Concept: Version Differences without Different Versions

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Greetings, Serenes Foresters.

So, this is a discussion I've wanted to kick off for a little while now. The timing is partly inspired by another thread, where the topic of version differences came up. Should there be a lot of differences, so there's more material for those who buy both versions? Or should there be fewer differences, so players who only pick one aren't missing out on much? Let's step back for a minute - should there be version differences at all? Pokemon Legends: Arceus released as a single version, and I haven't heard anyone consider it to the game's detriment. But abandoning the version model would reduce the chance for different experiences and undermine the significance of connecting between players.

Or would it? I think it would be possible to maintain different experiences and the need to connect, even with a single version. Depending on how it's done, it could actually enable far more variation than the current version model. How, you may ask? The answer is simple - flags. Now, before you accuse me of derailing this thread into the realm of vexillology, let me stop you right there. I'm referring to a series of binary options, that can be set to one of two values. Think "True/False" or "On/Off". Each such flag would be associated with a change in something about the game. To get inspiration, let's look at the most traditional and eminent version difference: different Pokemon between versions.

In Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green, certain Pokemon are exclusive to one version or the other. Growlithe and Arcanine, for instance, are exclusive to Fire Red, while Vulpix and Ninetales can be caught only in Leaf Green. There are also frequency differences - Nidoran(M) and Nidorino are more abundant in Fire Red, while Nidoran(F) and Nidorina can be more readily found in Leaf Green. Each of these differences can be conceived of as a flag, colored either Red or Green. Here's a list of a few such distinctions:

Spoiler

1. Growlithe/Vulpix

2. Nidorino/Nidorina

3. Electabuzz/Magmar

4. Kakuna/Metapod

5. Horsea/Krabby

So, Fire Red can be thought of as the game where all the flags are set to red, while in Leaf Green, all the flags are set to green. But, do we even need two versions for that? What if the flags were set when you start a new game, either all red or all green? That way, the player can get the experience of either version, without needing two different pieces of hardware.

But why stop there? What if each flag were independent of each other? Let's suppose it happened to FRLG. If the flags are independent, then you can get a playthrough where Magmar is found in the wild, but Horsea is more common than Krabby. It should be evident that this leads to more varied experiences between playthroughs. Suppose, in the next pair of games, that there are 20 exclusive "sets" of Pokemon. A "set" can be a single Pokemon (i.e. Zangoose; Seviper), an evolution line (i.e. Lotad -> Lombre -> Ludicolo; Seedot -> Nuzleaf -> Shiftry), or even a group of otherwise connected Pokemon (i.e. Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Lugia; Raikou, Entei, Suicune, Ho-oh). Under the normal version model, Pokemon Scarlet might have all the red sets, whereas Pokemon Violet has all the green sets. But a version-less Pokemon Gen IX would have far more variations - 2 to the power of however many exclusive elements there are. With just 20, that's already 1,048,576! You could play the game a thousand times, with each playthrough almost certainly being at least somewhat different from the one before it! And, if it's contained within a single version, there would be no need to make an extra hardware purchase, or otherwise buy DLC.

Now, to be sure, there are senses in which such a model might be considered flawed. Right now, if you and a friend have the opposite versions, then you can fill up the Pokedex just by trading with each other. In an "independent flags" format, however, the odds of any two games having all their flags be opposite of the other is astronomically low. But is that really a problem? If the intent of version differences was to encourage players to interact and trade, then wouldn't a model which demands more trading partners actually be more effective to this end? Whereas before, two people could fill the Dex together, now they're likely to need help from a third, fourth, even a fifth player. You might be the only person in your friend group who has Zangoose - and conversely, the only one lacking Seviper.

One other aspect I could see as a flaw is the lack of predictability. If I want to use Vileplume on my team, then I know that Fire Red is the version for me. But with a single version, I don't know whether I'll get Oddish or Bellsprout from the start. And needing to restart after making it through Mt. Moon would certainly be a chore. For this, my proposal is simple: let players who have beaten the game already set their own flags. Maybe it'd require a secret button input, or a unique code. But it would be a way for experienced players to set their own options ahead of time. And without the version-lock, I could set things up so that my team features both a Vileplume and a Slowking. I don't believe such an option should be available for the first playthrough, because I would want players to be surprised by what they get, but I think making it a "New Game Plus" feature is totally reasonable.

So, how does this sound? Is this kind of structure something you'd like to see in future generations? Or would it be too hard to say goodbye to the version model we've known for nine generations now? Alternatively, is the very concept of version differences, or "flags", something that has no place in the future of the series? Let me know below!

One more thing: I intentionally haven't broached the "business side" of such a change. I recognize that there's a very strong economic argument for Game Freak and Nintendo to retain the two-version standard. While I'm not opposed to any discussion on business considerations, I hope that the crux of the conversation can remain "is this something you'd like to see?" rather than "is this something you think the developers would or should do?". That's it, thanks for reading!

[Lord_Brand]

I like having different versions, myself, just because I like themes. If versions weren't a thing, what would you call each generation's games?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

18 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

I like having different versions, myself, just because I like themes. If versions weren't a thing, what would you call each generation's games?

Ah, fair point! Well, I think there are multiple options on this front. One would be a name which simply combines the existing version names. Using Gen VII for example, this might be Pokemon Sun/Moon, or Pokemon Sun and Moon. Very little change from what we've got, even if it is a bit clunky.

