>>35162717If turn-based is so hideously outdated, as you say, why are games like Hearthstone so massively successful?
Isn't the solution to change the game in other ways, like maybe how levels work, or accuracy, or status moves, or maybe how switching and items and mon stats work?
Also, this might be an argument you find totally ridiculous, but part of what makes Pokemon what it is, in my opinion, is the "flavor" of each mon. For the most part, no two Pokemon have extraordinarily similar stats, moves, and types, all together. We associate a mon's design with its capabilities. Every Pokemon is like a piece of an Encyclopedia worth learning about.
We're gonna have 1,000 of these things, and all of us Pokefans are each gonna be able to not just know how they look, what their lore is, and their competitive viability, but actually care to find out. In our own way, we're still fascinated by the Pokemon we think are useless or ugly, because, damn it, knowing about them can change our experience playing the fucking games, and consuming the spinoff media. Who you battle, what you can use in game runs, and the stuff you recognize in the anime and such, is rewarding when you become basically versed in Pokemon.
As Pokemon gets more and more gigantic, the Pokemon information that you gather becomes more valuable. But here's the thing, I think if you turn Pokemon into a real-time game, even a good one, not only does it make your Pokemon knowledge less valuable and rewarding, it makes it much harder to care. You don't love the fuck out of Pokemon anymore, when there's not as much of a reason to be interested in all the individual Pokemon anymore. I think that if you change the slow pace of Pokemon, as mentioned above, you're fundamentally more likely to make it less of a passionate franchise-loving endeavor. You won't be daydreaming about all things Pokemon, if you're so focused on the timing of things, rather than the mons.
