each final fantasy is usually very, very different. Good story, characters, etc keep it alive. Pokemon doesn't even pull that off because the things other than gameplay that drew people, A.K.A pokemon, are not only slowing down but now are even regressing with them saying future games won't have them all in them.
I think the magic in Pokémon has never been in the combat. For me I’ve always loved interacting with my Pokémon in the overworld and minigames. The camp in sword and shield is one of my favorite things in any Pokémon game, and the following and riding Pokémon in let’s go were literal perfection. It’s nice to make that connection with your pet Pokémon like in the anime and get invested even if they are just pixels on a screen.
I disagree, I love the combat in pokemon and its what has been bringing me to the series for years now. It's a simple game of rock paper scissors which they build on with every iteration. The new typings, items, abilities, moves just makes the combat seem ever evolving. In fact, the combat is so loved that there are multiple websites entirely dedicated to it, like smogon, and pokemon showdown.
@@impieman10 Kinda missing the themes of the franchise there...
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 I mean pokemon isnt all about that stuff, honestly the story and interactions are pretty boring for me I always just skip through it to unlock most of the stuff for online play
@@bewarebewear1507 It is about that stuff. Not as much detail as the combat is because it was ever evolving, but it is there, you didn't skip through any of it because you can't unless you hack. Between the abuse stories of USUM and monotonous plots of other RPGs, this is really fucking tame in terms of being boring.
I think this is how they could take advantage of having 2 versions : one in the traditional style, and one in the new style
That would be great if they werent constantly crunching for yearly releases.
Unfortunately, I don't see that being practical from a development perspective. You'd have to devote resources to both play styles, and that's a lot of money and time that could be spent on other things. I could see them making a spin-off series though, one that could explore different battle mechanics.
@@japzone they could have two seperate teams (which they've said they already do) one works on the original style and one works on the new style, the game just tells a very similar story using different battle system. if the new battle system is action oriented then itll probably only need to be balanced for single player play unlike the original system which has to consider both pvp and single player. since theyve already designed the original though there isnt a lot to worry about in that department.
As cool as that would be, giving reason to own both versions, I feel like the two games would have to largely be different games using the same assets and whatnot (duh). They'd have to heavily adjust the way encounters and so on work, since I'm not sure if random encounters in the way that they would in current day Pokemon would be that well suited for a live battle system if that's what you mean by "new style." I'd still love to see something like that.
On a side note, where is your profile picture from?
Just for the record, I know that Pokémon's current system does have depth, especially when you look at the competitive scene. Maybe I should have clarified that. But when I play a Pokémon game, almost none of that depth actually comes through. The four-move system only REALLY works when you consider the whole meta. Just playing casually, I've grown bored with it. I maintain that it's too simple and could use a shake-up, even if it never ditches the turn-based style.
OKAY ALSO ADDING, people are coming away from this video thinking I don't like turn-based combat and that I think all of it is antiquated. That's simply not the case, at all. I specifically mentioned how I like it. But maybe I didn't spend enough time elaborating or something? Dunno. Just please know that that's not what I'm saying in this video. I'm just trying to explore all sides of the argument.
I maintain that the problem here is in the AI design (or lack thereof). Pokemon's depth comes from the elegance of its systems, a rich work of interconnecting systems that work so well specifically because of their simplicity, not in spite of it.
It is very much that NPCs in the game do not know how to utilize this system, and that the game makes no attempt to teach the player how these systems work to create depth. It's a problem of the player's environment, not the systems themselves.
I say add Nezlocke option to make it harder. There should be a hard mode in pokemon. People already do it with their Nezlocke runs.
The big problem with Pokemon battles is that the gym leaders always have one weakness. They don’t use items, the team variety as bad, etc. They don’t even switch which is a cornerstone of singleplayer battling. If gyms were themed more around concepts, like how Lance has almost no dragon types but has plenty of dragon like Pokemon in RBY (granted it was only because there was one dragon type in RBY), the battles wouldn’t be as stale as they are in Gen 8. Gen 7 actually managed the bosses fairly well if they were totem pokemon
Online battles in sword and shield was great.