Another technique would be a name that retains the theme of the originals, but with different wording. In this case, we might call Gen VII Pokemon Cosmos, or perhaps Pokemon Eclipse. I think this is a touch more elegant, although the intended binary may be lost as a result.

Yet another possibility is a new name, based on the region's name, or a predominant aspect of the region. Gen VII could become Pokemon Alola, or even simply Pokemon Islands. The intended theming of the original names is cut off, but in its place, we get a relatively unambiguous name that is intimately connected to the region where it takes place.

Of course, these are just a few such options. I don't know enough about Pokemon Scarlet and Violet to know what would work as a proper mononym for the games. Are the titles imbued with meaning, perhaps a connection to the region's legendaries? Or simply an attempt to hearken back to the good ol' days of Pokemon Red and Blue? Only time will tell.

[vanguard333]

42 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Pokemon Legends: Arceus released as a single version, and I haven't heard anyone consider it to the game's detriment.

One reason there hasn't been any complaint about Legends: Arceus not having different versions is that it is an entirely single-player game; you can trade Pokémon with other players, but it is tacked-on almost as if it was an afterthought; everything else about the game is a single-player experience. Of course, another reason there aren't any complaints is that a lot of people see Legends: Arceus as a spinoff title.

 

Anyway, the idea of implementing version differences in a game that isn't split into two versions has actually been done before: in Pokémon Platinum, when the player started a new file, the game would give that file a number called the trainer ID; if that number was odd, they would only find Cranidos fossils, and if it was even, they would only find Shieldon fossils. It wasn't much, but it was something.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Anyway, the idea of implementing version differences in a game that isn't split into two versions has actually been done before: in Pokémon Platinum, when the player started a new file, the game would give that file a number called the trainer ID; if that number was odd, they would only find Cranidos fossils, and if it was even, they would only find Shieldon fossils. It wasn't much, but it was something.

Interesting, I didn't know that bit of trivia! Thinking on it, depending on how many flags there are, the Trainer ID could be used to set just about everything. Before Gen VII, Trainer IDs were five characters in length, with a maximum value of 65535. Counting from 00000 to this value, we have 65536 potential ID values. This would accommodate up to 16 flags, since 2^16 = 65536. Note that 65535 = 1111 1111 1111 1111 in binary. Similarly, 65530 = 1111 1111 1111 1010. So, between the two games, there would be two flag differences, based on whichever flag is assigned to the 0-index (last place) and which is assigned to the 2-index (third-from-last place).

Of course, in recent games, Trainer IDs are 6 digits, going from 000000 to 999999. This would allow for more flags (19, to be precise, since 2^19 = 524,288), but would raise the question: what do we do about the "leftovers"? We could assign some IDs to the same combination (say, ID modulo 524,288, so that 524289 maps to the same flag set as 000001), but then some flag settings are more common than others.

What if we moved back to five digits, but expanded what a "digit" is? That's right, I'm talking hexadecimal! So, each space is occupied by 16 potential digits (0 thru 9, plus A thru F). Each place is equivalent to four places in binary, so each digit would cleanly correspond to 4 flags. I.e. if someone has C in the first index, then they'll always have Grimer (not Koffing), Ledyba (not Spinarak), more common Glameow than Stunky, and more common Cottonee than Petilil. IDs would look less like numbers and more like license plates (i.e. "F105A", "005AB", "C2381"), but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

This way, the "New Game+" feature could actually be setting your own Trainer ID number in advance! Even if the game doesn't tell you, it won't take long for fans to figure out which place and digit goes with each flag. From there, it's a simple case of looking these relationships up, and filling in the appropriate code.

[lenticular]

I think that making sure that players need to interact with each other is coming at the problem backwards. It can turn trading into a chore, and I think that that is already somewhat the case. Thanks to the Internet, everyone knows what the version exclusive pokémon are, so if a friend and I have different version exclusives and are both trying to complete the pokédex, then we know to catch two of each version exclusive, and then we can spend half an hour just trading everything back and forth. There's no fun there, no joy. It's mostly busywork. Just one more hoop that the game is making is jump through if we want to complete the pokédex.

Instead, I think that the question that we (or rather, that Gamefreak) should be asking is how do we make it so that trading pokémon is fun, so that people want to do it? If something is fun, then players will do it regardless of whether they "need" to or not, and by getting rid of the absolute requirement, then you eliminate the risk of turning it into a chore. I'm not really sure what the best way of doing this would be, but my tentative suggestion would be to embrace purely cosmetic form differences.

I'm imaging a system where there is only a single version and all pokémon are available in all copies of the game. However, not all pokémon of the same type would look identical. Every pokémon has a few different aspects, each of which can be varied independently. So, maybe there can be variations on colour, size, tail shape, horn length, etc. And each copy of the game will have a specific form of each pokémon be the most common. That way, my pikachu will look a little bit differetn from your pikachu, and we might want to look through each other's pokémon to see if we liked some of each other's forms better than our own and wanted to trade. Or maybe my friend knows that I really like trubbish, so he always picks up any trubbish variants that he finds for me to collect, and I know he loves drowzee, so I throw any drowzee variant that I find to him. And importantly, because this is entirely cosmetic, there's no "need" to engage in any of this. You can engage with it as much or as little as you like. If you just want to complete the pokédex and don't care about any of this, then you don't have to. If you want to try to collect as many different forms of as many different pokémon as possible, then you can do that too. And if the only thing you care about is getting your favourite pokémon in your favourite colour, then you can do that. I haven't thought through all the implications of this system and there might be some sort of reason why it isn't viable, but that's where I would start.

