Open world is perfect for Pokemon-clones, and other monster collecting games

You can have both. GF already has high poly models for 800 different Pokemon. It’s no longer an issue to place these into an OW.

Why is it unobtainable? What makes an open world good? For me, if there's nothing to do, it's boring and it just makes travel take longer. How hard could it be to put some Pokemon in various environments that make sense, and have them interact with each other or their environment in a meaningful way?

Yeah it ruined Zelda so hard it sold millions of copies and was championed by players, critics and other devs to boot. Fuck off with your open world is trash meme garbage, plenty of open world games have done well and are enjoyable to play and Pokemon is one of those titles that could transition to it. There's literally no reason it shouldn't be open world instead of the linear level-gated path it is now.

It doesn’t even have to be Pokemon. Digimon or DQ Monsters could do it too, and probably better too since their devs are more competent.

>linear minimap
That's not open world though, fucking retard.

Really don't think it'd work for Pokemon very well, it's a turn based RPG.

normies slurp up the open-world formula because it's the fad this generation, just like they slurped up generic brown fps last generation for the same reason. that doesn't mean it's good.

Why do you post a picture of a linear game then?

Xenoblade isn't an open World Series, outside of Xenoblade Chronicles X. The environments in 1/2 are huge, but you have to traverse them in a specific manner.
>XC1
Your progression sense is linear, despite the massive over world to run around in. You can't jump from Gaur Plains, all the way to Valak Mountain per say. There's a specific order you have to run through the areas.
>XC2
Somehow worse than XC1 in this regard. The environments are still big, but you have to warp from Titan, to Titan. You can't traverse them in any which way, as they aren't connected. Overall though, something like XC1 might fit Pokemon, better. A relatively linear progression sense, with huge areas to explore in.

>normie
You're a larping normalfag and should fuck off back to wherever you came from.

I was referring to X.

Can the open world meme finally die? Unless wide stretches of nothing and a shit ton of randomized elements is good game design.

Combat and Exploration are two different things.

Turn-based combat and Open World exploration are not mutually exclusive.

You didn't mention it though, weird. Any who, I don't think X's formula would fit a mainline Pokemon entry. Something like that is better left for a title like Pokepark, which is a spinoff. I'm pretty sure people will be content with huge areas regardless, so the XC1 approach would be fine.

I disagree.

Gating off certain monsters to late game in a game where building a team out of the monsters you encounter in the wild is stupid design.

Players should be allowed to B-line it to Mt. Silver and catch a Larvitar or a Sneazel as soon as they’ve gotten the abilities necessary for reaching that area. AND you should have the ability to collect those very quickly if you know what you’re doing.

been done you fucking cuck

Dragon Warrior Monsters 2 allowed you to collect keys to different worlds containing different monster types, these worlds were separate from the main questline worlds

dragon warrior monsters 2 also had over 300 monsters all with different stat distribution abilities and typing

breeding allowed you to create new monsters and allowed you to combine the traits of two previous monsters into one, transferring abilities and leveling characteristics to the new monster

this is now a dragon warrior monsters 2 thread, one of the best games of all time

Attached: dragon warrior monsters 2.jpg (1370x1370, 537K)

Hmm, could be fun. I'm just hesitant, is all. How would the gyms even work? The villainous team? So on, so forth? It sounds good on paper, but there's a lot more to focus on as well outside of encountering Pokemon in the wild.

>but you have to traverse them in a specific manner.
not really, there are a multitude of paths you can take in most areas

By the time Pokemon games even reach some semblance of open world, every other series will be 20 years ahead. I feel bad for Pokemon fans, sometimes.

Attached: image.png (256x256, 18K)

Oh I forgot to mention it had an arena with increasing challenge and reward for beating trainers

also if you fought a trainer in one of the many warpgates you could tame their monsters and take them

you could literally catch cool monsters that you had never seen before from trainers

My point was that you can only progress through them in a certain manner, and that goes along with story progression. You can't run from Gaur Plains, all the way to Makna Forest in the first hour of the game. You had to progress to Satorl Marsh, first.

Yeah and every monster was pretty much the same as any other monster, stat growths aside, which barely mattered because stats were somewhat generational.
Not only that if you wwanted to build a perfect team you had to go through the same channels of levelling for pretty much each monster because some monsters just had dick stats that would set you back.

Now Dragon Quest Monsters Joker 2: Professional. That was a good monster game. Don't have a 3DS so can't comment on the alter entries but Joker 2 was a straight upgrade mechanically, though the world kinda sucked compared to Joker, so I would hope they improved further on it.

how is this different than how pokemon operates now, there havn't been multiple pathways since gen 1

Name one game that's not better with open world.

all games. games are better off with linear progression and actual content instead of big, empty sandboxes.

