Why Pokémon Sucks (And What Won't Be Done To Fix It)

[WarpRattler]

(Note: This will be largely tl;dr for a lot of people. Those with short attention spans need not read further.)

Pokémon is a pretty successful franchise - thirteen years and it's still running strong. However, Pokémon as a game - and we're talking main-series adventure games here, not Mysterious Dungeon, Ranger, Pinball, or the various other spin-offs - sucks. There are various reasons for this, many of which I'll detail below.

Stagnation
The Pokémon games I'm talking about are traditional slooooooow JRPGs. Standard turn-based battle system, level-grinding, square grid-based overworld, incredibly linear - come on, even Dragon Quest has deviated a bit from that ancient formula for a while now!

Legendaries
Everyone knows about the special class of Pokémon usually referred to as "legendaries" - a bird trio and two incredible psychics in first-gen; a beast trio, two birds, and a grass elemental with control over time in second-gen; a trio of golems, a trio of powerful monsters with control over the weather, two playful dragons, a elusive wish-granter, and an alien in third-gen; and God knows what in fourth-gen. There are thirty-five legendaries in all, almost all of which can now be caught through regular gameplay throughout the five fourth-gen games (including some as part of the main storyline). Shouldn't legendaries be, y'know, legendary? In a way other than stats?

Too Many Pokémon, Can't Catch 'Em All
As of fourth-gen, there are 493 unique Pokémon species. In third-gen, to be able to complete the Pokédex (a major post-game goal for many players) without trading with other players, one had to own all five main-series third-gen releases, two GameCube games, and a GBA-to-GCN cable. A player wishing to complete the Pokédex in fourth-gen (again, without trading with other players, including WFC) must own all three major releases, plus a spin-off and two games that haven't been released in the US yet. Pokémon stopped being fun (or inexpensive) for completionists after first-gen.

Hacking And Piracy
Using cheating devices or otherwise hacking to obtain advantages is present in most games, but it's especially prominent in Pokémon, enough so that out-of-the-box compatibility with the latest Pokémon release is a commonly-advertised feature of many cheating devices. Additionally, no copy-protection has been implemented in a main-series Pokémon game yet, so they're easily among the most pirated games on Nintendo's handhelds in addition to being some of the best-selling games.

Multiplayer
Can you honestly say you'd praise a Pokémon game for its multiplayer? This isn't a well-crafted fighting game, real-time-strategy game, or first-person shooter. It's a turn-based RPG (and, in fourth-gen, a boring form of capture-the-flag). They somehow hold serious-business tournaments for these games, despite being largely unbalanced (enough that seventeen monsters are banned outright from standard tournament use, the equivalent of one out of twenty-nine selectable characters in a fighting game being hard-banned) and not particularly fun in multiplayer.

All some pretty glaring problems. At least two of them plague almost any long-running popular series, but Pokémon has this problem where the developers have made no effort to even slightly fix most of these problems. And why should they? As long as people keep buying these games, they don't need to change the formula, right? So they'll never make the following changes...

Change Up The Formula, Just A Little Bit
This isn't even that hard. Keeping it turn-based is fine. Ditch the grid, though. Use a better leveling system, or make grinding more rewarding - even rare loot drops from defeating monsters that carry items would be an improvement, as long as it doesn't lead to the inclusion of fetch quests. Open the world up a bit - instead of roadblocks and the HM system preventing you from getting to the next city, why not just allow you to go wherever you want (the Surf requirement to get to islands excluded), but not compensate for your lower level at all? (The system with unresponsive Pokémon if you don't have a badge allowing you to control them would definitely need to remain in place.) Just take some inspiration from other JRPGs.