As for your system, it's interesting, but I'm wary of anything that requires NG+ to cover over some of its weaknesses. Especially given that Pokémon only allows one save slot per game, and has a ton of postgame stuff to do, and encourages you to get emotionally invested in your pixels. Saying "well, you can get that Vileplume you've always wanted, but only if you delete the Blastoise who was with you for your whole adventure first" seems off. I mean, it might be a good way to convince people to pay for Pokémon Home, but I would rather have as few things as possible locked behind that particular paywall. I'm not sure what to suggest instead, though. My first thought was to have it be a postgame decision, but that would end up meaning you could just catch all the flag exclusive pokémon as you played, then reach the postgame and switch all the flags over to the other set, and that doesn't sound appealing at all. So I don't know.

Overall, though, I mostly just want to see multiple versions go away. I think that any benefit that they had back in the 90s has long since disappeared and they mostly persist due to a combination of tradition and financial reasons. I know that their continued existence makes me enjoy the games less than I otherwise would.

13 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Now, before you accuse me of derailing this thread into the realm of vexillology, let me stop you right there.

Now, I'm not going to say that you absolutely should start a vexilology discusion, but if you do, then I'm absolutely here for it. Did you know that the flag of Greenland has a pokéball on it (sort of)?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

6 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'm imaging a system where there is only a single version and all pokémon are available in all copies of the game. However, not all pokémon of the same type would look identical. Every pokémon has a few different aspects, each of which can be varied independently. So, maybe there can be variations on colour, size, tail shape, horn length, etc. And each copy of the game will have a specific form of each pokémon be the most common. That way, my pikachu will look a little bit differetn from your pikachu, and we might want to look through each other's pokémon to see if we liked some of each other's forms better than our own and wanted to trade. Or maybe my friend knows that I really like trubbish, so he always picks up any trubbish variants that he finds for me to collect, and I know he loves drowzee, so I throw any drowzee variant that I find to him. And importantly, because this is entirely cosmetic, there's no "need" to engage in any of this. You can engage with it as much or as little as you like. If you just want to complete the pokédex and don't care about any of this, then you don't have to. If you want to try to collect as many different forms of as many different pokémon as possible, then you can do that too. And if the only thing you care about is getting your favourite pokémon in your favourite colour, then you can do that. I haven't thought through all the implications of this system and there might be some sort of reason why it isn't viable, but that's where I would start.

I like this notion! It's kind of reminiscent of Vivillon's patterns. But where that distinction encouraged trading online, your proposal would encourage trading with anyone, near or far. Varying the look of a given species would lend some uniqueness to each experience. I do worry somewhat about the practicality of the proposal, though. Like, let's assume there are three binary traits a Pokemon can vary in (say, big/small horn, tall/short build, and angry/calm eyes). Then they would need to make 8 different models for one species. And this is before considering gender differences and shiny coloration. If we introduce intermediate states for each trait, then the concern is magnified further. It'd be very cool to see, but I think it'd take a lot of effort for the reward.

6 hours ago, lenticular said:

As for your system, it's interesting, but I'm wary of anything that requires NG+ to cover over some of its weaknesses. Especially given that Pokémon only allows one save slot per game, and has a ton of postgame stuff to do, and encourages you to get emotionally invested in your pixels. Saying "well, you can get that Vileplume you've always wanted, but only if you delete the Blastoise who was with you for your whole adventure first" seems off. I mean, it might be a good way to convince people to pay for Pokémon Home, but I would rather have as few things as possible locked behind that particular paywall. I'm not sure what to suggest instead, though. My first thought was to have it be a postgame decision, but that would end up meaning you could just catch all the flag exclusive pokémon as you played, then reach the postgame and switch all the flags over to the other set, and that doesn't sound appealing at all. So I don't know.

As someone who bought a copy of White because I didn't want to delete my file in Black... I get it. It comes down to the question: long-playability or replayability? Is it better to make a game that you can still find stuff to do after a thousand hours on one file, or one that you want to restart often and experience the main campaign in a new way? One "answer" would be to simply allow for a second save file, but with eight generations of precedent, that feels even less likely than ending the two-version model. External storage applications, like Pokemon Home, present their own solution, but at a cost that many players aren't willing to eat. I don't know that there's any answer that will make everyone happy.

6 hours ago, lenticular said:

Now, I'm not going to say that you absolutely should start a vexilology discusion, but if you do, then I'm absolutely here for it. Did you know that the flag of Greenland has a pokéball on it (sort of)?

Interesting note, but that's a common misconception. The flag actually depicts a Voltorb.

[lenticular]

36 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I like this notion! It's kind of reminiscent of Vivillon's patterns. But where that distinction encouraged trading online, your proposal would encourage trading with anyone, near or far. Varying the look of a given species would lend some uniqueness to each experience. I do worry somewhat about the practicality of the proposal, though. Like, let's assume there are three binary traits a Pokemon can vary in (say, big/small horn, tall/short build, and angry/calm eyes). Then they would need to make 8 different models for one species. And this is before considering gender differences and shiny coloration. If we introduce intermediate states for each trait, then the concern is magnified further. It'd be very cool to see, but I think it'd take a lot of effort for the reward.