>Prove me wrong
Okay, the sense of finding pokemon is ruined. You can believe that the pokemon are hidden in top down games because of the graphical fidelity. Soon as you add in the open world you expect to be able to see them, and thus when you cannot see them, your immersion is ruined.

nah they had different stat growths, abilities and resistances, making them radically different in playstyle

they also had different leveling rates

for example Grizzly had high attack and extremely low defenses making it a glass cannon

something like golem, had extremely high defenses and low attack and resorted to buffing itself and wearing down the opponent gradually

they had radically different abilities and playstyles

and that's just one example

there were more status effects that pokemon probably triple the amount and stats and abilities could be buffed in a similar matter

also every battle was a triple battle offering depth not seen in pokemon with different combinations of monsters and abilities being viable for any playstyle of team you wanted

I already said how gyms would work in the OP.

Have each gym scale based on the number of badges you’ve collected. So the more badges you have, the tougher gyms get. The teams, and levels of the gym leaders all have 8 variations.

To avoid overlevelling, introduce soft caps on leveling that are unlocked with each gym badge you get.

Thus, until you beat the first gym, you won’t be able to make it to Lvl20, and getting past 14 will be tough as your exp gains get smaller and smaller past a certain level. Once you beat said gym, th cap unlocks, and you can resume as normal.

As for the evil team, perhaps it’s time to retire that lame and tired concept, and handle it more intelligently.

Divide the region into self-contained modules, each with their own side quests, problems, dungeons, and so on... Baldurs Gate did this, Dragon Quest 3 did this, most DnD campaigns work this way.

If you wanna have an overarching antagonist, then make events happen by triggering flags. When you’ve beaten X numbers of key quests regardless of location, event Y triggers. Look at how Sengoku Rance is designed. The main quest triggers are 8 gourds hidden in 8 different regions you can conquer, out of the like 20. The game forces you to conquer all of them as the main objective, so you’re gonna trigger the story event no matter what, however, the catch is you don’t know where the gourds are in your first play, you don’t know the gourds trigger the story event, AND it only takes 5/8 gourds for the event to trigger, most of which are in surrounding regions.

That’s how you handle the story antagonist. You place flags in the player’s path that they’re bound to trigger forced quests, and you make it so that knowledgeable players will know how to avoid them for as long as possible.

Thus, your actions on the world have an effect which trigger consequences that set you down the main story.

>Why is this not a thing?
because you can make shitty 3ds or mobile game and get away with it

You can have wide/exploration filled areas, and still keep a sense of linearity in terms of story progression. You know that, right?

Oh wow, I didn't know you were OP. Sounds nice, though.

sadly only a japanese version exists of that game,

yes some monsters were more powerful than others but thats true of every monster game, yet in this game some of those low tier monsters in some stats had extremely viable abilities

I think the game was balanced pretty well overall

Why is this not a thing?

programming animations and attacks for 300-400 pokemon in 3d and make them all interact with one another in a realistic or correct way would be an immense undertaking

>Have each gym scale
NINTENDO
HIRE

Fucking brilliant, why did no one ever thought of that? Monsters that scale with your level, removing all sense of progression and rewards! Why aren't all games like this already

Truthfully though, you should be able to tackle any gym at any time. Gym Leaders are supposed to be some of the strongest trainers in the region, and they're piss easy in 99% of cases. Have them scale doesn't change how the story would operate.

That's not the definition of open world

Then they should all have 6 pokemon at lvl99 because it's fucking easy

Monsters no, only gyms you absolute retard.

Difficulty settings when?

To be fair to the open world faggot, Pokemon Legends, or Origins or whatever it was called you clearly saw Brock had multiple leveled pokemon for people challenging gyms in different orders.

The first Zelda game was open world and it did just fine.

It wasn't open world you clown. You had to tackle things in a specific order. Outside of like, 2 dungeons.

It was open world you absolute moron. You were free to tackle them in whatever order you liked with no obstacles.

It was structured OW, but OW nonetheless. You could hit dungeon 5 first without even knowing.

Why make all of that when empty linear corridors will sell millions.

>nah they had different stat growths, abilities and resistances, making them radically different in playstyle
Stat growths yes, but as I said stats carried over (25% from each parent to the baby was it?) and also the balance was pretty ass.
Abilities could be bred
Resistances could be bred
Leveling rates is barely consequental, and also featured in pretty much every monster game.