Real time combat isn’t Pokémon, Pokémon games are from the perspective of the trainer. You are taking turns to command something else, that is turn based, that is Pokémon. You are right the competitive scene is amazingly deep and I’d love that to be more showcased. Doubles battles are incredible. Inventive takes on turn based like PLA or something like timed 3s prompts would be a great step forward but never real time. If you want to play as a Pokémon play something else like a Pokémon spin-off 😂
The main series should absolutely stay turn based. They just need to not kill off their spinn offs
Thank you for bringing up this discussion fairly and approaching it from both sides! I could find myself enjoying either side, though I would rather see the turn-based style iterated upon (and encourage/force us as players to use more advanced techniques and strategies) than eliminated entirely. Pokemon games can be very comforting and relaxing to me because I don't need to be on my toes all the time. That said, having a spin-off series like Arceus that allows for action-based combat is appreciated in its own right too and helps me feel more immersed. They both appeal to different ways and reasons to play a game, and I think it's fair to explore them both!
There was talk a while back about them testing out an ATB system like what we see in a lot of Final Fantasy games and I think that has potential. Would be cool to see speed change so that it dictates how often your turn is ready rather than just what order the attacks fling out.
Obviously this would take a massive rebalancing or existing pokemon and moves but it would be very interesting.
All the priority moves would be infinite turn moves.
Agree with Arlo in a lot of areas and agree that that system has gotten a bit stale, but it honestly does seem like Arlo has never been truly tested as a Pokémon trainer. I've been playing Pokémon difficulty hacks recently like radical red and let me tell you, those games push your knowledge and skill of the mechanics to the limit. A difference of 4 moves can mean if a pokemon is an offense sweeper or a slow staller or a support mon. And its not just the 4 move system, abilities are such an integral part of the game that add so much more depth, and it would be hard to pull off in Arlo's imagined real time pokemon battles. So yeah, I agree pokemon does have to change and evolve, but don't tell me it doesn't have depth. The mainline games just don't require you to explore the battle system, that's the problem.
I agree. Heck, just going into something like the harder levels of some battle facilities are a huge deal for letting you know there's more to the battle system than you'd guess.
It FEELS like it's simple because the base game never really pushes you to go deep into it. But that's what competetive, post game facilities, and other challenges are for. And for REALLY advanced players, stuff like difficulty hacks or challenge runs like nuzlockes do the same thing.
(Though the battle facility thing is an entire conversation of it's own, as it seems like the difficulty there is wildly inconsistent between generations. Though still usually requires actual strategy to get far)
I walked into Radical Red thinking I could steam roll it like official pokemon games had taught me. Bugsy put me in my place pretty quickly
THANK YOU. More people need to know about games like Radical Red and Inclement Emerald!
Yknow, I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I thought that having a combination of real time battles and turn based battles would be good (among other ideas). Let me explain:
In things like Gyms or Tournaments, players would use a battle style akin to the old turn-based version. These are called “formal battles.” This is where the player and the opponent agree to battle, and follow the battle terms and rules that have been established in the franchise.
But with wild Pokémon or with the evil team, why should they follow those battle rules? Wild Pokémon don’t care about those silly human rules, and the evil team is gonna do whatever it is they can to win. These fights will involve you as the trainer running around the field, dodging attacks while also giving commands to your Pokémon. If you need to escape a battle, there’s no run button, you’ve gotta pack your stuff and get out like your life depends on it. Because it does. Your opponent? Yeah, they’re ready and willing to hurt you (some wild Pokémon will be friendlier than others of course; a rockruff isn’t about to randomly run up to you and murder you. But if a haxorus sees you on their territory? You better start sprinting). I’d call these “Dynamic Battles”
Since it might be difficult for people to do real time move calling while also running around to not die, I’d say when you have a Pokémon out, you click a button and a choice wheel (like the tool select wheel in Animal Crossing) comes up for you to choose a move. During that time, time would slow down (like in BotW’s bullet time) so you’d have some time to make a decision.
This would also allow the environment to drastically effect how you fight. For example, if you’re exploring a tight-quarters cave and get attacked, you can’t just send out a wailord and expect to not get smothered. Using wailord as an example again, if you send one out on land, it wouldn’t be as viable a fighter as it would be in water, since it has no legs (no more water type fishy Pokémon swimming through air please). Pokémon would be properly scaled, and you’d have to base your team around it. Wanna use Fly (not an HM, all Pokémon that can fly would be able to do that naturally) Sorry, you have a Chatot. You wanna ride it to the nearest Pokémon center? You cant expect that to work. Oh but wait, you have a deoxys! Just use psychic and fly around like that!