Make Legendaries Legendary (And Change The Save System While You're At It)
Another easy fix. First off, ditch the Master Ball entirely. No more "oh, hey, I don't want to bother with fighting this guy, I'll just use the item with a 100% catch rate" going on. You have to work for your legendaries. Second, make it so legendaries aren't always there. To use the set-up from the first-gen games as an example, when you reach a legendary Pokémon's den, it'll be there, and you have one chance to face it; there was also one Pokémon that could only be legitimately obtained through a special Nintendo event. Scrap all that. Instead, with the bird trio, you have a 25% chance of that particular bird being there on that playthrough. If it's there, that's the bird you'll have a chance at getting; otherwise, you get a Nugget. Have it be even lower for Mewtwo (let's say 10% chance of it being there, and a Rare Candy or something otherwise), and have Mew roam the land with a one-in-67,108,864 encounter rate. In that example, there's a chance at getting exactly one bird (not your choice which), a lower chance at exactly one Mewtwo, and a very slim chance (but always a chance) of obtaining a Mew. This is the part of this scenario where everyone complains about it really being impossible to complete the Pokédex without trading. Three words: New. Game. Plus. You'd be able to start a new file in which your Pokémon from the previous game are locked away until you defeat the Elite Four Champion (added bonus if the game is programmed so that the Champion uses the exact party used to defeat the previous Elite Four). Reroll for legendaries and make it so that everything can be accomplished with a single copy of the game with enough time and effort. Also: you can only load from a particular save once (Diablo-style, not NetHack-style) - try to load from it again and it starts you back at the last Pokémon Center (with some sort of other punishment, though definitely not the "you lose all your money" thing Diablo II does). Also also: it autosaves for legendary battles (as with secret base battles in third-gen), so whatever happens happens regardless of whatever you might try to do to get out of an undesirable outcome.

Just Introduce A New Land Next Time, And Bring Back All Of The Old Pokémon
No more new Pokémon, or keep it under fifty if you absolutely have to include them, and make sure every single one uses a type combination we've never seen before if that's the case. Instead of crafting all sorts of new Pokémon, craft yet another new world, and make it so that every single Pokémon can be caught in this new world. Put it a decade or more after second- and fourth-gen. Connect it to the old lands with news clippings, television stories, books, and other sorts of things that show that the old places still exist, but they're way different from here (and make sure to document the kinds of things that might have changed there during the elapsed time). The only things that could be compared to the other lands would be the gym system (though it could have a lot more than eight badges) and the Elite Four (which could also be increased for a harder boss gauntlet).

Anti-Hacking And Anti-Piracy
This is where suddenly a lot of people get overly defensive about cheating in a video game. My standpoint? If the game detects that the save file has been altered by outside forces (such as a Pokésav equivalent or an Action Replay)? Have it corrupt the save file and scold the player. (If you really think this is too harsh a punishment - though it's seriously not - the game can warn the player the first time they do it and then corrupt the save file if more changes are detected.) Put in a copy-protection check at the file creation screen and after every gym leader battle (and code each check slightly differently as to make it harder to get around the protection); if a check fails at the new game screen, put a BAD EGG (or equivalent) in the player's party and fill every storage box with BAD EGGs (so that the player can't just dump the BAD EGG into a box to deal with it), and if it fails elsewhere, turn every Pokémon in the player's party except one into a BAD EGG and do as before with the storage boxes (and transform every Pokémon already in storage into a BAD EGG). Program it in such a way that if one tries to hack it out of the game (whether through an Action Replay code or hex-editing the ROM) it activates the anti-hacking stuff and automatically corrupts the save file. Figure out some way to code it so that it would be so much work to crack as to not be worth it. Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story's copy-protection was a big deal because it checked twice (once at the file select screen and once at the first boss fight), so take that even further.