There was very little depth to the battles because you generally used your roster in the same way each time and some moves were clear winners over others you might have.

When was the last time you played the game because you're hyping it up much more than it deserves.
For example those ranodm key worlds? Mostly up to 4 blocky islands with a portal on each with the actual boss on 1 who would reward you another key and a portal guarded by a miniboss on the extra ones, you could quickly gain the ability through the campaign of skipping over portions of the islands, they would contain monsters from certain families but nothing special. If you could beat one minoboss from each "rank" of islands you could beat them all pretty much. There were also randomly generated dungeons on some islands with a treasure at the end which might have a nice item, but you'll quickly get enough items for all your monsters. They could also have another key, but the only thing that SHOULD have been of note in them, a Dream Egg which could give you a sweet monster, required a link cable to hatch. There were a few tamers/wandering casinos/priest who you might find wandering around but they're pretty samey between key worlds.

The breeding system? For the most part it's just Family X + Family Y = Family X monster depending on Family Y. so there's one monster in each family for every other family, and the first one you select is the "retained" family. ANY dragon fused with ANY slime gives you the same monster. It's not deep. This is why the key world monsters were pointless.

Pokemon is over, guys. Let it go.

starting stats transfered at some rate, but stats for leveling were individual per monster

for example a strong strategy was to breed something with high hp with something with low hp and high defenses, like a king slime with a metally

this would give you a metalking with high starting hp, and extremely high defenses

yet that metalking would still level with it's usual low hp and high defenses

only the initial level 1 values would be enhanced

it was a potent strategy and added more depth to the game

the point of this post was the idea of a open world monster game

the point I made is that yes, in dragon warrior monsters 2 you could collect keys to go to randomly generated world that could potentially have any monster in the game in it, allowing you to get high level monsters early in the game, through breeding, or getting moderately lucky

this game deserves the hype it has far more depth than pokemon, yet it never blew up

different rosters were highly viable, although some rosters were better than others

not really a valid knock on the game, as something like pokemon has incredibly overpowered shit that destroys 99 percent of the game with no counterplay

dragon warrior monsters was slightly more balanced

This would require actual effort on the part of Game Freak, so fuck that noise.
My fantasy is that Sword/Shield tanks hard so that they are forced to make changes to the formula, but I know it will never happen

yes the game had flaws, but if it was expanded like pokemon it could be better in some ways

we'll never know as it barely got past gen 2, and it seems the newer games just recycle the old shit from the first 2 games

either way it was a really good game

>allowing you to get high level monsters early in the game
But that's not something that means anything. Every monster you can find on an island you can pretty much from the getgo because of the simplistic breeding system.
Any monster you recruit might be a higher level but it will not have the breeding stats so it will only be useful as breed fodder.
Your comment about stats doesn't address the point I made at all, I already said what the mechanic which dictates this is. My point is that it was simplistic and cheesy. Yes a common strat was to do that because there was ONE monster for each stat which was optimal, so breed paths would be the same for each stat.

The statement you made was that DWM2 was one of the best games of all time so don't just fall back on theorycrafting now.

>It's not a valid knock because pokemon did it
The fuck is that? That doesn't absolve it of a flaw in any way whatsoever.

The game does not have much depth. The mechanics behind all of what is has are far too simple to allow depth. It has lots of options, not depth.

Attached: Syndrome.png (1600x1067, 2.22M)

it was one of the best games of all time

and you feel the need to argue for no reason without a valid point

every game has flaws

if we stopped pokemon at gen 2 then we could talk all day about the flaws of that game

dragon warrior monsters 2 was more advanced than pokemon at the time of their release dates

yes the leveling could be abused but the core systems were extremely good, if it was played competitively to balance it it would have rivaled pokemon

it comes down to lazy devs

the game does have depth, but it was never expanded upon like pokemon so some overpowered shit remains, the core systems themselves have more depth than pokemon

>the open world meme has ruined countless beloved series like final fantasy

FF15 had a lot more problems than the poorly done open world.

>and you feel the need to argue for no reason without a valid point
I have given plenty of valid points.
The only rebuttal you have given is some whataboutism bullshit. "Every game has flaws, pokemon has flaws" like that somehow absolves the game of the flaws.
I have explained at length why the core systems are not good, they are incredibly simplistic.

Fighting games

because gamefreak is a fucking piece of shit studio

look at the newest game, it looks like utter shit compared to DQ.