I'm no expert on computer graphics, but I don't imagine that they'd make entirely separate models for each of them. After all, consider all the different combinations for character customisation that exist in SwSh. With skin colour, hair colour, hair style, bangs, eye colour, eyebrows, and countless clothing options, I'm not sure how many different possibilities that adds up to. At the very least, we're into the millions. Probably it's a lot more than that. This isn't about creating a different model for each possible variant; it's about creating an underlying system which they can stack changes on top of.

I still don't think that it's particularly likely to happen, especially if they keep throwing out a new generation every three years, since it is definitely more work than just makign a single model for each pokémon and calling that good enough. But I think it would be plausible enough if they were willing to delay a new generation to really polish it. (Anyone who actually is an expert on computer graphics can feel free to contradict me here if I'm wrong.)

50 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As someone who bought a copy of White because I didn't want to delete my file in Black... I get it. It comes down to the question: long-playability or replayability? Is it better to make a game that you can still find stuff to do after a thousand hours on one file, or one that you want to restart often and experience the main campaign in a new way? One "answer" would be to simply allow for a second save file, but with eight generations of precedent, that feels even less likely than ending the two-version model. External storage applications, like Pokemon Home, present their own solution, but at a cost that many players aren't willing to eat. I don't know that there's any answer that will make everyone happy.

There is no such thing as a solution that will make everyone happy. Ever. Or at least, not for any value of "everyone" that includes more than a handful of people. With games that typically have sales figures into the 8 digits, there are just way too many conflicting preferences and desires. All we can each do is state our own personal preferences... and honestly mine is for neither long-playability nor replayability. With a few exceptions, I play most games once, don't look to 100% them, and never come back to them. So what I want is a that packs all of its best stuff into a single very rewarding play-through, and then doesn't ask for any more of my time. But that's just me. It's completely expected that other people would have different priorities.

I will say, though, that I would consider it more likely that we'll see multiple save-slots per game than that they'll get rid of the two-version model. Hard to say for sure, though, unless any of us happen to have an uncle who works for Game Freak. (None of us have an uncle who works for Game Freak.)

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Interesting note, but that's a common misconception. The flag actually depicts a Voltorb.

It's a very small Voltorb in front of a very large, upside-down pokéball.

[Lord_Brand]

On 3/11/2022 at 5:42 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Ah, fair point! Well, I think there are multiple options on this front. One would be a name which simply combines the existing version names. Using Gen VII for example, this might be Pokemon Sun/Moon, or Pokemon Sun and Moon. Very little change from what we've got, even if it is a bit clunky.

Another technique would be a name that retains the theme of the originals, but with different wording. In this case, we might call Gen VII Pokemon Cosmos, or perhaps Pokemon Eclipse. I think this is a touch more elegant, although the intended binary may be lost as a result.

Yet another possibility is a new name, based on the region's name, or a predominant aspect of the region. Gen VII could become Pokemon Alola, or even simply Pokemon Islands. The intended theming of the original names is cut off, but in its place, we get a relatively unambiguous name that is intimately connected to the region where it takes place.

Of course, these are just a few such options. I don't know enough about Pokemon Scarlet and Violet to know what would work as a proper mononym for the games. Are the titles imbued with meaning, perhaps a connection to the region's legendaries? Or simply an attempt to hearken back to the good ol' days of Pokemon Red and Blue? Only time will tell.

That could work for older generations (Hey, folks, remember Pokemon Red and Blue? Well say hello to Pokemon Purple!) but new Generations won't be able to use that binary reference. At least, it won't be as effective. It'd just make fans try to guess what the versions would have been.

A regional name is the most straightforward option, but when the remakes come, what then? I liked how the version remakes append a new word onto the original, like Fire Red, Heart Gold, Alpha Sapphire, and so forth. Makes guessing the next pair of remakes fun. What would you add on to Pokemon: Kalos in lieu of, say, Pokemon Radiant X and Pokemon Umbrose Y?

At this point, I think the concept of Pokemon versions is so well entrenched in the series' identity that a lot of players would miss it if they tried to remove it. I know I would. It'd be like making a Pokemon game without Grass, Fire, and Water-type starters, or without a villain Team. It'd be like making a new Mega Man game with only six Robot Masters.

[lenticular]

2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

At this point, I think the concept of Pokemon versions is so well entrenched in the series' identity that a lot of players would miss it if they tried to remove it. I know I would. It'd be like making a Pokemon game without Grass, Fire, and Water-type starters, or without a villain Team. It'd be like making a new Mega Man game with only six Robot Masters.

Or making a new Pokémon that doesn't have 8 gym battles in it. Or having a form of pokémon evolution that only happens briefly in battle and then the pokémon changes back. Or having a move with multiple types. Or having a Pokémon game where you can't transfer across all your pokémon from older games. Or having a rival who doesn't pick the starter with the type advantage over you. And so on. There are plenty of things in Pokémon (and any other long-running series) that seem as if they are sacrosanct right up until the point when they aren't.

It's a tricky balance to meet though, for sure. Change too little and people will complain that the games are getting stale and predictable; change too much and people will complain that the series just isn't what it used to be any more. And that's not just people being cantankerous hypocrites. It's different people having different preferences. I'm certainly more to the side of "I want to see them shake things up more" when it comes to Pokémon, but that's personal preference. I've actually wanted them to change up starter types for a while now. I think it would be great to see the starters be rock, flying and fighting, for instance. I don't expect them to do it any time soon, but I'd be pleased if they did.