Improve Multiplayer
There are many, many ways this could be done, and I'm not going to bother detailing more than two of them.
Bring Back Pokémon Stadium Versus
Since no experience is earned from multiplayer, there's no real reason to use player-trained Pokémon - so don't. Instead, introduce a versus mode with a system similar to one from the Pokémon Stadium titles. In this mode, each player would be able to pick a party of six Pokémon from a pool of all of them. Each Pokémon would have a choice of a predetermined moveset based on its types (for the lazy or those in a hurry) or a player-made moveset (from a pool of whatever attacks that Pokémon could learn naturally, via TM, or through one generation of breeding; some amount of these player-made movesets could be saved), and all Pokémon in this mode would be at the same level (likely either level 50 or level 100). Now, this would make some people angry - after all, they went to all the effort of breeding Pokémon to cause some destruction, and here's a game mode that takes the work out of creating some decent combinations - but these Pokémon wouldn't be EV-trained or anything, and the standard versus modes would still be present for those people.
Introduce Co-Op
The other multiplayer idea is (competitive) co-op. Remember the sections in fourth-gen where you could team up with an NPC for double-battling? Well, have something like that, but multiplayer. Have special co-op dungeons with high-level Pokémon and good rewards at the end. Players could stay together and double-battle, or they could explore separately and deal with the stronger monsters on their own, but one could also reach the end first and have the loot all to himself. Also, this mode would give experience from battles and allow players to catch Pokémon (possibly with some special way for one player to distract a monster in a double battle so that the other player could catch it or the other monster without knocking either of them out).

So yeah, none of those changes would probably ever be introduced into an official Pokémon release, though change is all but necessary at this point. For a fan game, though, or yet another game to try to compete with Pokémon? Many of these changes (excepting the anti-piracy for a fan game, obviously) could make for something really great.

[Turtlekid1]

I hope to God that your ideas about Legendaries, Saving, and Anti-Hacking measures never make it into a Pokemon game. 

A New Game+ is only a partial fix, at best.  I don't want to go through the whole game who knows how many times for the sake of catching two or three Pokemon, with no guarantee that your query will even be there (perhaps if there is a 100% chance of meeting the Legendaries in a New Game+, the idea could fly).  I, for one, think that the in-game story has made it very clear in every installment that Legendary Pokemon are seldom seen and never caught or defeated (before the player hits the scene, anyway), thus: Legendary..  Part of the story, part of the reward, and part of the fun, is being able to catch that uber-monstrosity at the end of the game's storyline.  I've always viewed a Legendary battle(s) as the moment when the player reaches his full potential as a trainer and subdues a creature that was once thought to be unstoppable with his rag-tag team of hard-earned and hard-trained Pokemon.

As for saving, what if you want to save before a particularly nasty gym leader or even the Elite Four?  If you lose, you can just load the file from before you fought them with the items and money that would've been used in vain and lost if you failed to beat said gym leader.  In the spirit of reducing the amount of grinding (one of your points that I agree with), don't force the player to rebuild his stock of supplies every time through countless Vs. Seeker rematches when he loses a battle.

We've discussed [bickered, argued] hacking before in #tmk, and my stand hasn't changed since then.  If someone wants to Pokesav his game until his brain turns to mush, let him.  If he wants to ruin the experience for himself by hacking a party of fully EV'd, max IV legendaries at the beginning of the game, then let him.  If the experience is truly ruined, then it will be its own lesson.  If he still has fun, who are we to tell him he can't enjoy the game in that way?  Obviously, issues come into play when you're hacking for the purposes of winning a multi-player match.  At that point, hacking should not be allowed, because it gives one player an unfair advantage and robs his opponent of a fair victory.  Nonetheless, most people who hack the game that I've met hack for the single-player element, and to see what new things that they can do with the game.  Most competitive tournaments check for hacks, anyway, so it's not as though measures haven't already been taken.

The other ideas (about competitive co-op, a new land with all Pokemon available without migrating or gratuitous trading, and a more open-ended game world) are good (I find the latter to be very interesting, actually), and I agree that they'd be a welcome change of pace from Stealth Rock-centric, trade-happy, linear game play.

[WarpRattler]

Somehow when I was writing this up I forgot about the other possible punishment for hacking, which would be a lock preventing all multiplayer (trading, battles, contests, the potential co-op thing, the Underground, WFC, and anything else that might be incorporated), followed by save corruption if they attempt to hack around this (sorry, but there is no other way to actively punish a player for trying to cheat the game, especially when they're trying to cheat it so that they can ruin the experience for others as well).

