That One Thing You'd Change: Pokemon EditionSeptember 12, 2013 by

To start with, yes, I am a grown-ass man discussing Pokemon online in his spare time. You know what I say to that?

All right, now that that's out of the way, let's get into it.


Imagine you can change one thing about the Pokemon series moving forward. What would it be?

I'd love to see Game Freak try something new in terms of the game's structure like letting you tackle gyms out of order; or having Team Whatever actually steal and raise your starter Pokemon after the first gym, forcing you to rely on the rest of your pokemans (let me show u them) for the duration of the story; or allowing players to target specific parts of the enemy during battle a la Fallout's VATS; or maybe even something as small as *gasp!* offering anything other than the fire/water/grass trinity for starters.

Really though, if I could change just one thing about the entire series, if I absolutely had to choose, I would make all Legendary Pokemon uncatchable.


Put down your torches and pitchforks Pokefans, and hear me out.

Legendary Pokemon are a staple of the series, and certainly not something I would want omitted from future games. However, it makes no sense to me that these creatures--which more often than not represent forces of nature or even nature itself and are supposed to be so powerful they can create and wipe out entire continents--should be caught and contained in a kindergartener's pocket. Worse, once they are caught, they just end up being a moderately powerful monster that's arbitrarily lent legendary difficulty by being level 70 when the player's Pokemon are around level 50. Grind enough and you can wipe the floor with them using a Rattatta. Hell, once you've leveled everything up enough, the Legendary Pokemon seems little more than average. And does it make any sense that every trainer you encounter online should have a legendary or two in his party?

I think that battles with Legendaries should be an epic, story-defining moment. To that end, I think Legendaries should have a level unattainable by other Pokemon, something absurd like level 150. Of course, to keep them from wiping the floor with the trainer, the game should impose some sort of restriction on the Legendary during early encounters, like having them be wounded or groggy from their centuries long sleep, etc etc. Finally, and this is probably the thing that will piss you off the most, dear reader, I think that select NPCs should have one legendary at their command for the player to battle at key moments in the story. The leader of the Elite Four, for example, might have befriended a legendary and uses it to fight the player for the title; or perhaps the game's villain might be wielding one as a weapon with the aid of some nefarious mind-control device. There should always be someone bigger and badder than the player out there, giving them something to strive towards.

There kinds of encounters would make a lot more sense in light of the games' and animes' stories. Granted, no one really plays through Pokemon for the story--though Game Freak did make some strides in that department with Black and White--but it would be nice for the games' world to have some internal consistency.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have some sort of reward for beating a Legendary within the story. Maybe all the Pokemon that assisted with the battle should get special stat boosts, or have access to a certain move that can only be learned from fighting said legendary. Maybe there should be Pokemon that only evolve after assisting in the defeat of a Legendary. Maybe their evolved form and stats could even change depending on which legendary they encounter, though of course you'd then have to make it possible for players to summon Legendaries more than once for battle in order to "catch 'em all," perhaps in the game's post-game area with a one encounter per day limit.

And, and, and...            ...I'm putting way too much thought into this, aren't I?


All right, that's enough from me.

What would you change, dear reader, if you had the power? How would that impact the series moving forward? Most importantly, would you be willing to get a Pokemon tattoo in order to make it happen? Let's have the very best discussion, like no one ever had. Gotta discuss 'em all!

Corny joke? Yeah. But I say again:

P.S. One more thing. If Nintendo ever did make legendaries uncatchable, I think Mewtwo as a lesser clone of mew, should be downgraded from Legendary status to mere "freaking awesome catchable." Why? Because they've already given it a super transformation...

...and because I'll always want one.

Submit Blog
Will The 4DS Take After The 3DS or 2DS?September 10, 2013 by

Now that the dust has settled on the 2DS reveal, I thought now would be a good time to start talking about Nintendo's next handheld release (It's never too early, right? =P) No, not the 2DS XL, though such a thing must surely be on its way. I mean Nintendo's next generation handheld, which we'll call the 4DS for convenience. Historically we've got another 2-4 years before we even lay eyes on this thing, but that just means that Nintendo's deep into the design phase right now.