One thing that I definitely think would be bad is if Game Freak is making design decisions purely out of habit and purely because "this is the way that we've always done it". That sort of thing does lead to corner-cutting and stagnation. I hope that with every single game, they're re-examing all of these things, at least a little bit. It's one thing if they're asking themselves "are we sure we still want to do two versions?" and "are we sure we still want to have water, grass and fire type starters?" and quickly reaching the conclusion that yes, that is still the best way forward. It's another thing entirely if they aren't even bothering to ask themselves the questions any more.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

9 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

That could work for older generations (Hey, folks, remember Pokemon Red and Blue? Well say hello to Pokemon Purple!) but new Generations won't be able to use that binary reference. At least, it won't be as effective. It'd just make fans try to guess what the versions would have been.

For the record, I'm not advocating going back and renaming old games. I'm saying that future games could get a singular title. Like, if the Gen IX games were announced as a single game, say Pokemon: Fronteras, then I don't think we'd feel a distinct lack of "Scarlet" and "Violet" in our lives. Even if moving away from the two-version model would certainly be an adjustment. 

7 hours ago, lenticular said:

One thing that I definitely think would be bad is if Game Freak is making design decisions purely out of habit and purely because "this is the way that we've always done it". That sort of thing does lead to corner-cutting and stagnation. I hope that with every single game, they're re-examing all of these things, at least a little bit. It's one thing if they're asking themselves "are we sure we still want to do two versions?" and "are we sure we still want to have water, grass and fire type starters?" and quickly reaching the conclusion that yes, that is still the best way forward. It's another thing entirely if they aren't even bothering to ask themselves the questions any more.

Agreed. Maybe I'm a rarity among fans, but I was honestly a little disappointed to see the starters revealed, and that they're adamantly sticking to the "Green Grass-type, Red Fire-type, Blue Water-type" structure. There have been variations, of course: the Cyndaquil line is mostly beige and navy, while Rowlet is predominantly beige and white, but by and large, they're still color-coded. We still don't know what their promotions will look or play like, and maybe they'll surprise me. Maybe they'll evolve by some method other than level-up, or they'll swap out their traditional abilities at the final stage. But honestly, I doubt it.

"But Grass-Fire-Water is the only strict type triangle in the game!" No it's not, it's just the best-known and most iconic one. "Grass-Poison-Ground" also functions as a strict triangle, as does "Fire-Rock-Steel". And if we get looser about relationships, then "Fighting-Psychic-Dark" opens up, as do "Fairy-Steel-Fighting" and "Ground-Flying-Electric". And this is even taking for granted that we want to have just three starter choices - X and Y, the game with 4 rivals in a region shaped like a pentagon, would've made perfect sense offering 5 starter options.

[Jotari]

I was quickly coming to the same flag conclusion before I had even finished reading the first paragraph. And honestly I don't even see the "I want to use Vileplume on my team" issue as much of a real issue. If you want a VIleplume, find an Oddish online, there'll be plenty of people wanting Bellsprouts. Or, just don't use Vileplume, embrace the randomness, embrace the Sprout.

[Lord_Brand]

I remember that time when it was rumored that Gen IV was going to have a Fighting/Psychic/Dark starter trio. Then Chesnaught, Delphox, and Greninja happened in Gen VI.

I just think Grass/Fire/Water works well because of the association with primary additive colors. Yeah, they could do other trios like Rock/Ground/Ice, but those wouldn't feel as balanced thematically. That said, I do enjoy when they add secondary types into the Starters by their third stage, that can be a good opportunity to explore secondary type cycles.

I feel it would be a bad idea to include any types with an immunity to another starter's type in the starter cycle. The "supereffective-resisted-weakness" cycle creates a sense of balance among the Starters, and gives each a fighting chance against the others. Disrupting that balance would convey that one of the Starters is inherently superior to the others.

Different numbers of starters is an interesting notion, but I think they want to take care not to overwhelm new players with options. The more options you present the player with from the get-go, the harder it will be to make a decision. 3 offers variety while also giving the devs a chance to show off the concept of type advantages. That said, if you want to raise the number of starting choices, 4-6 could work, but I wouldn't go any higher than that. If you were designing such a cycle, what types would you pick?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

6 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Different numbers of starters is an interesting notion, but I think they want to take care not to overwhelm new players with options. The more options you present the player with from the get-go, the harder it will be to make a decision. 3 offers variety while also giving the devs a chance to show off the concept of type advantages. That said, if you want to raise the number of starting choices, 4-6 could work, but I wouldn't go any higher than that. If you were designing such a cycle, what types would you pick?

One answer would be to give them all "elemental" types: i.e. Fire, Water, Grass, Ice, Electric. There wouldn't be a clear circuit, but there would be relationships among the types (Fire > Ice, Ice > Grass, Electric > Water, etc.). Alternatively, we can develop an almost-perfect cycle like so: Ground > Rock > Fire > Grass > Water (> Ground), although we do deal with issues like Water > all but Grass and Grass > all but Fire. I don't believe the relationships between starters need to be perfectly balanced - in Gen IV, for instance, both Torterra and Infernape get types that beat Empoleon's secondary, but that doesn't make Empoleon any worse for wear.