Puyo Puyo

no you havent, the fact that some things were overpowered is not a valid point

if we go back to gen 2 pokemon a handful of pokemon could rape everything in the game

at the time of dragon warrior monsters release it had triple battles while pokemon gold was no where near it

it also had probably 3 times the status effects, and unique abilities, that interacted with each other

criticizing an old game that was never expanded upon is not a valid way to criticize it, you would have to compare it to games of it's time, that had similar flaws and far less depth

yet dragon warrior monsters 2 still has more depth than many modern rpgs today

all I hear from you is shit talking not fair analysis

which is why your criticism means nothing

I've already illuminated the flaws of the game but you keep shitting on it for things that aren't really flaws and were the standard at the time

Shmups

>Gating off certain monsters to late game in a game where building a team out of the monsters you encounter in the wild is stupid design.

No it really isn't because changing your team throughout the game is also part of the design.

>Open world Pokemon
Just play Xenoblade. Pokemon is lifeless, right now.

So a game is not open world if you do things in some order? Am I reading this right? Are you retarded?

Not him, but OoT wasn't even open world. You were locked out of specific areas until you progressed in the story. You can't just tackle every dungeon at any given order.

A Pokemon game with the BoTW artstyle and world (just not empty and a fair bit smaller) where you can catch bugs and fish and pick fruit and shit for your mons would be pretty sick

Well good thing that wasn't even one of my points isn't it based illiteratebro?
Stop fucking bringing up pokemon I don't give a shit about pokemon, but if you insist then give some examples of your points. I explained in depth why the breeding system was shit, why the key worlds were pointless, all you say is "It's old bro everything has flaws" and then restate that theyr'e totally great.. "3 times the status effects" is a meaningless metric because quantity means nothing in terms of gameplay. Explain how the abilties interacted with each other, and what makes that more deep than the other systems of the time.
Triple battles isn't some sort of technological wonder, it's simply a design choice. Why not bring up SMT2 which allowed you a 6 man party and came out like 7 years earlier? Why don't we compare the breeding system to the complex digivolution system of Digimon World 1? Why the fuck are you so obsessed wtih pokemon?
I have already explained why the system lacked depth. Options are not depth when they are just simplistic. A breeding system is not complex when it is X + Y = Z. A statistics system is not deep when it doesn't reward a robust playstyle. If depth is just stuff without any regard for incentive then I guess TES:V Skyrim is the DEEPEST game known to man.
It IS a valid way to criticise it and it WAS expanded on by future DQM games which dropped the stupid shit and improved it. Those are GOOD games.
You switch between saying only compare it to old games and it IS one of the best games ever and it IS deeper than games today but it's not. You just keep handwaving away shit by saying it's old as if that's an excuse and refusing to elaborate on any single one of your points beyond baffling references to pokemon.

Only in your first play through. And you’ll inherently do this no matter what if the monster variety is high.

different status effects effect every aspect of battling

the fact that you could overlevel your monsters is nothing new to rpgs

if it was given the same care as pokemon it could have been a hugely successful game

I dont know where you get off on shitting on games for no good reason

the game had depth in every facet but you could overlevel your monsters if you wanted to

like I said before every monster had different abilities and statlines, and strengths and weaknesses

but if you put in a monumental amount of time to overlevel your monsters you could also do that

that doesnt take anything away from the game, none of your criticisms were valid

go hate on something else you dont understand

skyrim literally had no depth to start with, even before you decide to overlevel your character

dragon warrior monsters had over 300 monsters with unique statlines, unique level ups, unique abilities, and unique resistances. It also had breeding that allowed you to create new monsters

you can overlevel in both games but it's extremely apparent which one has more depth

>Something being good means it’s good

Fuck off retard

>it would ruin pokemon
you're wrong, game freak would ruin an open world pokemon game, Pokemon Crystal Clear is proof that pokemon would benefit from open world

and you could also combine the abilities of monsters to add depth to the monster that was bred in the process

thats called depth in an rpg

>scale
And you've lost me, scaling is never acceptable in any form.

Doesn't matter, I'm still playing Pokemon Crystal on my limited edition Pikachu GameBoy Colour, and I will be in twenty years too

>like I said before every monster had different...
Yes, the same as literally every single monster raising game ever created, and many non monster raising games. That's really proof of the insane depth this game brings right there.