For saves, look at it from a narrative standpoint: you're a ten-year-old kid alone in the world. You're a weakling who whites out if his whole team of usable Pokémon faints. Why should you be afforded what equates to the ability to cheat death?

The numbers I used were merely examples. The point was to make it so that you don't automatically get a shot at every single legendary on a single playthrough. (Now that I think about it, the New Game+ mechanic could also be expanded to randomize which previously-version-exclusive Pokémon you'd find on a particular playthrough.)

[WarpRattler]

A slightly less harsh fix for legendaries involving a New Game+-type thing (using the bird example again) would be to have there be a 100% chance of one member of the trio on a given playthrough, and it wouldn't give a repeat if you were lucky enough to have two unique ones already. This would mean that you could catch Articuno on one run, Zapdos on the next, and be ensured your chance at Moltres on the third, but it'd also mean you could encounter several of the same type in a row before getting a different one and having an ensured chance at the third. There could be some sort of system in place to prevent this - it could be as simple as just having the game reroll that playthrough's bird if it would be the same bird a third time in a row.

Also, to make things more interesting and give the player choice in some situations: legendary double battles. You encounter Latios and Latias (or Ho-oh and Lugia, or Mew and Mewtwo, or Dialga and Palkia) at the same time. You can't catch them both on a single playthrough.

(Only event legendaries would roam, using the same mechanic already in use for roaming legendaries.)

Something Bird Person said made me want to clarify what I was saying about the save system. You'd basically have save points (Pokémon Centers and a few rare in-dungeon save points), and then you could also use only-load-once-and-you-have-to-shut-off-the-game-when-you-write-them suspend saves.

Something else: Legendaries could be deep in special high-difficulty dungeons (think ten floors, with scaling monsters on eight floors, a save point on the fifth floor, and a level 50 legendary on the tenth floor). Again, the idea is to make legendary Pokémon something a player earns in addition to something a player character earns.

[Turtlekid1]

Again, my main complaint about that idea is that no one would want to start a New Game+ and go through the entire Pokemon league and storyline again just for one Legendary Pokemon, for each Legendary you want.  At that point, it goes beyond making the player earn the reward and enters tedium.

The dungeon idea is a good one, especially since most dungeons in the games so far have been rather easy (although the D/P/Pt Victory Road was good enough for me).  Cerulean Cave in FR/LG, for example, wasn't nearly as big of a deal as some NPCs made it out to be.

[WarpRattler]

It's not just for one legendary. You're acting as if the legendary bird example implies that you'd be able to get a single legendary on a given playthrough. You do realize that at present there are thirty-five of the things? If a system like I described (with an ensured chance at one legendary from a set of two or three) were implemented and you didn't fail to catch something, after a single playthrough, you would have at least ten legendaries - not counting if you happened to be lucky enough to encounter any event legendaries. Another time through and you'd complete every pair and possibly be ensured a chance at the other four non-event legendaries on the next run through.

Having the dungeon thing be a way to catch a random legendary could work, though. I was considering it merely as a way to change up how legendaries are already gotten.

Also, to combat the tedium of playing through again, have a dynamic story, plus the open-ended thing already meaning you can take on the gyms out of order.

[Weegee]

Amazingly enough, I disagree with almost every assertion you made in your initial post. For the sake of brevity, I'll forgo proper sentence structure and address the entire argument in one rambling textsplosion.

*Ahem*...

The series admirably retains a rustic feel through turn-based, grid-mapped gameplay, cheating devices offer boundless fun at nobody else's expense for those who choose to utilize it, you've yet to show us the papers proving that your judgment regarding multiplayer is fact, the Pokemon series requires the least grinding of any RPGs on the market (fighting every trainer once will have your starter plenty overpowered, ramming Rare Candies down its throat solves any trouble spots), the Master Ball is there for that "You must choose/choose wisely" vibe, your "Legendaries shouldn't be there in every playthrough" idea is the worst idea since Hitler went into politics (unless you enjoy blazing through the game three times just to acquire every legendary), auto-saving after legendary battles is more sadistic, unforgiving and unenjoyable than anything the aforementioned historical figured could ever have devised, TK is absolutely correct about saving before tough foes or uncertain situations (don't punish a player for experimenting with a new strategy which turns out not to work), and you should really stop wasting fifty dollars a year on games you play only to criticize on the internet afterwards.

