>>44366894You're retarded, OP
Why is it that Pokemon fans always say "Why don't they just make Pokemon like this other game that I like?" without thinking at all about whether Pokemon's gameplay/game design would work at all with that other style? "Why don't they make Pokemon like BOTW, why don't they make Pokemon an MMO, why don't they make Pokemon like Persona" etc etc. It's all so tiresome. Yes, Pokemon is good and Mario Maker is good. No, that does not mean you can just magically combine them and you'll get something good.
Seriously, if you spend ANY time AT ALL actually thinking about it, it's blatantly obvious that Pokemon Maker wouldn't work.
Mario Maker works because Mario levels are short and sweet and can quickly be made from basic components.
Pokemon games are entire campaigns. There are no "Pokemon levels". In order to make a Pokemon game, you need to make an entire world, populate it with Pokemon, trainers, and NPCs, give teams to all the trainers, etc. You'd need to balance all the battles so they're on a desirable difficulty curve, which would take a significant amount of testing. Part of what makes Pokemon satisfying is the progression, so you'd need to at least create enough content that players can fully evolve their teams.
On the player side, playing through a Pokemon game takes a long time, and the early-game of Pokemon is generally the most boring, since you have to get your starter and sit through the dull Tackle vs Pound first few areas. In Mario Maker it takes an instant to get into a level, and if it really sucks it's either over with quickly or you can just skip it. Playing a Mario level is a tiny investment; playing a Pokemon campaign is a huge one. What do you do if you spend an hour choosing your starter and slogging through early routes only to find the creator got bored, gave up on finishing, and there's nothing left to play?
Only a tiny, tiny number of people would actually have the dedication to make a proper game.