Again, you keep focusing on rebutting a point I NEVER even made.
>Well good thing that wasn't even one of my points isn't it based illiteratebro?
I haven't talked about overleveling or that shit in the slightest yet it seems to be the only point you're willing to rebut. And you want to talk abotu people not understanding something, when you clearly don't understand reality or English seeing as you're arguing against points you seem to have deluded yourself into.

over 300 monsters
Again you're saying this once more as if the amount of something determines how deep it is, which brings me back to the Skyrim parallel. If simply having a lot of stuff makes something deep then Skyrim is deep, yes? Or is there more to it than that? You do the same in the previous post "More status effects = more depth" simply because there are more of them? That's not a logical conclusion.
>with unique statlines
Something every game has, and the DQM system is literally just stat growth determined by 1 number between 0-31 for each stat for each monster.
>unique abilities
Barely, and each monster only has a couple of natuiral abilities anyways. Also seeing as you like pokemon so much, explain to me what makes the abilities so deep as I asked you to. Explain what makes any DQM ability you care to name deeper than say, Baton Pass on a strategic level.
>and unique resistances
Again, almost ubiquitous.

It also had breeding that allowed you to create new monsters
Which I have gone into in depth as to why the system lacks depth.
>you can overlevel in both games but it's extremely apparent which one has more depth
What did he mean by this? What is the relationship between depth and levelling can anyone explain to me?

I think it'd be a good game op, you've got my noggin joggin on some interesting game concepts and visuals. I believe the detractors in this thread simply lack vision and creativity.

lol, I always question when dumbasses used Dragon Quest XI for these pokemon must be open world threads.

Making something open world doesn't magically make it better. It needs good gameplay to be able to carry it into that transition and pokemon has some of the most shallow fucking gameplay imaginable. Maybe they should be working on that first before attempting something overly ambitious.

I think he was referring to the original LoZ. That games open world. OoT was not.

Holy shit you have such edgy opinions. Literally every dev you listed except maybe Kojima has made fantastic open worlds

overleveling was the only flaw in the game, which you alluded to with monsters getting abilities from previous breeding combinations

yes their were ways to make your monsters overpowered, but the game had more rpg mechanics and DEPTH, than pretty much every rpg at that time

300 monsters unique abilities, unique level ups, breeding to allow you to transfer abilities, about 3 times the status effects that pokemon had, which adds depth to BATTLING

the only problem was the ability to breed together some of the best combinations many times to get overpowered monsters

which could have been fixed by allowing stats to go higher or changing the magnitude of how stats increased

that was the only flaw, everything else you said was bullshit

Explain.

Pokemon shouldn't be open world but it should be much more branching instead of a straight line

I'm not even the person you're talking to but you keep using depth and number of X as though they're the same thing. 300 abilities isn't deep if they're all variants on the same thing, and grinding monster stats nearly endlessly to obscene levels isn't deep either.

you could say the same thing about pokemon that 100 moves dont add depth if they all do the same thing, but you would be a contrarian retard no one should listen to

leveling to obscene level was the only flaw in the game

the game actually had more rpg mechanics than pretty much every monster battler ever created

I suggest you go back and play it instead of talking shit on Yea Forums all day about shit you know nothing about

>overleveling was the only flaw in the game, which you alluded to with monsters getting abilities from previous breeding combinations
No, my main point was the lack of robustness in optimal breeding. You say that's "THe only problem" as if that somehow makes it no longer a problem, as if simply acknowledging the system lacks depth somehow stops it from lacking depth.
My point about the monsters getting abilities from previous combinations was that it was SIMPLE and lacked DEPTH.
I have not been talking abou toverpoweredness, I have talked about how I ahve not been talking about overpoweredness, yet you CONTINUE to bring up rebuttals to it. Every post.

>about 3 times the status effects that pokemon had, which adds depth to BATTLING
No it DOESN'T. Because the NUMBER does NOT equate to DEPTH. As I keep bringing up with SKYRIM.
Especially since unless you can prove me wrong, I'm pretty sure a bunch of those "different statuses" were "The monster cannot move because he tripped, which is apparently totally different from "The monster cannot move because he is paralysed" and "The monster cannot move because he is dancing" and "The monster cannot move because he is scared".
To comapre it tok pokemon as I have been asked to do, status effects in pokemon are all varied in application. Burned is not simply frozen but with different flavour text, it actually does something different. Are all of the status effects unique in DWM? Refresh my memory and tell me HOW they are different.

there was a lack of viable pokemon in pokemon due to unbalanced shittery

but dragon warrior monsters still had more depth to it, regardless

it was the only problem

>Why is this not a thing?
because GR is still making a killing with their endless shitty R/B clones

Open world just means the game has a very large game world rather than a maze of hallways or several smaller levels. It is an inherently better way to design game worlds but it's sometimes used lazily. Most of the time, it is much more lazy to make small levels than to make an open world.

