>>57281175Thanks for the value post
>That could workWould you like a game like this?
> you're better off looking at a different game series.I have basically given up on pokemon games so..
>This could work but more likely it would lead to 'theme park regions' like a Mario game, where regions of entirely different types are slapped together with no cohesion.Really?
I was thinking something like the world map in mini for a region. Where going to the arctic is a s fast as going to the Sahara.
> where regions of entirely different types are slapped together with no cohesion.Personally if I see another pokemon game where the fire pokemon are locked until the end game I will vomit. What is the solution? Let people buy 90% of pokemon in shops?
>These are not compatible. If it's so easy that you just need to switch to the correct pokemon, you shouldn't need to grind.I hate the type system.
Because most of the game is either grind or switch nothing more.
Literal brain dead child:
>Win the game by keeping you over leveled starterMore intelligent child
>I switch to the pokemon with the type advantage like the game tels me!Poke crazy adult:
>Oh you don't want to engage in the switching pokemon game?> Simply grind your fire pokemon until it can tank the water pokemon! Nuzlock:
>Grind your pokemon to be over leveled to avoid having them ever dieThese are the only 2 options.
In contrast paper mario or righting games have your skill as a factor in your victory.
> It's much simpler to have enemy levels scale with yoursYes however what if you hit level 100?
PS: I never played battle facilities.
