   "Catch'em all" games
  Hi,I am new to the forum but there is a question I really want to discuss with you guys.Everyone knows the Pokemon games I assume, I played the first ones on the Gameboy and also the second generation, and even the third generation and it was fun. Propably lots of you did the same and know the motivating "catch'em all"-effect. Additionally there is the training which gives small rewards all the time when one of your Pokemon levels up etc. So I think we can agree that Pokemon games are really good and well made. (at least the older ones I know)My question is, why didn't anyone try to use the basic concept for a PC game? It doesnt even need to be exactly the same, but why is there not a single game that features the same catch-train-evolve concept with big pool (>100) of creatures? It would be easy to change the style for an older target group to not compete with Pokemon directly so I dont think one has to fear competition.Any idea why noone has tried, instead of creating the 50th mmo-rpg with mages, knights, priests and other classes, to create a game with 100 - 200 creatures, small evolution trees, special attacks and stuff like that?Before anyone suggests I make it myself, I neither have time nor the knowledge to create something of that size. But I am working on a flash/flex based game as a hobby.Thanks for your time,LeartesPS: If I missed a good game on the PC please tell me, I will try it right away. If you know good console games featuring the above mentioned pokemon-concepts, please let me know so I can see if I can get further information on them.   
  I think the one thing that most Pokemon fans are waiting for is a Pokemon MMO where you can catch and trade on the net.  There are actually a ton of tries to create these Pokemon MMOs online if you look in the right place (GOOGLE).  Some don't look so bad, but none have truly captured the feel of the actual game.  I, myself, am guilty of dreaming up a Pokemon MMO and even drawing up concepts.Personally, I love Pokemon.  I'm a 25 year old male and I have been playing Pokemon since it first came out and I still play it.  My girlfriend, who is 20, also plays.  I've also played Digimon, Jade Cocoon and some other wannabes, but they pale in comparison to the originator.  [Jade Cocoon (the first one, at least) was very good.]There is one website, NeoPets, that had attempted to be like Pokemon.  They had gained popularity and even had dolls out in stores.  I think they sucked-- big time.  They had the whole collecting, trading schtick, but no where near as good.   ;  To be fair, almost all PC rpgs have the same mechanic in different colors. Building a party of characters, leveling them up and choosing skill paths; collecting gear, sometimes leveling it up or building sets of gear or adding on gems and stuff to buff it up. It tends to tickle the same gamer desires.Though at least around my age, a lot of people hate Pokemon. It supplanted a lot of the cartoons that we loved, but was even more childish and banal.[Edited by - Telastyn on May 12, 2009 3:00:23 PM];Quote:Original post by TelastynTo be fair, almost all PC rpgs have the same mechanic in different colors. Building a party of characters, leveling them up and choosing skill paths; collecting gear, sometimes leveling it up or building sets of gear or adding on gems and stuff to buff it up. It tends to tickle the same gamer desires.It's interesting to note that while most RPG group games have you control multiple people in a party at once (usually four), Pokemon only has one party member out at a time, and only has you fight one at a time. Maybe part of it's success has to do with it's simplifying well known RPG features, for a wider/younger audience.Quote:Though at least around my age, a lot of people hate Pokemon. It supplanted a lot of the cartoons that we loved, but was even more childish and banal.I'm 18 (and in the US) and I don't play pokemon anymore, but I was in the midst of it (along with probably millions of others) when it started up in America. I've noticed that alot of people seemed to migrate to Magic the Gathering or other card games when they got older. Perhaps they felt embarrassed by its overly childish nature as they grew? I wonder why games like Mario or Sonic don't seem 'childish', while having a bright cheery attitude, where Pokemon (to me at least) does. Perhaps it's how they advertised it, targeting children. I personally got tired of the games when they expanded beyond the initial ~150 pokemon.   ;  Thanks for your replies so far - more are wellcome of cause.Quote: To be fair, almost all PC rpgs have the same mechanic in different colors. Building a party of characters, leveling them up and choosing skill paths; collecting gear, sometimes leveling it up or building sets of gear or adding on gems and stuff to buff it up. It tends to tickle the same gamer desires.That is true but I think it is a big difference in Pokemon you collect heroes in a way. You not only build your party and fight and level up to become stronger and ultimately beat the game but you still catch Pokemon even if you know you dont need them to be strong. You train them even if you dont intend to take them in your final party. It is enough to explore in what ways your Pokemon will develop and just collect them all. For me that is a much stronger long time motivation. And I dont understand why noone else uses this way to create a stronger tie to the game but just makes a normal rpg.Quote:Though at least around my age, a lot of people hate Pokemon. It supplanted a lot of the cartoons that we loved, but was even more childish and banal.I dont know how old you are, I am 22 and around my age most people dont like pokemon because of its childishness. But that is no argument against the game concept! It just proves that there is an empty corner that no game fills so far. Dont you think that a game with a bit more serious story like any usual rpg and the motivation features Pokemon uses could be quite successfull ? If you design it in that way you wouldnt compete with Pokemon but just pick up the kids who grow out of it and provide them with new game.Quote:It's interesting to note that while most RPG group games have you control multiple people in a party at once (usually four), Pokemon only has one party member out at a time, and only has you fight one at a time. Maybe part of it's success has to do with it's simplifying well known RPG features, for a wider/younger audience.As far as I know the there modes like 2on2 todays Pokemon game as well, additionally