And he just makes more vague comparisons to pokemon that don't even address any of the points I have made.
I really don't understand what must be going through his brain.

no open world they just do it wrong because they make the world always revolve around the player instead of it just being a realm u can explore. always sucks if they make it ur Fun PlayGround

the difference between being tripped and being paralyzed was that certain monsters were resistant to certain types of statuses

where as pokemon uses a flat 90 percent chance to hit on any pokemon attacked by thunder wave

dragon warrior monsters had various resistances and chances to hit for that one move

offering depth because certain monsters were better in that situation, where as in pokemon there was no depth in that situation as it was a flat 90 percent

i hope that helped you understand what depth is

read this post for one of the many examples of what depth are you stupid fuck

Once again you simply use the amount of something to imply depth when that isn't logically sound.
You clearly have no concept of what game depth is and apparently think it's just the number of things.

Because you buy what they put out. Why put in more effort if it won't net more return? And since Pokemon type games are all the same and incredibly simple as is, it's not like people that find them childish will suddenly come around. I know I wouldn't. I played one Pokemon game for about 2 hours and I just couldn't do more. So boring. Walking across an open world would make it even worse.

depth means mechanics have a variety of outcomes, refer to the dictionary before you continue this conversation stupid fuck

If that were true than Persona 5 is apparently deper than Persona 4 because it introduces 2 more elements. That is not depth.

And as I have mentioned many times, the depth is nonexistent in most sytems in the game because the outcomes are not complex nor robust. Key system, breeding system and battle system do not have depth because there are lots of things if those things are all simplistic.

>you could say the same thing about pokemon that 100 moves dont add depth if they all do the same thing, but you would be a contrarian retard no one should listen to

Except Pokemon has many many status moves, moves that change field state, buffs, debuffs, etc.

I mean as I mentioned, the move baton pass in pokemon adds far more depth than simply putting another status system in the game because it has a completely unique function that doesn't simply ape another function with a different name.
And the fact that due to the breeding having little cost, and resistances being inheritable, depth is taken out of the game because you don't have to make decisions that impact your game. Even the EV system in pokemon offered more depth because it meant you had to choose between A and B, rather than having A and obtaining B.

I mean I'll talk about an actual GOOD monster capturing series. The Joker games.

Stat gains work similarly to what has been discussed but monsters have individual stat caps. This makes monster choice actually matter and not every monster just blobbing into one.
Resistances (traits) were innate but could be gained through skillsets, as well as this monsters could have other traits, such as Demon at Arms being able to act twice, or an innate that allows survival. Generally monsters with great inherent abilities had some cost,
Skillsets replaced skills, and are much deeper. You are allowed to choose 3 heritable skillsets on monsters, which you can put points into (50% heritable) which are gained through level ups. The skillsets can grant you moves, stats or traits, or some mixture, so you have the option between choosing specialisation, low moves with complementary traits and stat buffs (Skillset stat buffs aren't considered by stat cap) and high stat/trait count, or take a broad approach in order to exploit enemy weaknesses and load up on abilities.
Breeding is done somewhat similarly but you can choose between multiple monsters for each combination (order no longer matters as both X + Y and Y+ X are one of the options), but monsters are now ranked F to A then S and X. Joker 2 further impoves upon this by allowing all monsters to max their rank by fusing 2 of the same monster at a high enough level, adding actual options.
Generally breeding 2 D monsters would give you another D monster or at best a C, but, as you mentioned as a pro earlier, it was possible to obtain high ranked monsters earlier. In Joker a Gigantes, ranked A I think, would spawn just off the path on the first island, and if you could manage to actually get him, you could fuse him into other A monsters. You could fuse 4 F slimes into one monster over 2 generations and get a rank C Kng Slime, and go from there.

>Putting together all these ideas
>Just to be continually upset that Pokemon will never implement them, and if they do, it'll take years on end
Why disappoint yourself?

nobody has played your stupid weeb shit game

and for you to have a point you would have to explain why the mechanics of persona 4 have more depth than persona 5, like an actual real argument, not the stupid shit you put out

dragon warrior monsters has more status moves, and they have different effects depending on the monster you use it against

which means it has more outcomes, and more depth

Cope, Ryan. Persona is popping now.

There's more of them bro more elements = more options = more outcomes = more depth apparantly haha.