Anything not mentioned in the above rant is agreeable of reasonable, in my opinion.

By the way, those last three words are ones you should really get used to using more often.

[WarpRattler]

I disagree with almost every assertion you made in your initial post. ... I'll forgo proper sentence structure and address the entire argument in one rambling textsplosion.

Arguing against points that have already been debated and supplanted is poor form.

The series admirably retains a rustic feel through turn-based, grid-mapped gameplay

Rustic != fun. Incredibly slow turn-based combat != fun. The grid is only really a problem when you consider Feebas.

cheating devices offer boundless fun at nobody else's expense for those who choose to utilize it

Except for those who then decide to play multiplayer using their hacked Pokémon - or worse, offer them up on the GTS.

you've yet to show us the papers proving that your judgment regarding multiplayer is fact

See above point.

the Pokemon series requires the least grinding of any RPGs on the market (fighting every trainer once will have your starter plenty overpowered, ramming Rare Candies down its throat solves any trouble spots)

I can think of several where grinding is either unnecessary or not even possible.

the Master Ball is there for that "You must choose/choose wisely" vibe

"Choose/choose wisely"? That might be partially true in first-gen, but I don't know anyone who threw it at anything other than whichever legendary beast they encountered first in second-gen, with the same trend continuing in future games.

your "Legendaries shouldn't be there in every playthrough" idea is the worst idea since Hitler went into politics

Way to Godwin a Pokémon thread. Do you think this is 4chan?

(unless you enjoy blazing through the game three times just to acquire every legendary)

See: dynamic story and the proposed open-ended nature. Also see: Diablo and every successful clone of Diablo. Also also see: standard starters come in groups of three. Works perfectly!

auto-saving after legendary battles is more sadistic, unforgiving and unenjoyable than anything the aforementioned historical figured could ever have devised

Really? I hear the save system in Demon's Souls is at least fifty times more sadistic.

TK is absolutely correct about saving before tough foes or uncertain situations (don't punish a player for experimenting with a new strategy which turns out not to work)

Why not punish a player for experimenting and having it blow up in their face? That kind of hand-holding is why video games are too [darn] easy nowadays.

and you should really stop wasting fifty dollars a year on games you play only to criticize on the internet afterwards.

1. I'm not ShadowBrian.
2. "Internet" is a proper noun. You must be spending too much time on it if you think otherwise.

Anything not mentioned in the above rant is agreeable of reasonable, in my opinion.

By the way, those last three words are ones you should really get used to using more often.

Why should I say "in my opinion" when it should be obvious that this is largely my opinion?

...Wait, scratch that. Turtlekid argues with fact all the time, so it might've been unclear.

[PghPens]

I have admittedly never played a Pokemon game. When the franchise was becoming popular, I was in middle school and there were two camps of people--those who loved Pokemon and those who hated it. I was the latter because I didn't like what it was promoting from a psychological standpoint--the attitude of "gimme, gimme, gimme" (which came out mostly through the trading cards, more popular than the video games in my neck of the woods). I think another part of me turned away from the series because it appeared to threaten Mario as Nintendo's flagship product/franchise. The folks who were into Pokemon in my school used to get in a lot of trouble for arguing over trades, putting the idea of collecting every single card before school, and checking through their collections during school hours.

Pokemon was much more popular with the folks still in elementary school about a decade ago (those born between 1988-1994 are probably most likely to remember it as a phenomenon).

As far as the games, I never played them in the day and still haven't, but even from an outsider's point of view there are things to consider, especially if they are compared to a franchise I know more about (Mario). From what I understand most of the Pokemon games are RPGs, but even if this is disregarded there are some points to make, especially using the original poster's points as reference.