So, what should they do with it?

Now, I'm sure we could all put out a list of features (or gimmicks depending on where you stand) that would make the 4DS our dream handheld, but I'd like to keep the conversation a little more grounded for this first look at Nintendo's next handheld. We've already examined some of the possible motivations behind the 2DS's design, so let's take those design decisions and apply them to the future. Will the 2DS's design influence that of the 4DS? If so, what aspects of the design will carry over?

I've broken it down into a couple of categories to facilitate discussion, but feel free to make up your own if I've missed anything.


1. To 3D or Not 3D That is the question?

Pros: glasses free 3D is a freaking sweet effect that adds a lot of depth even in its earliest form, and now, with new wide angle, high resolution, and even holographic glasses-free 3D screens, things only stand to get better.

Cons: it's expensive to implement, it requires that a portion of the system's graphical prowess be held in reserve when not using 3D, and it's not as big a consumer draw as Nintendo (and TV makers for that matter) might have hoped.


2. One Screen, Two Screen, Red Screen, Blue Screen?

Pretty much everyone knows by now Nintendo removed the 3D screen and the folding hinges from the 2DS. What everyone may not know is that they actually removed one of its screens as well. The 2DS is actually rocking a single large screen cut in two and shaped by a plastic barrier. That means that a crafty modder could feasibly purchase a 3DS, remove that barrier and even make use of the entire screen by installing their own custom firmware.

The question is, will Nintendo do the same with their next handheld? If enough screens of a certain size are manufactured, then they could actually be cheaper for Nintendo to use than two smaller screens. So, what do you say, should Nintendo keep the clamshell design, or go with a more tablet-like form-factor?


3. What's Your Orientation?

Now, it may not be immediately obvious, but even if they go with a single screen Nintendo still has to decide whether it will sit in a portrait or landscape orientation.

If you're anything like me, the very idea of a portrait-oriented screen in a handheld sounds pretty ludicrous. The image would be too tall and not have enough peripheral vision. Then I saw a mockup by Neogaf member, TheCongressman1 that made me start to warm to the idea. I'm not sure if it's okay for me to just repost his work on here, so instead I'll link you to his post.

Check it out: The Mario Galaxy one gets me every time.

Of course, if they went for a landscape orientation on a single screen they'd end up with a handheld that looks something like the Wii U gamepad, though hopefully slimmed down a bit. Playing 3DS games on such a screen would look weird though as it would leave more than half of the screen empty. I suppose they could just try to design the system without worrying about backwards compatibility--after all, that design philosophy didn't do the Wii U much good--but I can't help but thing that would spark a huge backlash among Nintendo handheld gamers.



Do you think Nintendo's next handheld will adhere to the 2DS or 3DS design philosophies in these three areas? Which ones and why? Discuss!

Submit Blog
Let's Discuss the 2DS's Design: Just... Why?September 5, 2013 by

Sorry if this post is a little late to the party, but I actually didn't mean to write it. Initially this was the introduction to another post that sought to discover what, if any, effect the 2DS's design might have on Nintendo's next handheld (look forward to that one soon). The intro got so long, however, that I thought I might as well spin it off into its own blog. So, let's talk about it. Before we begin, a quick confession, I've been reading the Neogaf thread on the 2DS so my impressions may be colored by (or, in some cases, lifted from) the opinions of various individuals involved in that discussion. Okay, let's go.

We've all seen the 2DS by now, and most of us have scratched our heads or giggled at the odd contraption, or (if you're like me) done both at the same time. Many of us thought it was a practical joke. Certainly all of us asked ourselves why Nintendo had put this peculiar device out and how it was that they came up with its, erm, unique design. Turns out, Nintendo has a ready answer to both questions if you look closely enough.