These aspects I came up with just seem more realistic to me, and would add an interesting and logical challenge to the game that I think would be really fun to team build around. At some point I’d say to give the players the boxlink to make sure they always have what they need, but not until later so they have to strategize more
But maybe that’s just me. I have other ideas and a whole game concept based around these things I’ve been working on for a while now. I know that it’ll never happen but hey, a girl can dream lol
Edit: also forgot to mention that online battles ideally would be able to be done in both ways
Absolutely love this idea, gives us the best of both worlds! Another thing that I think would be cool is if moves changed properties based off of the environment in Dynamic Battles. For example, if my Pokemon uses Nature Power near a trash can in an urban environment, it would remove the trash can from the map and turn into Gunk Shot rather than pulling Tri Attack like it normally would in an urban environment. Or if using certain types of moves have BOTW-like physics, like electricity getting conducted through water.
Ooh, it would also be nice if there was a setting to set all battles to Formal or Dynamic Battles for people who have a strong preference to a specific type.
@@dinguspingas749 fantastic ideas. Do you mind if I add them to my concept? If not that’s fine too. I intend on making a video series describing it in full someday, not anytime soon though lol
@@falconicole1007 Honestly, I would be honored if you put my ideas in your video! Go for it! I'll make sure to sub right now so I can catch it as soon as you finish. :) (Of course no rush though lol)
@@dinguspingas749 aw thanks! You don’t have to do that lol, but I do appreciate it
So some of these ideas, i feel like arent quite as viable. Fish pokemon would then only be useful when they were in a body of water. Likewise, would have players seek out very selective pokemon (such as any water type that could function on land as well as water, like Swampert) to avoid that, but also has huge drawbacks in the areas theyd be most effective. Water types being only usable against wster types? Not very fun.
However i LOVE the 'formal battle' idea. Keeps the origional battle style, which is easy to make and such. However your team would need to work around being able to move through the world AND straight battles.
But unfortunately it seems like Game Freak doesnt trust their audience to be capable of that kind of strategy. Which is... rediculous.
ARLO DRINKING GAME, take a drink everytime Arlo:
- says the words, “Paper Mario”
- complains about Pokémon
- says “Whoa” or “Wow”
You basically described digimon world combat. You can yell out attacks and maneuvers. The more intelligent you make your digimon the more commands they can understand, and new abilities and strats they can perform.
Yes. You can do alternative battle methods but keep them to side games or spin-offs. ARPGS are a different type of game, not a step up.
Agreed
You couldn't have said this better, they are a diferent genre not a step up
I think an ARPG Pokemon game would be pretty cool.
@@DirectorOfChaos9292 hence, do it as a spin-off
Disagree
Another good counter argument that I feel should've been mentioned is that a real time combat Pokemon game already exists in Pokken, but they haven't been all that popular even compared to other Pokemon spin offs. And from what I've seen, the fanbase is mostly consists of core fighting game fans not core Pokemon fans. Imo this shows that there is something about complex real time combat that doesn't gel with the Pokemon fanbase and formula. The farthest I believe Pokemon can go from their original battle system without alienating it's audience is a Chrono trigger esc timer based system
I think its because it lacks a story with a bit of formula we like, i think a good mix of both in a spin off would make it more attractive for the main series fans and pokken fans alike
You trying to spin a fighting game as a Real-Time Combat game?? It’s less popular because it’s beginner’s Tekken and if you want something harder there’s Tekken and SFV, and if you want something easier and with Pokémon there’s the entire Pokémon and Smash franchises.
@@markfarhat934 Have you seen pokemon mystery dungeon? Even that game doesn't get 1/3rd of the sales the mainline games do. It really shows that people only play pokemon for it's regular turn based system.
@@zeer7676 also because the main fan base of Pokemon are more "casual". Games like mystery dungeon would be too much difficult or complicate for the main fan base.
While I do think the existence of Pokken is a perfect counter to a lot of the wild assumptions people wanting a real time combat system have about how easy it would be to do that or how broad the appeal of such a wide change would be, we have to acknowledge that Pokken has a much shorter less involved single player campaign than a main line entry in the franchise and is therefor a less definitive case study.
this video reminded me just how much I want a sequel to pokken tournament
Idea for a middle-ground between "you go, I go" and real-time: It's still turn-based. There's X amount of "ticks" between turns. Your speed stat subtracts from the number of "ticks" you have to wait until you can go again. So one Pokemon could go 2-3 times in a row depending on the difference between speed stats. Thus speed actually matters for more than *checks notes* determining who goes first and for special cases where speed affects the damage done by certain moves.