1. SIZE OF GAME: The original Pokemon games were for the old GameBoy. These cartridges seemed to be about as powerful as NES cartridges except the older ones couldn't handle color. Mario games have become bigger and longer but the idea of a limited number of objectives still remained, with either 90 or 120 seeming to be a common figure. 400+ objectives (Pokemon to catch) seems like an awful lot. Why not limit it to 120 but just make the quests more elaborate much like Mario did?

2. GAMEPLAY STYLE: All Mario games were sidescroll back when the world was black and white. Since then there have been various RPGs and 3D platformers released. Why not change things up with a platform that is exclusively RPG, especially given today's better technology?

3. MULTIPLAYER: I can't really comment on this since I'm not familiar with how the Pokemon games handle multiplayer, but perhaps more than one form of multiplayer could be introduced to a single game.

4. ANTI-PIRACY: This is a problem that goes back to the days before Nintendo was around in America. However, it's illegal no matter what and something needs to be done to crack down on it. Everyone has tried their own scheme--Microsoft has internet-based methods of checking for genuine products, some old computer games used to require a code or the insertion of a master disk (which could not be duplicated), and EA games have DRM measures installed. Here's one idea for Nintendo--have firmware/software updates block support for piracy-related devices. Apple has done this with Mac OS X 10.6.2--it evidently refuses to run on modified netbooks with Intel Atom processors. The only way to successfully implement this is to ensure that new games require new firmware/software so that the user is forced to download it. This would probably work on the Wii, but I'm not sure about the DS since I don't have one.

5. BLAST TO THE PAST: For some reason, people who play video games seem to like older stuff placed in their games, whether it be the return of an old item or an old soundtrack. Bringing back classic elements to new games would be a good thing.

[Mr. Wiggles]

1. SIZE OF GAME: The original Pokemon games were for the old GameBoy. These cartridges seemed to be about as powerful as NES cartridges except the older ones couldn't handle color. Mario games have become bigger and longer but the idea of a limited number of objectives still remained, with either 90 or 120 seeming to be a common figure. 400+ objectives (Pokemon to catch) seems like an awful lot. Why not limit it to 120 but just make the quests more elaborate much like Mario did?

The belief that you have to "catch them all" hasn't been promoted or used since the original came out. It was a marketing phrase and one that was successful for them. The game doesn't reward or punish you for having the entire catalogue of monsters, so there's no need to do so if you don't feel like it. As a collector, I have consistently completed the Pokedex's each generation without resorting to cheating or without griping about having too many. I did it because I enjoyed it, and the massive roster makes creating teams so much fun and means you'll never face duplicate teams most of the time.

2. GAMEPLAY STYLE: All Mario games were sidescroll back when the world was black and white. Since then there have been various RPGs and 3D platformers released. Why not change things up with a platform that is exclusively RPG, especially given today's better technology?

Not sure where you were going with this one, but the series keeps the same basic engine because its familiar and fitting. I don't see why people would want to move away from the current style unless you're completely bored of it and have no problem throwing away 12 years of strategy, basics and guidelines. Even then, they have experimented with other styles. the mystery Dungeon and ranger series exist for that reason. They make those spin-off series because they can't risk changing the main games and alienating the audience they've built up.

3. MULTIPLAYER: I can't really comment on this since I'm not familiar with how the Pokemon games handle multiplayer, but perhaps more than one form of multiplayer could be introduced to a single game.

They have, but most people continually ignore them in favor of the traditional battling/trading system. One of the biggest ones was Contests introduced in the 3rd generation, but most people shrug it off because they're optional sidequests. You never actually battle in them, but you get a chance at making your team look great in front of judges. It's a shame its an ignored feature because I've had lots of fun with them. Plus, making poffins is a fun little diversion.

4. ANTI-PIRACY: This is a problem that goes back to the days before Nintendo was around in America. However, it's illegal no matter what and something needs to be done to crack down on it. Everyone has tried their own scheme--Microsoft has internet-based methods of checking for genuine products, some old computer games used to require a code or the insertion of a master disk (which could not be duplicated), and EA games have DRM measures installed. Here's one idea for Nintendo--have firmware/software updates block support for piracy-related devices. Apple has done this with Mac OS X 10.6.2--it evidently refuses to run on modified netbooks with Intel Atom processors. The only way to successfully implement this is to ensure that new games require new firmware/software so that the user is forced to download it. This would probably work on the Wii, but I'm not sure about the DS since I don't have one.