6 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

I just think Grass/Fire/Water works well because of the association with primary additive colors. Yeah, they could do other trios like Rock/Ground/Ice, but those wouldn't feel as balanced thematically. That said, I do enjoy when they add secondary types into the Starters by their third stage, that can be a good opportunity to explore secondary type cycles.

Honestly, I'm just tired of the same thing every generation. Three three-stage lines with a type-boosting ability in Fire, Water, and Grass, similar colors, that evolve by leveling up. I can't get excited about new starters any more - not until they start doing something different beyond "new typing in the third stage!" and "what's its hidden ability going to be?" I don't begrudge those who can get excited (and I'll admit to a certain fondness for Fuecoco's design), but I find that the series keeps failing to deliver the kind of dramatic innovation I'm looking for.

[Lord_Brand]

4 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

One answer would be to give them all "elemental" types: i.e. Fire, Water, Grass, Ice, Electric. There wouldn't be a clear circuit, but there would be relationships among the types (Fire > Ice, Ice > Grass, Electric > Water, etc.). Alternatively, we can develop an almost-perfect cycle like so: Ground > Rock > Fire > Grass > Water (> Ground), although we do deal with issues like Water > all but Grass and Grass > all but Fire. I don't believe the relationships between starters need to be perfectly balanced - in Gen IV, for instance, both Torterra and Infernape get types that beat Empoleon's secondary, but that doesn't make Empoleon any worse for wear.

Incidentally, Torterra's second type also made it more susceptible to Water, helping balance that out a bit. I'm mostly looking at each Starter's primary type, though.

I'd try to add more "physical" types like Rock and Flying, since Grass, Fire, and Water are all "special" types. Rock and Ground could be combined together in one starter (dual-type Starters aren't completely out of the question as Bulbasaur and Rowlet demonstrate). But it's really the kind of thing one might be expected to play around with from generation to generation. For example, if they do a China-themed region, I could see a quintet of Ground, Steel, Water, Grass, and Fire to reference the Chinese elements (Earth, Metal, Water, Wood, and Fire), though they'd need to update Steel so that it beats Grass (which it should in my opinion anyway, we use metal trimmers, axes, and saws to cut wood and plants all the time). They could also mix Rock with Ground in that scenario, as they together represent the concept of an "Earth" element.

4 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Honestly, I'm just tired of the same thing every generation. Three three-stage lines with a type-boosting ability in Fire, Water, and Grass, similar colors, that evolve by leveling up. I can't get excited about new starters any more - not until they start doing something different beyond "new typing in the third stage!" and "what's its hidden ability going to be?" I don't begrudge those who can get excited (and I'll admit to a certain fondness for Fuecoco's design), but I find that the series keeps failing to deliver the kind of dramatic innovation I'm looking for.

I could see a future generation make use of Fire, Ice, and Electric starters, to reference the popularity of that elemental trio in RPGs. They might want to mix in secondary types to help provide some kind of dynamic between the trio, though. Some options that come to mind:

• Fire/Rock, Ice/Water, and Electric/Flying
• Fire/Ground, Ice/Water, and Electric/Steel
• Fire/Dark, Ice/Psychic, Electric/Fighting

For another thematic trio, how about a Fighter/Mage/Thief ensemble? Fighting or Steel could play the role of Fighter, Dark is the obvious candidate for the Thief (there's even a Dark-type move called Thief!), and ideally they'd introduce a proper Mage type for the Mage starter (but failing that, they'd probably use Psychic and/or Fairy).

Another way they could innovate on Starters is by introducing branching evolution paths. There are numerous configurations they could use, but these would be the four most straightforward choices using the minimal number of branches:

Spoiler

• Last stage split (1-1-2) - This config only gives you a choice for the second evolution. Simplest, but most boring.
  • A > B > C or D
• Parallel lines (1-2-1) - This config locks you onto a path with the first evolution. A little more interesting as you get to access the gimmick sooner, but still kind of boring as the final stage is still pre-determined.
  • A > B or C
    • B > D
    • C > E
• Converging delta (1-2-3) - This config gives you a choice at both evolutions, with one choice being available for the second evolution either way. This kind is more interesting, as you get to make choices at both evolutionary stages (also, it would represent the first instance of convergent evolution in the series).
  • A > B or D
    • B > D or E
    • C > E or F
• Diverging delta (1-2-4) - This config gives you a choice at both evolutions with no overlapping evolution choices, allowing for the greatest variety of evolutionary stages. This config is arguably the most interesting, as it allows for the most variety.
  • A > B or C
    • B > D or E
    • C > F or G

This could work with the standard Grass/Fire/Water trio, or could be mixed with other trios like the Fighter/Mage/Thief trio I suggested prior.

A really novel twist could be a Normal-type starter that first changes type and then adds a second type; instead of choosing from one of three fixed-type Pokemon, you get one specific starter that can become basically any two types you want. This would be an excellent place to explore the "branching class evolution" concept.

But if I may reference lenticular's point for the opposite stance, any change they make needs to be conscious with the idea that "hey, this would be pretty cool and fun", just as with anything they keep the same.

[lenticular]

41 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

For another thematic trio, how about a Fighter/Mage/Thief ensemble? Fighting or Steel could play the role of Fighter, Dark is the obvious candidate for the Thief (there's even a Dark-type move called Thief!), and ideally they'd introduce a proper Mage type for the Mage starter (but failing that, they'd probably use Psychic and/or Fairy).