Interesting take 🤔 I was thinking more of a hybrid between the two with ff7 crisis core as it's base
I feel like a spin off with rts WOULD be really awesome, but I feel like a big part of the fans would be REALLY mad if it replaced the turn based combat, and for a good reason.
And that's why it has to be a spin-off, remember when the annual releases were Pokémon games of all sorts of genres instead of the same Pokémadden with a roster change from Game FrEAk every year?
Now it's the spin-offs that are few and far between besides cash-grab mobile games.
@@autobotstarscream765 Game FrEAk? Cringe.
I will edit this comment when I finish the video but my thoughts on turn combat in general:
Turn based combat allows for some interesting gameplay that real-time doesn't. I adore turn-based games and I will be very sad if turn based combat is what the game drops.
At most, I would want how Dragon Quest 11 (which I adore) does turns.
I think gaming discourse has had an issue recently where people pretend that turn-based combat is some relic of antiquity and not a valid way to design games today (ahem, Final Fantasy). I would much rather see Pokemon stay turn based but have adjustments to it over time
Finished: I don't really have anything to add. Honestly, a slightly harder mainline Pokemon game where double battles were the default (like Colosseum) might be all the series needs
It’s like people just played turn based combat games bc of hardware limitations, not because they like it.
"I would want how Dragon Quest 11 (which I adore) does turns" this is my thought exactly.
@@CallmeLQ for what its worth though, I dont know how you would do that for fighting other humans. Its a very "vs AI" system that might not work outside of that context
@@Felipe-oe5su nah, people like it
@@Yohoat I know, but Arlo apparently doesn’t.
The thing is, Pokémon has been making subtle changes to its combat over the years, that casual fans, or those who've not stuck with the series, might not notice at first. They've added 3 new Types, Abilities, Weather, Terrain, Double Battles, the Physical/Special Split, and a number of smaller balance changes that even I didn't know about until recently.
The problem is, a lot of the more recent games have added mechanics that haven't stuck around because they were abandoned after a few games, making them feel more like gimmicks. They're either replaced with something new (e.g., Mega Evolution -> Z-Moves -> Dynamax) or are never fully fleshed out or given a time to shine (e.g., Triple Battles, Rotation Battles, Horde Battles, and Battle Royal)
"if they had spent all this time developing their turn-based gameplay formula and adding strategic new elements to it, then I might say all right, fine, that's just what Pokemon Is."
You said the thing. That's what they've done. They've introduced several types over 25 years. They've introduced new moves. New forms of Pokemon. Several other gimmicks. Think about what that does to the experience of that combat!
TrainerNameHere Is about to send in Vulpix. Will you change your Pokemon?
Great. Is it a Kanto Vulpix or an Alolan Vulpix? Fire vs Ice is a huge range and adds a lot of strategy to which Pokemon I would send in.
They add new ways of learning moves well outside a Pokemon's type. And some of them are very powerful. Luxray couldn't learn a single Psychic attack when it was introduced, and Fairy types didn't exist, but it has access to those moves now. Considering what a Pokemon can do outside the type it is is a considerable part of the strategic element to Pokemon battles.
Those are things that exist in fully standard battles across any game introduced in the past 5 years. That doesn't even cover Mega Evolution, Z Moves, or Costcomax.
Something else to point out here is that there's a range to Pokemon battles that has to exist because of the game's broad age range appeal. How do you make a game that can engage 8 year olds and 38 year olds? You make it so that there's something for both of those groups along the way, with very easy skill curves to get into the higher ranges. You can beat nearly every game in the series by overleveling your starter and just pounding through it. You can also use held items and fun strategies to make things that shouldn't work, work. There's no reason to think that this combat is "Simple" Because it's not. Just because the floor to get into the Hall of Fame is easy to get to, doesn't mean that the Ceiling for strategy and complexity isn't absurdly high also - Just look at the Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl gym leader refights to see that they are still offering advanced content for older, more experienced fans.
Okay, but the game never **requires** you to use that level of thinking or explore those possibilities. You can say they're being reserved for online matches, and you'd have a point...if the netcode in Sw/Sh wasn't so piss poor, even for a frigging turn-based game!
@@conorrynne9694 Honestly, that's kind of the point. If you're bringing this up, you don't realize how many people aren't like us that play Pokemon.