Firmware updates for the Wii aren't uncommon and the latest ones are basically just patches to lock out homebrewers and pirates. It never works though since the homebrew community usually finds a workaround for each update. They don't take long either, so its probably in their best interest to invest in better encrypted media devices like what Sony did with Blu-Ray discs.

5. BLAST TO THE PAST: For some reason, people who play video games seem to like older stuff placed in their games, whether it be the return of an old item or an old soundtrack. Bringing back classic elements to new games would be a good thing.

Again, the series gets plenty of those, as a lot of music tracks are re-used or remixed, and the 2nd gen games let you visit a (horribly stripped down and barren) version of the first games region. Classic elements such as Gym Battles and specific natural environments also make continuous appearances in each game.

[WarpRattler]

Mr. Wiggles already replied (largely saying what I was going to), but:

4. ANTI-PIRACY and stuff about it

Like I said, even a copy-protection system that expands on the one in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story could potentially work. Getting around copy-protection in something like a DS game is a much more daunting task than getting around it in, say, a PC game, and making it even harder by having multiple forms of copy-protection to deal with could turn those who would take up this task away from it entirely.

(I don't think it'd be possible to do anything with the firmware on a DS or DS Lite, but it's been done before on the DSi. The DSi is also incompatible with most DS flash cards, though DSi-compatible devices were quickly developed.)

I don't see why people would want to move away from the current style unless you're completely bored of it and have no problem throwing away 12 years of strategy, basics and guidelines.

I think I've sort of been unclear on my stance here. I don't have a problem with the basic turn-based combat itself. I have a problem with said combat being a lot slower than necessary and with grinding still not being fun after decades of turn-based RPGs involving grinding.

That said, placing a lot more emphasis on double-battling would probably address a lot of my complaints about the battle system. I rather enjoy the move synergies made possible by having two Pokémon out on each side.

They don't take long either, so its probably in their best interest to invest in better encrypted media devices like what Sony did with Blu-Ray discs.

Sony's encryption scheme on Blu-ray doesn't stop anyone. The absolutely monstrous disc image sizes and relatively high cost of Blu-ray burners and blank discs do.

[Lizard Dude]

Anything not mentioned in the above rant is agreeable of reasonable, in my opinion.

By the way, those last three words are ones you should really get used to using more often.

I'm very tired of arguing about Pokémon so I don't come here to do that. It's a Dumb Game for Stupid People and they can keep hacking the heck out of it for all I care.

But I can't let that monumentally bad advice of WeeGee's stand. The phrase "in my opinion" is poor writing in any circumstance. It is redundant. Anything stated by a person is of course their opinion. There is never a reason to write it. All it accomplishes is a weakening of your arguments and making you sound unsure of yourself. The same goes for "I think that..."

This has nothing to do with being arrogant. This has to do with confidence, concise writing, and the conveyance of ideas.

[Weegee]

I guess it's the Canadian in me. I believe that (whoops; there I go again...) formal essay formatting doesn't belong on decidedly casual online forums.

Why not punish a player for experimenting and having it blow up in their face? That kind of hand-holding is why video games are too [darn] easy nowadays.

That's what the Battle Tower is for. Pokemon isn't geared towards those who play Demon's Souls or obscure Japanese shmups, and apparently for good reason. One should never have to jump into a new Pokemon title thinking, "Oh [dukar] I hope I don't screw up and lose everything... again."

Similarly, auto-saving after a legendary battle regardless of the outcome is like Super Mario Bros. permanently forcing you out of a level upon dying, which would essentially ruin the game.

[Lizard Dude]

My advice had nothing to do with "formatting". It had to do with not writing useless words that sap your sentence's power.

[PaperLuigi]

WORDS SAPPIN' MAH SENTENCE