  Wasn't that pretty much what they did with the Kalos games? With chesnaught as fighter, delphox as mage, and greninja as thief? I wasn't really a fan of how that one turned out, since they all ended up being bipedal and vaguely anthropomorphic, which isn't really to my taste when it comes to pokémon.

Another thing that I'll add when it comes to starters is that they don't necessarily have to be connected either by theme or by types. The Let's Go games had a normal type starter and an electric type starter, and I don't think they really suffered for it. I think that the type triangle worked out quite nicely back when your rival would always take the starter that had the type advantage over yours, but that isn't the case any more. So I'm not sure that much would be lost if the starters were of completely unconnected types, let's say flying, fairy and psychic, for instance.

On 3/14/2022 at 7:42 AM, Jotari said:

I was quickly coming to the same flag conclusion before I had even finished reading the first paragraph. And honestly I don't even see the "I want to use Vileplume on my team" issue as much of a real issue. If you want a VIleplume, find an Oddish online, there'll be plenty of people wanting Bellsprouts. Or, just don't use Vileplume, embrace the randomness, embrace the Sprout.

I was going to say that one of the problems with this is that traded pokémon behave differently to untraded pokémon (can't be nicknamed, gain level faster, stop listening to you if you overlevel them), but then I had another thought. Can we also just get rid of all of this and make traded pokémon behave like all other pokémon? I can see how it somewhat made sense in generations 1-3 when you were typically trading with your friends, so they might want to see how their old pokémon was doing, but now that most trading happens online, I'm not sure who benefits from the restriction on renaming. I also never liked the faster leveling, because it further broke whatever semblance of balance the games had and made them even easier. I can see why others might still like this, but it seems unnecessary with how modern Pokémon games are balanced, especially with the modern exp share being a thing.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

  Wasn't that pretty much what they did with the Kalos games? With chesnaught as fighter, delphox as mage, and greninja as thief? I wasn't really a fan of how that one turned out, since they all ended up being bipedal and vaguely anthropomorphic, which isn't really to my taste when it comes to pokémon.

That's the assessment I've heard before. Although, maybe I'm not plugged well enough into "D&D" or "RPGs" or wherever the trope comes from, because it hardly seems unique to Kalos. Like, I could argue that Decidueye, Incineroar, and Primarina make for a classic "Archer, Fighter, Bard" trio.

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

I was going to say that one of the problems with this is that traded pokémon behave differently to untraded pokémon (can't be nicknamed, gain level faster, stop listening to you if you overlevel them), but then I had another thought. Can we also just get rid of all of this and make traded pokémon behave like all other pokémon? I can see how it somewhat made sense in generations 1-3 when you were typically trading with your friends, so they might want to see how their old pokémon was doing, but now that most trading happens online, I'm not sure who benefits from the restriction on renaming. I also never liked the faster leveling, because it further broke whatever semblance of balance the games had and made them even easier. I can see why others might still like this, but it seems unnecessary with how modern Pokémon games are balanced, especially with the modern exp share being a thing.

I might be wrong, but I think Sword and Shield introduced the ability to nickname Pokemon you received in a trade, if they did not have a nickname beforehand. This is especially valuable, I would say, for Pokemon exclusively available via download or Mystery Gift. How am I supposed to have all four Muskedeers if I can't even nickname Keldeo "d'Artagnan"?

I don't really get the faster leveling, although it does make in-game trades more effective than they would otherwise be. Perhaps the "faster leveling" could remain, but only for in-game trades?

3 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

A really novel twist could be a Normal-type starter that first changes type and then adds a second type; instead of choosing from one of three fixed-type Pokemon, you get one specific starter that can become basically any two types you want. This would be an excellent place to explore the "branching class evolution" concept.

I kind of like this one. Hm... what if it's based on gym choice? On the other thread, I think it was, I mentioned the possibility of getting to choose between different gyms. Well, suppose that for the second gym, you can choose between Grass, Water, or Fire opponents. Once you get your second badge, your starter would evolve into the type of that gym. Similarly, let's say the sixth gym is a choice between Rock, Flying, and Ground. Depending on which badge you get there, it would determine the second evolution. So, there would be nine possible type combinations by the end of the game!

See, starters with branched evolutions is the kind of shake-up I'd really like to see. Obviously, that could still happen with the Gen IX games, but... well, I won't be holding my breath on that front.

Spoiler

I'd try to add more "physical" types like Rock and Flying, since Grass, Fire, and Water are all "special" types. Rock and Ground could be combined together in one starter (dual-type Starters aren't completely out of the question as Bulbasaur and Rowlet demonstrate). But it's really the kind of thing one might be expected to play around with from generation to generation. For example, if they do a China-themed region, I could see a quintet of Ground, Steel, Water, Grass, and Fire to reference the Chinese elements (Earth, Metal, Water, Wood, and Fire), though they'd need to update Steel so that it beats Grass (which it should in my opinion anyway, we use metal trimmers, axes, and saws to cut wood and plants all the time). They could also mix Rock with Ground in that scenario, as they together represent the concept of an "Earth" element.

 

I like the premise here, too. Definitely some kind of outside-the-box thinking. From a practical perspective, though, I'd say that the last thing the Grass type needs is more weaknesses. Rather than making Grass weak to Steel, perhaps the Steel-type Mon could get a super-effective move that's also thematically appropriate? Such as Fury Cutter, or maybe Aerial Ace.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
SF being weird.