I’m sure you’ve heard this already but if strategic turn based combat is your jam, DEFINITELY give Shin Megami Tensei V a shot. I don’t think any other jrpg series out there challenges it’s players the way SMT does, and the system has enough depth to make that really rewarding. Don’t judge it based on whatever your perceptions of Persona are, I love Persona but in practice they’re almost nothing alike.
Exactly, thank you for acknowledging the differences of SMT and Persona, and the fact that other than the fact they're made by the same company, they're completely different.
I love both series to death myself, hell, look at my pfp, but I'm REALLY starting to get tired of people judging SMT solely on Persona and using that as their metric on how good it is, when they've hardly even bothered to look into anything about it past the fact that it's by the same company and has a very small handful of the same things. I mean you wouldn't base your opinion of Bravely Default or Chrono Trigger on the fact that it's not like Final Fantasy games, would you? So why do it for these games?
Sorry this was long and maybe unrelated, but I just thought I'd say it.
SMTV = 🐐 status
@@storm7870 I’d even say those are closer than SMT and Persona are, there’s almost no overlap in the appeal, at least for me. I play SMT for atmosphere, challenging strategy, continuous team building, and big, broad ideas. I play persona for style, endearing, well fleshed out, and human feeling characters, more grounded, people focused stories (which is why I’ll never get over the god final bosses), the interplay between two gameplay styles, and the feeling of a broader “experience.” It’s practically coincidental that I like both.
I would definitely not agree of SMT and Persona being “nothing alike”. Of course the simulation part of Persona (and the way it is intertwined with the RPG part) differs, but fact of the matter is that both series feature turn based combat based on demon fusion and gaining advantages by exploiting enemy weaknesses, gain critical hits and use buff/debuffing moves.
Most importantly, both series features close to the exact same movepools (agi/bufu/zio, kaja/kunda moves etc) and demons.
The two series definitely have a lot of things in common. They are different, but “nothing alike” is to go way to far.
From my experience it's just covering weaknesses and debilitating. And if the enemy hits a full on resistance they lose all of their turns, it's pretty broken actually. Etrian odyssey specifically millenium girl from atlus was a lot harder.
Even if the RPG aspects stay I think that making expansive cities and routes that have 10s of ways to go through them would be great. Like the same ammount of work that went into the graphics of the Grand Underground locations and the SwSh cities into the routes, just make it feel like an adventure.
Guardians of the Galaxy, except with Pokémon. That’s what you described ! And it works perfectly. The team moves around and fights with you, and you directly give commands while also taking part in the action
I always love skipping to the end of Arlo’s intro ad segments and just being extremely confused.
Now I am just hungry for Pizza Casserole
Turn-base is my preference, though it would be cool if there was some variation. Maybe a blend of fire emblem strategy and Pokémon tradition.
Have you played Pokemon Conquest? If you haven't, I'd heartily recommend it. Before I even got into the Fire Emblem games, Conquest is what eased me into Strategy game mechanics, and made the genre much more accessible to me.
It's easily my favorite spinoff game in the series, and I really hope they'll make another Pokemon Conquest game someday.
Pokemon Conquest for the DS is basically pokemon meets Ambition of Nobunaga and its great, best spin off the series has had
@@Equalyze I haven’t played it! But that’s cool. Didn’t even realize my idea kind of existed haha
Obama Mii
Ahhh I want a conquest sequel so bad!! It was so much fun!
If IN GAME was more like Meta as in competitive play with double battles, held items I don't think people would mind it being turn based. The problem isnt it being turn based. The problem is that it isn't complex IN THE MAINLINE STORY. Then you get into meta competitive play and HO GOD YOU'RE IN FOR AN ASS KICKING.
Well, if there's confliction on both ends, why not just have the turn based combat we see now as an accessibility option for those who may not have the motor skills capable or inputting actions fast enough for a more modernized take on fast paced anime style action? If anything, you answered your own question here lol. I'd agree that generally, this sort of 1800's style of combat where both factions take turns attacking one another is pretty dated, and could use a resurgence. Those who love the old ways however, could just resort back to this as a toggled feature for gameplay, or those (like I mentioned prior) that may not be able to use these new attack/defense live action sequences can at least have the old system as an option so they don't feel left out in the dust. Big fan of the channel btw, and my first comment haha. Love you buddy. :)
This is a really intriguing and thought-provoking question!