If you really want to get into it I recommend you read IGN's 2DS announcement article, but, in short, Nintendo has stated that they designed the 2DS to 1. be an entry level system (ie. cheap) that 2. is targeted at younger gamers. So let's compare the 2DS and 3DS and see if we can't figure out the "whys" behind some of the changes in its design. Of course, as Shigeru Miyamoto once said: "A good idea is something that does not solve just one single problem, but rather can solve multiple problems at once," so we'll be seeing single changes facilitating both of their design goals at once and addressing even in several ways at once.

#1 3D Removed:

Cutting the 3D will alleviate the fears of parents who are concerned about any negative effects glasses-free 3D might have on a young child's developing vision, thus making it more marketable to young children. Primarily though I think the removal of 3D was a cost decision. 3D screens are both more complicated to manufacture than regular screens and not as widely used, which makes them much more expensive. In fact, according to estimates in an early teardown by the 3D screen "has the biggest cost differential of any major subsystem of the new gaming system compared to the DSi."


#2 A Single Screen:

Everyone knows that Nintendo removed 3D from the 2DS, but what many fail to realize is that Nintendo has also removed one of its screens. The dual screens of the 2DS are actually a single large LCD panel shaped and divided by a plastic border. Weird right? I mean, if one of the primary motivations of the redesign is to lower costs, then wouldn't two smaller screens be cheaper than one large screen? Not necessarily. There are a lot of LCD makers out there producing smartphone-sized, widescreen panels, which, according to supply and demand, would bring the price per panel down. Better yet, thanks to the plastic border that turns a single LCD panel into two screens, Nintendo could actually buy flawed LCD panels to use in the 2DS so long as those flaws were hidden by the divider. Of course we can't know for sure that they're working with flawed panels--not until tech sites start cracking them open to see what's inside--but if they are, then you can bet they're getting a heck of a deal on those screens, further reducing the manufacturing cost of the handheld.

Non-Folding Design:

I think the primary reason for taking out the hinges was to facilitate allow for the savings of a single screen listed above. However, moving away from the clamshell design also makes the 2DS more robust and able to hold up against the abuse its young owners will surely hurl at it. Yes, without the clamshell the screens will be exposed and more likely to get scratched, but on the other hand there is no more danger of the system developing the cracked hinges that have been the DS family's Achilles heel from the beginning.

Of course, this means that the 2DS isn't pocket friendly like its folding brethren, but in the age of the iPad where folks haul ten inch tablets around with them in messenger bags, backpacks, and purses that doesn't seem such a major concern.

Mono Sound:

I believe this is purely a cost-cutting measure, and a clever one too, as the difference is not likely to be noticed by young gamers.

Everything else:

the tapered design, moving the controls up, changing the shoulder pads, making Start and Select physical buttons, the sleep button, etc. etc. all seem like necessary tweaks, mere accessories to the radical design choices listed above. They make the 2DS more usable in light of those changes, certainly but they don't help Nintendo realize either of its primary goals with the system in and of themselves.



So, there you have it. The dual goals of cutting costs and appealing to very young gamers informed this crazy redesign, and, viewed in that light, it's actually really smart. At first I thought the 2DS proved that Nintendo was losing its marbles. Now I look at it as proof that they're right on point. They've focused in like a laser on what they want out of this system, and done some very clever things (especially if that bit about damaged LCD panels ends up being right) to realize their goals.

Don't get me wrong, I still think it's ugly and more than a little crazy, but crazy in a good way, crazy like a fox... or a tanooki or something. Whatever mode of madness they're rocking, they're about to put out an inexpensive system for young kids just in time for the release of Pokemon X and Y. They're going to make a lot of money this holiday season.

Anyway, what do you think? Is the 3DS ugly? Is it smart? Do you see a method to Nintendo's madness or are they just out of their minds? Have I made a grave error in my reasoning (always a possibility)? Have any of my claims been unwise (a near-certainty)? Let's talk about it. Now that the dust has settled, tell me, what do you think of the 2DS?



Submit Blog