[vanguard333]

3 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

A really novel twist could be a Normal-type starter that first changes type and then adds a second type; instead of choosing from one of three fixed-type Pokemon, you get one specific starter that can become basically any two types you want. This would be an excellent place to explore the "branching class evolution" concept.

So... basically an even more flexible Eevee? Seriously; you're basically describing, "What if all of Eevee's evolutions then had a second evolution and Eevee was then made the starter Pokémon (again)".

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

So... basically an even more flexible Eevee? Seriously; you're basically describing, "What if all of Eevee's evolutions then had a second evolution and Eevee was then made the starter Pokémon (again)".

It's not as though we can only have one Pokemon that has branched evolutions. Making it a three-stager, with the final forms having dual-types, with different evolution triggers, and we're talking about a completely different Pokemon.

[Lord_Brand]

I would probably tie the branching evolutions to specific items. Stuff like Knight's Armor or a Dragon Spear. Existing hold items like Metal Coat and Dragon Fang could work too.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Spoiler

What if there was a way to unlock one version's exclusives in the other by connecting them? Say you have Scarlet and your friend has Violet; by connecting your games, you unlock each other's version exclusives, including certain species of Pokemon.

The series already allows for a very limited version of this thanks to Pokemon trading. Version A has Thingamabob and Version B has Whatchamacallit, so you catch an extra and trade it for the other. They can expand on this concept to allow for "content sharing". Especially if they start implementing some form of co-op, like Raid Battles in SWSH.

Er, maybe? You'd really only need to interact once with a friend. At that point, is there any real reason for different versions? It feels as though it's just punishing players who, for whatever reason, can't interact with the other version at all. Perhaps it'd be interesting if the effect lasted for a limited time - say, a 12-hour period where the version exclusives are "swapped". So where I'd normally face Growlithe, I can load up on Vulpix instead.

More co-op would be nice. It could be really cool to see dungeons where you need to solve puzzles with other players, Four Swords style, in order to progress and attain the items and encounters therein. Maybe the next game could bring back Megas this way, locking their stones in select caves or forests.

[Lord_Brand]

Ideally, there would be recourse both for players willing to buy both versions and for players content to stick with one while reaching out to those with the other.

One thing they could do is tailor the versions towards different kinds of players, so it's not just a matter of what Pokemon appear but also the gameplay itself being adjusted to suit players who will gravitate towards one version or the other.

Compare The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. At the surface level, these seem like the Zelda series' take on the Pokemon concept, but there are far more than just "version differences" setting them apart. Seasons is geared more towards action and pays homage to the original LOZ, while Ages is more focused on puzzles and strategy, with boss fights that require a little more strategy than "hit the boss until it's dead" (though to be fair, Seasons has a few puzzle bosses too, like Dodongo and Digdogger). The two games operate on the same engine, but use it for wildly different purposes.

Maybe the same could go for Pokemon? Perhaps one version is more focused on teaching the player metagame-viable strategies while the other is geared towards players who simply want to "catch 'em all"?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

9 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Compare The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. At the surface level, these seem like the Zelda series' take on the Pokemon concept, but there are far more than just "version differences" setting them apart. Seasons is geared more towards action and pays homage to the original LOZ, while Ages is more focused on puzzles and strategy, with boss fights that require a little more strategy than "hit the boss until it's dead" (though to be fair, Seasons has a few puzzle bosses too, like Dodongo and Digdogger). The two games operate on the same engine, but use it for wildly different purposes.

Huh, okay. I haven't played the Oracle games, so I wonder: how does this compare to the Fates model? Three distinct campaigns with overlap in mechanics, characters, and setting, but major differences in map design, enemy composition, and resources available to the player. Is this at all comparable to the Oracle distinctions?

For my part, I like the notion of more distinctions between versions, if Pokemon intends to stick with the version model. But this thread has established that this notion is a controversial one. Dropping different versions would be controversial too, but at least nobody could say such a choice was borne out of greed.

9 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Maybe the same could go for Pokemon? Perhaps one version is more focused on teaching the player metagame-viable strategies while the other is geared towards players who simply want to "catch 'em all"?

The latter sounds closer to the "Let's Go" games than anything else. Which is way too different from a "competitive" game (with abilities, held items, and wild Pokemon battles) for both games to be produced with the resources allotted to a single generation's release.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Huh, okay. I haven't played the Oracle games, so I wonder: how does this compare to the Fates model? Three distinct campaigns with overlap in mechanics, characters, and setting, but major differences in map design, enemy composition, and resources available to the player. Is this at all comparable to the Oracle distinctions?

I'd actually more compare Oracle of Ages and Seasons to Binding and Blazing Blade. They're built on the same engine, but, aside from the secret true final boss you can only reach by playing both games (and thus exists within both games), there is almost no overlap between the two. They don't reuse any areas, only the most basic classic Zelda items are shared, the focus on puzzles and combat is different and even the main gimmick of each game (time travel and seaosnal control) are completely unique (and fully utilized). These two games could literally have been divorced from each other and released a year apart as seperate things with virtually no real change outside of the (very thin) plot.

[Lord_Brand]

Jotari summed it up pretty well. The Oracle games share the same basic graphic styles and gameplay engines, and little else. They're designed to be sequels to each other that you can play in either order. That said, that degree of difference might just encourage players to buy both versions. So, I'd probably aim for a pair of versions that take place in the same region and have the same core gameplay, but with different focuses.