I know Persona is shit but the point is so is your logic and so are you.

apparently you would have to explain your position to have an actual argument, but apparently youre too fucking stupid to understand that, faggot

buzzwords instead of an argument, it's like your iq is really 30 points lower than mine

Dunno about you, but I actually wanna make an open world monster catching game with this kind of aesthetic:

youtu.be/9dhPCBzqLik

I’m an artfag though, so I’m only compiling ideas, writing up design docs, and sketching out concepts.

Once I get a computer that doesn’t turn into a jet engine when running UE4, I’ll start messing around with paper 2D and building something.

This thread is a goldmine of ideas though.

Shh, Ryan. Just accept that it's successful now. You're just a little bottom feeding cuck. Cope.

tard who cant even win an argument on Yea Forums, I cant even imagine how retarded you are in real life, a weak ass beta male i'd fucking destroy

I don't think I've ever finished a game that's set in an open world.

I'd body your pump ass, Ryan. Meet me in Minesotta right now you femboy.

It's literally your argument. I'm using your argument. Holy fuck lmao are you actually mentally challenged?

youre a fag shut up

you actually didnt use my argument, as you had no examples or facts to back up your argument, therefore making it not an argument

>says the fag who thinks sales = quality
neck yourself

>No examples
>2 extra elements
Can't you READ nerd?

>For difficulty, just make it so that the bosses or gym leaders or whatever all scale based on how many badges or whatever the fuck you’ve collected.
Can't you just make them freely acting agents? They'll be at work during certain hours, and after that they'd go hunting and training monsters near their area (or not, if they're supposed to be the strong but lazy). Maybe have some other travelling heroes that could defeat/lose to the gym leaders, which would make the leaders more/less motivated to better themselves.

It depends on what game we’re talking about, if Pokemon, maybe, depends on how hard that is to balance.

If an original IP, then you’d have 8 primary checks in the form of bosses, so those would scale. But you could add freeform agents in the form on NPC trainers/tamers/summoners/what have you, that grow stronger as the game progresses.

>It sold well so its good

>open world
Yikes, dropped.
A bigger redflag for shit game design does not exist.

>Have 300-400 different monsters
I'm not sure you fully appreciate the herculean resources this would require

you had no examples to back up why persona 4 was more complex and had more depth than persona 5, therefore you had no argument, therefore your argument was nothing like mine

dragon warrior monsters 2 did it 15 years ago

on gameboy color

Because I never made that claim BASED illiteratebro.
And I gave examples for the claim I did make. There are two extra elements. How does that not make it deeper? It has more elements?

yes, on the gameboy color. OP is proposing this with fully 3D-modeled monsters with, I presume, fairly complex behaviors who interact with their environment.

If it's the standard turn-based pokemon battles then that's more realistic.

what elements are you talking about, in what game

This.

dragon warrrior monsters 2 had triple battles with 300 monsters in the game, i'm sure if enough effort was put in they could do some animations and art

it's more deep than pokemon

yes there are ways to make your persona overpowered but the game has more rpg mechanics and DEPTH than pretty much any persona at that time

225 monsters unique abilities, unique level ups, fusing to allow you to transfer abilities, about 2 more elements that persona 4 had, which adds depth to BATTLING

>this thing was received well by everybody except my shit board
>surely it is they who are wrong, for it is actually a bad game!

Digimon Cyber Sleuth:
>249 monsters
Digimon Next Order:
>235 monsters
We’ll see how many survive has.
Dragon Quest Monsters Joker:
>210 monsters
Joker 2
>311 monsters
Joker 2 Professional
>411 monsters
Joker 3 Professional
>over 500 monsters

seems like you just copied what i said, and have no argument of your own, since I never played persona i bet it isnt even a monster game, and this is your attempt to bitch out at being wrong

Anyone wanna chime in on the Yokai Watch series? Never played it personally.

Also, I know the SMT series both in Devil Survivor and the mainline series has over 500.

no you havent, the fact that some things were overpowered is not a valid point

go back to dwm 2 a handful of monsters could rape everything in the game

the fact that you could overlevel your monsters is nothing new to rpgs

oh youre being a retard, cool

Well yes I was copying you

nah you didnt copy me by having a good argument, you just acted like a retard, which was nothing like what I did

>you just acted like a retard

nah I had a good argument, and you dont live in reality, youre a retard

based

>Name one game that's not better with open world.
Yea Forums discussion

canonically they use weaker teams depending on how many badges you have, not their strongest pokemon. they're just testing you.
however everything in pokemon is done kind of lazily so over time this idea hasn't been consistent or displayed well/at all.

Every game.

Yes, like I said, the number could be doable with random battles in the traditional pokemon style, but not if the monsters were actually part of the open world.

