REBOOT Y/N?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /vp/ - Pokemon
You are currently reading a thread in /vp/ - Pokemon
Would you like a Pokemon reboot?
E.g. we have 1200+ and GF now decides to reboot the whole franchise. All 1200+ are now never ever again obtainable (perhaps only some), we get a whole new Gen, which is then the new Gen 1?
I would like the idea, just because I have way too much Pokemon I like and team building is sometimes really really ugly.
You would ever want this or not anons?
>>26448677
if this reboot gets rid of HMs and megas then I press the red button
>implying nintendo will reboot one of their biggest cash cows
a reboot like your suggesting would muddle up the entire franchise, and it may end up like what happened to sonic.
>>26448677
I don't think you understand the idea of reboots.
OP here
>>26448739
nobody is saying they will do it. It is just an example. Of course they wouldn´t I am talking about 5-10 years in the future.
>>26448818
why? I mean they could still add some pre reboot pokemons, but still have totally new. Just to reduce the huge amount of Pokemon. 1000+ will be in the future really hard to get especially all the legendaries.
I kind of wanted them to do this with BW but they didn't bite the bullet. I can't blame them since this decision would alienate whats probably admittedly a steadily decreasing but probably still very large portion of the fanbase. But I think a lot of the older Pokemon just aren't designed (mechanically) like the newer ones and you can really tell the difference in sensibilities.
>>26448883
The huge amount of pokémon is one of the main selling points of the franchise, dumdum.
>>26448883
we may have more pokemon but the ways to get said pokemon have become easier than it has in the past. game freak just needs to put in an equivalent exchange mechanic into the GTS because wanting a rayquaza for a rattata is fucking bullshit. also, event legendaries arnt required for dex completion, its just for anyone who wants to be a try hard.
Unless I can go back in time to before Pokemon began and have complete control over Pokemon, no reboot.
>>26448677
No. That'd be dumb.
Seriously, they'd literally just go thumb through the ones they already made and remake them with a different skin, and it wouldn't even have the benefit of nostalgia appeal. It's a whole lot of work with nearly no return.
hell, a lot of the appeal nowadays is the sheer variety of Pokemon
>>26448677
I'd like that.
We are already in a very repetitive cycle. Each new game has to carry a lot of useless items and shit pokémon from the previous gens. Imagine the amount of garbage we will have by gen 10.
A reboot could also open the possibility for a new battle system. Not necessarily giving up from turn based, but something more dynamic, like multiple attacks in the same turn (ala Final Fantasy XIII) or attacks that can chain to build combos.
Let's face it, the games are getting boring. The only reason I see for not doing a reboot is the obvious rage it will cause on fans that cannot accept their favorite mons won't be transferable for the new game. But GF will not give a f*** for them if the sales drop one day, I believe it is still possible.
Your idea of a reboot:
>Recapturing the feeling of exploring a vast region
>A fresh, enjoyable story
>Likeable characters
>A carefully selected bunch of your favorite Pokemon
>Great remixes of old music
>Return of all the old features you miss
Gamefreak's idea of a reboot:
>Remove Raichu
No, the only "reboot" I'd be OK with is something like BW. Only new Pokémon in main story, older Pokémon when you get the national dex.
Anything else is cancer.
Seeing as how Nintendo/GF just re-released Red/Blue/Yellow for the 3DS, no, I really doubt they'll reboot it anytime soon.
>>26449658
>self-censorship
>turn-based games are boring
>using FF13 as a positive example
You must be 18 or older to use this website.
>>26449879
>Remove Raichu
God, don't even joke about that
>>26450014
It's not that turn based games are boring. Playing the same turn based battles over and over for 6 generations that gets boring.
And yes, FFXIII is a great example when it comes to battle systems, if anything, it was the only thing it did right.
>>26449921
ThisDon't know if ANYTHING else is cancer, but I wouldn't like any pokémon to be retconned, even those that I hate
>>26449879
>Remove Raichu
I mean I get that it's on Gamefreak's agenda eventually, but you really don't need to give them further encouragement by pointing out the obvious elephant in the room that they should eventually address.
>>26448883
Why the fuck should we have LESS pokemon?
What the fuck?
>>26450079
They will just remove the thunder stone and call it a day :^)
I honestly wouldn't mind just removing a bunch of the more boring Pokemon that most people don't even remember.
>>26448677
>1200
Jesus Christ no.
If they do a reboot, all they should do is reorder the pokedex and change some evolution requirements.
>>26450076
Why the fuck do people want over a thousand pokemon when currently there are less than a hundred completely viable mons? I'd rather Gamefreak stop making new pokemon and just refine what they have. We don't need new mons "just because".
>>26450053
Please stick to Final Faggotry then.
