Quoted By:
Before I begin, I feel I should admit Gen 3 is my favorite. I enjoyed FR/LG/R/S/E more than any other games in the series. Make of that what you will.
Recently I tried to analyze what bothers me about the newer games in the series, specifically Gen 6.
I like the pokemon. Having 700+ pokes just makes the world more interesting. Even having half a dozen "copies" of rattata and pidgey makes sense to me since different regions probably would have different pokemon species.
Many of the new features work as well, too. Each gen adds a lot of fun stuff to make the worlds a bit more interesting and giving us new stuff to do.
All things considered, my misgivings are for the battles themselves and the graphics.
But I'm not sure either should bother me.
You see, the graphics and technical capabilities of the new systems, 3DS and so on, kind of make the format to these games a little ridiculous. Battles were turn based with a max of four moves for every pokemon back in the day because that's the best the original gameboy could handle. The simplistic, almost abstract world (move in four directions, the way tall grass works, those silly hills you can't go up but can hop down from) worked in Gens 1-3 because the graphics were bad enough to allow for that sort of abstraction. But in Gen 6? Those things are stronger than an N64 or PS2.
I'm torn, though. Would it be better to allow the games to evolve, changing the way battles are played and the world explored? Or would changing things cause to much backlash?
The four attacks thing is kind of silly now, but it's so iconic to the game it's hard to imagine it changing. What would it even change to?
I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts about this.
Should new games change up the format? Or should the stay the same for familiarity and a degree of backwards compatibility?