DQM has monsters roaming the land. It’s very easily doable.

Split your monsters into archetypes based on their locomotion:

Bipeds, Quadrupeds, Orthropods, Swimmers, Bouncers, Flyers, etc...

And create movement animations for all those in the OW. Basically, categories of monsters share the same movement animations. This would also be how you handle their attack animations for melee attacks.

So now, instead of having to create however many animations x 400 monsters, you only create that number x16 categories or whatever. Easily doable in 2D or 3D. 3D super easy in Maya. 2D, use Spine.

I guess giving birth to dumbfuck troglodytes was a fad when you were born.

Yeah dude just design 8 different parties for each trainer. And have all the wild Pokemon scale with you so everyone is the same level. Fuck you that's not how to design RPGs.

Literally the next Fromsoft game lmao and it's gonna be GotD

pokemon aren't really split into those categories though, I think it would be hard for most of them to share animations.

And DQM are roaming but it kinda sounds like OP also wants the battles to take place as part of the open world, aka not cut away battles like traditional pokeyman, and for pokemon to do more in the overworld than just roam

looking at this pic really makes me realize how unnatural BotW's world feels. why does it seem like in BotW, mountains never really obstruct your view? you can see so far at basically all times.

There is a pokemon crystal romhack that lets you go wherever you want from the beginning, trainers, gyms and some wild pokemon scale with how many badges you have. It works really well and its pretty much what the games shouldve been for at least the last 3 generations. No, gamefreak wont ever implement that because theyre way too incompetent.

I'm 99% sure OP wants the traditional system kept in place, doesn't have to be cutaways though, could just be the digimon world system just without the movement. Get an encounter everything else onscreen fucks off and you go at it.

Link?

if it also adds the physical special split and a few new moves like giving bug some decent ones I'll be all over it

It's not different. Neither Xenoblade or Pokemon are open-world games, which is what he said.

>why did no one ever thought of that?
It's brought up everytime people brainstorm ideal pokemon games, is vaguely implied in all of the games, and what explicitly shown in one of the official anime.

Pokemon Crystal Clear

>Yeah dude just design 8 different parties for each trainer.
Yeah, that’s not exactly difficult, especially considering far more challenging things were done in the Battle Frontier, design-wise.

Build a template for each “level”, no badges, 1 badge, 2 badges, 3 badges, etc... and have set rules for each template, how many monsters, the type of rules, etc... then playtest them all against a standard party.

Because you can control the max level with softcaps too, it’s fairly easy to playtest. And that’s the vanilla easy way of doing things.

A smart designer gives each leader a unique strategy to each leader, and one you have to learn how to beat. Think bosses in FF4. But I don’t expect much from GF.

>And have all the wild Pokemon scale with you so everyone is the same level.
Why would you do that? That’s stupid.

You start the player off in a central location, and the further you get from the center, the higher the average level is. You have a couple REALLY high level areas that are hard to reach. And then you toss in some high level outliers in the lower level areas to diversify the ecology. Xenoblade did this, it works fibe. Especially since the monsters roam the wild and you can avoid them, and scan to see their level.

Additionally, because you have HMs in play, you still have a lock and key system that you can use to gate off very high level areas.

Only changes to make:
-HMs are overworld abilities only and don’t take up a combat slot.
-You don’t need any badges to use them, as soon as you find the HM, you’re able to use it, so it works more like Metroid or Zelda in that sense, except a lot more open.
-The HMs are hidden behind side quests that you can do almost immediately if you know where to look. The world is also designed so you’re carefully guided toward the quests for the HM upon reaching a new region. No, not handholding. Visual design. Special looking cave or dungeon, a crowd gathered in city, etc...

GF won't do anything that requires actual work, with each new installment the games get worse and worse. Deviating from the classic top down 2d view killed the games, Sun and Moon felt really cramped, routes were like 3 persons wide, not like the old games were any different in that regard, but at least you didn't have the camera so close. Either go back to a top down 2d/2.5d or make a bigger world.

If we’re talking Pokemon, then half the work is already done, witch each mon having detailed models and skeletons. Plus, I think this has already been done for LGPE. And Pokemon are broken down into numerous categories by egg group. It’s not hard to group them by skeleton as well. It’s not weird to give Charizard, Tyranitar, and Rhydon all the same walk cycle.

I was thinking of how I’d do it if I was making an original IP. But building off of Pokemon makes it even easier.

Also, battles would still be turn-based. See Paper Mario, DQM, etc... for reference. You can do OW with cutaway battles. Idk why people think you can’t.