Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, but it's pretty hard to take a standard RPG and turn it into an action-game or something, or to really change it from anything that's not a traditional RPG.

I compared it to Street Fighter because turn-based RPGs and combo-ridden, 2D fighting games are in the same boat right now. Both are "traditional" or "legacy" forms of games, and for any series that's been around since its fanbase was young, any change to its fundamentals will divide its fanbase. There's no reason Street Fighter shouldn't be a fully 3D fighting game with more immersive and intuitive controls, but if the series was changed now from what it's been since Street Fighter II much more than visually (i.e, making it 3D, have motion controls, etc) the consumerbase would revolt and (try to) abstain from buying it. You can't really change 2D fighters or turn-based RPGs like Pokemon, Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (didn't they try to change FF13 recently to bad reception?) much without completely changing the groundwork.

I can get wanting 3D models, and like I've said, I think that's the way to go. Part of me will miss seeing pixelated sprites in Pokemon, but they really are past their prime. The core gameplay, though, I don't think will change much for the main series.

You could always try Pokemon Ranger or Mystery Dungeon? Pokemon gets a lot of spinoffs now.

*swoon* heart

I DIDN'T SAY ANYONE WAS ******** ATTAKING ME YOU f*****t

I just want people to be able to hear the point the other person is making for once. People are so ******** s**t as discussions anymore, it drives me nuts. No one has the ability to change their mind and only look for openings to argue why "their side" is right.

But that's another issue entirely. I'm excited to see what the next Pokemon will be like.

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. I guess it's just the way I argue sometimes. Usually if someone's argument is totally without merit I just ignore them instead of trying to argue.

Yeah, I know you're not that bad, and I know even I do it, I'm just so sick of typing s**t out or saying all this s**t that I've thought about to have 90% of it ignored.

Because it was freedom day! Now I too shall express my freedom by removing my shirt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZJbWp2CTbk

HEY GUESS WHAT I LIKE FUTURAMA

Mario transitioned well into RPGs, though. I think what made it so successful in that genre was that it kept an action/platformer type element - Mario RPGs are a unique and interesting presentation that really keep the essence of the main series. I think Pokemon could be just as successful in an action-type setting if they took care to keep elements that made it feel like Pokemon: strategic team-building, prediction-based combat, and a collection aspect.

The big reason I don't think they will do it is because it's easy to have 649 playable characters and ******** moves in a sprite-based RPG style setting. Anyone who's dicked around in RPG Maker knows how easy it is to add new s**t to the database - you can make a character from scratch in two hours, sprites included. This is far from the case in action based games; Banjo-Kazooie is literally the only action-adventure game I can think of off the top of my head with more than eight playable characters, and the majority of those only interact with very limited portions of the game. They would either have to invest a lot more into the game than they usually do, taking a huge financial risk, or leave a lot out and disappoint fans who were expecting something huge.

This formula is stale, but it's safe. And I still really enjoy all the spinoffs we already have, and the minigames they add in every generation (except for the musicals, that's not even a game wtf.) I feel like they do a good job of keeping you interested, even if it is essentially the same thing over and over again.

<---late