>>26450079
>He doesn't know about how much Game Freak could care less about Raichu when they have Pikachu doing everything it could do but better
>>26448677
That's fucking stupid
If anything the "reboot" should be correcting past mistakes like
>correcting the Dex order to have whole family lines together
>Retcon some types for pokemon that make more sense
>Change the type match ups
>change how pokemon evolve (Espeon and Umbreon now evolve with Sun & Moon stone receptively)
just to name a few
>>26450139
Also fix stats and things to balance the game. Remove fucking IVs.
>>26450014
>>26450118
>Calls other people underage
>I only like Pokémon, only I can like Pokémon
Whatever, anon
I'm so glad most of the Japanese are conservative as fuck about their games.
Change sucks ass.
>>26450160
>I only like Pokémon, only I can like Pokémon
That was never said, FF is just bottom-tier, uninspired garbage.
>>26450194
In what language does "Gotta Catch 'Em All" translate to "More for the sake of more"?
Literally all pokemon games you only have access to a portion unless you trade. I don't really understand how it is different than what you are asking, unless all you want is a false sense of security from knowing nothing else exists. Or unless you are severely autistic and trade yourself a charizard whenever they let you.
>>26450213
>same dozen Pokemon in every competition
>balanced
Ok mate.
>>26450218
>Already caught them all
>New game about catching things doesn't have anything new to catch
>???
>>26450177
When you tell me to stick to FF, you are disregarding my opinion just because I like something else besides Pokémon.
You are judging someone's opinion about "A" because you don't like "B".
I used FF as an example. Pokémon's battle system is stalled, no matter which game you use to compare.
You may not like any FF battle system (if you even tried them, that is) but calling them uninspired, compared to a generic turn based one is unfair and hypocritical.
>>26448677
No, but I'd be all for more "soft reboots" like BWand I'm really hoping that one of the future generations wipes movesets during pokemon transfer
>>26450110
>Why the fuck do people want over a thousand pokemon when currently there are less than a hundred completely viable mons?
Because competitive is the last thing people care about when it makes up about 30% of the content within the games
>We don't need new mons "just because"
This is a game where the main aspect was capturing, trading and battling with your friends.
Without new Pokemon you can't have two of these things and you're just left with a glorified simulator.
In other words your "just because" is more of a "the game revolves around these things"
>>26450138
I also never said that they dislike Raichu.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
>>26450519
Take it easy anon, on 4chan the ability to read is a privilege.
I want GF to stop making new mons and new games more focused in the story and gameplay aspects
>>26450559
>focus more on the gameplay
>by removing part of the gameplay
Fuck the story entirely make it an adventure where you discover this shit on your own.
>>26450110
I AM a competitivefag and I still don't ger why the fuck should we have less pokemon
You are incredibly retarded. What do you even want to accomplish by removing pokemon?
If right now there are, let's say (as an example, you autist), 50 viable pokemon and 950 not viable.
Why on earth would you want to remove the 950 not viable ones? What would that even do? In the end there will be the same amount of viable mons, and you are literally just removing options from the game because you are a fucking autist.
>Would you like a Pokemon reboot?
No
>1200+ Pokemon
GOOD
This is a good thing, more selection is GOOD
>>26450580
Come on, we have 720, maybe one or two generations more and that will be enough to make a great game with a mixture of mons of every gen.
>>26450250
>>26450271
>>26450477
What none of you seem to realize is that it really IS just Gamefreak releasing new mons "just because".
Consumers are hardwired to want the newest things simply because they're new. But there are other ways to sate consumer's need for new things.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Variant_Pok%C3%A9mon
If they want to keep the collection aspect alive, they should add non-interchangeable aesthetic differences to already-existing mons.
New formes, alternate palettes, varying sizes, delta species, etc.
This way they can still advertise new mons to catch while having less dex bloat and the freedom to refine pre-existing Pokemon. It's a win-win situation.
>>26450588
How did you get "Remove non-viable pokemon" out of "Don't make any more pokemon and just refine what we have"?
>>26450621
>with a mixture of mons of every gen.
You mean the ones that we've already seen and captured?
>>26450638
Fuck off, we already have IVs and other shit that do the exact same thing.
The last thing we need is another shitty gimmick like Unown.
I'd rather have something new than more pointless bullshit like that.
>while having less dex bloat
Why are you acting as if that's a bad thing? It still builds on the world more than variant species would.
>>26450734
>Fuck off, we already have IVs and other shit that do the exact same thing.
I didn't mention IVs at all. And variant species would build the world just as efficiently as completely new species would.
Are you just looking for an opportunity to shitpost?
>>26448677
Franchise needs some rebooting but there's nothing that makes me think they'd reboot in a way I like even if they did.