the fighting concept is not easy to master at all. There are online games like Pokemon NetBattle (dont know if it still exists) that only features the multiplayer battles with premade teams and there is really a lot to learn to compete with the top players. And this game really copies the fighting part of the gameboy games exactly. (I dont like it very much because it leaves out all rpg features, you just have every pokemon with every possible attack-combination and have to set up a team of 6 that is capable to beat anyone else)So the game is not simple at all, it is just that the game is super easy if you know what your doing, so any child can beat it by grinding and leveling his pokemon high enough. If your good you dont need to grind at all but can finish the game with Pokemon many level weaker than your strongest opponents because they just plain suck. (For anyone who played the first games, you can beat the top4 when your strongest pokemon is about 10 levels below the average of your opponents pokemon - maybe even earlier)Any more opinions on the topic? Did you ever thought of making a game like pokemon that matches your age better? Or do you think it can only work with little children as target group?   ;Quote:I dont know how old you are, I am 22 and around my age most people dont like pokemon because of its childishness.The original pokemon was not especially childish. It was just your average classic japanese RPG.It's the marketing that gave the franchise that reputation.The newer ones have a rather more childish art style though, in my opinion.   ;Quote:Original post by LeartesThat is true but I think it is a big difference in Pokemon you collect heroes in a way. You not only build your party and fight and level up to become stronger and ultimately beat the game but you still catch Pokemon even if you know you dont need them to be strong.And? Tactical RPGs like XCOM allow you to collect/build heroes. Roguelikes have let players collect items for almost 30 years now. Diablo expanded that with Sets of items to collect, and not a few games have collectible card game style skills/abilities.Quote:And I dont understand why noone else uses this way to create a stronger tie to the game but just makes a normal rpg.Because a lot of gamers won't explore all the different sorts there are if they know the things won't end up in the final party. Making content is hard. Making well-balanced, interesting content for 150 odd critters is damned hard.Quote:I dont know how old you are, I am 22 and around my age most people dont like pokemon because of its childishness. But that is no argument against the game concept!Perhaps you misunderstand me. People my age were always old enough to hate it because of its childishness. Further, it replaced "our" cartoons. Right or wrong, we saw pokemon as being a decided step down. Not even a facade to pretend that the show wasn't an explicit marketing tool to make kids buy stuff. "Gotta catch 'em all" was the chant of the puerile, possession obsessed kiddies that we loathed. Quote: Dont you think that a game with a bit more serious story like any usual rpg and the motivation features Pokemon uses could be quite successfull? If you design it in that way you wouldnt compete with Pokemon but just pick up the kids who grow out of it and provide them with new game.So no, I don't think anything even like the game will sell well to my generation (but exceptionally well to others). From what I see, the folks around my age prefer more tactics, and less collection. Disgaea and its kin are very popular. Diablo and other roguelikes. Final Fantasy. They all have the collection sort of aspects, but those are not key to the game.Quote:Any more opinions on the topic? Did you ever thought of making a game like pokemon that matches your age better?One of the games in my queue of things to design up is a fantasy-style XCOM. Recruit and train a cadre of wizards, commandos, etc to battle demonic hordes. Ideally making character development replace the, shall we say... disposable nature of XCOM grunts.Quote: Or do you think it can only work with little children as target group?To be honest, every girl gamer I ever knew looooved collecting things. If it was done right I think it might work, though I'm skeptical that 'done right' will play nice with your core idea.   ;Quote:Original post by TelastynPerhaps you misunderstand me. People my age were always old enough to hate it because of its childishness. Further, it replaced "our" cartoons. Right or wrong, we saw pokemon as being a decided step down. Not even a facade to pretend that the show wasn't an explicit marketing tool to make kids buy stuff. "Gotta catch 'em all" was the chant of the puerile, possession obsessed kiddies that we loathed.I'm not sure about "hate". I don't know which age bracket you're in, but I'm in my thirties and I didn't mind the Pokemon cartoons. Sure, they were cheap and silly and obviously designed to move product, but it's not as if it was any different from the Transformers cartoons I watched in the eighties.I also agree that the one thing I find most lacking from Pokemon is the tactics. It's always been just very complex rock-paper-scissors. If you add an extra layer of tactics or strategy I'd find it more compelling, whether that's positioning, advanced teamwork, personality A.I. for the critters, whatever.And I think everyone secretly has an X-COM game idea floating around in their heads. [grin]One caveat you need to watch out for with Pokemon as a model is that a lot of the appeal comes from the quantity of content: loads and loads of creatures to collect, a big world, many movesets that interact in a complex way. Anything that relies on quantity takes a lot of time to make. It's an issue any small team needs to manage carefully.   ;Quote:Original post by TelastynQuote:Original post by LeartesThat is true but I think it is a big difference in Pokemon you collect heroes in a way. You not only build your party and fight and level up to become stronger and ultimately beat the game but you still catch Pokemon even if you know you dont need them to be strong.And? Tactical RPGs like XCOM allow you to collect/build heroes.But Pokemon doesn't let you recruit heroes, optimize their stats and equipment, train them, take them thorough countless battles and then make you watch them all get slaughtered the second blaster bombs and psi come into play.   ;Quote:If I missed a good game on the PC please tell me, I will try it right away.Zanzarah. Carbon copy of Pokemon, Fairytale style.   