Should Pokémon Be Turn-Based Forever?

Should mainline Pokémon always feature turn-based combat? Or could a real-time Pokémon exist in the future?

If you like what I do, please consider supporting me on Patreon!

TWOOTER: @ArloStuff

This video was edited by the excellent Yoshiller!

"Reloaded Installer #11" by LHS.

[lunarose]

The A.I. from trainers, the level curve, even the layout of the regions are aspects Pokémon needs to improve on. The turn base aspect is the blood and soul of the franchise. Pokémon should never get rid of it, but instead improve on the challenge and strategy of turn base. Legends is honestly A step in the right direction when it comes to how Pokémon should be handled.

[Hawlo]

Trust me, Arlo. If Game Freak changes mainline Pokemon to action-based instead of turn-based but keeps the same design philosophies the series currently has, it's not going to fix the issues that you have with the series.
It's like you say in the video. Other RPGs prove that Pokemon still has a lot of potential left untapped as a turn-based series. But I don't think current Pokemon WANTS to be that.

[KujaTheDarkOne]

"So imagine if you were running around... but you were also shouting out moves and watching them play out. And maybe even telling your Pokemon how to maneuver so they can better dodge attacks."

You just described Digimon World (the original and the newer ones)! The answer of what that would be like is 'frustrating, for the most part.' It largely depends on the AI of the monster you're directing and the monsters they're fighting. I think it COULD be done well, but as much as I love Digimon I can't say they've managed to do so yet.

[TyandOnGoing]

Mainline 100% yes because that's the only way they can keep up with new animations and models stuff. However, spin offs no it should not remain turn based because with a spin off you have more room to exercise in terms of story, content, and battles.

[sunsp.t]

The problem isn’t the turn-based combat, it’s that Pokémon never uses it’s combat to require strategic play. If the developers had enemies with teams and resources comparable to the player, the experience would improve. This is what makes Shin Megami Tensei a superior game from a gameplay perspective. As good as Arceus may be, SMTV is probably still already a more refined version of that gameplay experience.

[EAtheatreguy]

Through my exposure to the competitive scene and rom hacks, I fully believe that the combat system more or less as is is fully sufficient to provide a much more compelling experience. If gyms had level caps, if trainers has more competent AI, if the main game battles required just a fraction of the strategy that the competitive scene does and they stopped cutting corners with animation and sped up in game battles, I think you don't need to alter the core battle formula at all to make a more rewarding pokemon experience.

[OldTimeyDragon]

One thing to consider: With how many Pokémon there are, is it really even tenable to have each of them have real-time movement and attack styles? I remember games like Spectrobes, and while that game was interesting, there was a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount of monsters to choose from. Food for thought.

[peacocca]

I don’t want them to ditch turn based. But I’d be all for them making it more in-depth and strategic for more then just competitive.

[doctorxawesomestop-motion]

20:45 I think that this is absolutely valid and is the plan... the key is in the name. It’s not called “Pokémon Legends” or “Pokémon: the Legend of Arceus”, it’s “Legends: Arceus”. Which probably means that there are plans for other Legends games, like maybe Legends: Kyurem, exploring the story of the original dragon, or Legends: Rayquaza, exploring what Zinnia talks about in OR/AS, with Rayquaza stopping Primal Kyogre and Groudon with the first Mega Evolution. It definitely seems like they’re planning a series here.

[izzy]

Every time Arlo talks about Pokemon, I wish more and more that he would give Shin Megami Tensei a try.

As a longtime Pokemon fan, branching out into other JRPGs, and especially the SMT franchise, has given me a fresh perspective and a lot to think about regarding Pokemon.

I think that Pokemon's combat system has a lot of things going for it, the 1v1 format is different from any other long running JRPG series I can think of, and there's a lot of mechanics that are simple to understand, but can have a huge impact on how a battle unfolds. Held items, abilities, having PP instead of an overall energy pool, the 4-move limit, move types vs pokemon types, status effects, etc.

I'd argue that ultimately the biggest problem with Pokemon's combat system is how slow the games present these battles to you. Showing a text box for *every* instance of a pokemon's status effect, and *every* time a pokemon takes damage from weather. Then there's the fact that the camera almost never changes, it's not very dynamic at all. The most the camera moves is for some move animations, and panning around if you're taking too long to select your next move. It's boring to watch. God help you if you're in a battle with a weather effect, poison, confusion, and leech seed all active at once.

Discussion about Pokemon's difficulty and balancing is also relevant to this conversation- even if they switch to the most enjoyable action combat system anyone could ever hope to see, if you can still beat 90% of the game's combat by just spamming super-effective moves, that will still feel boring because players aren't having to make meaningful and strategic decisions.

[pockystyx]

we’ve been losing turn based RPGs for a long time now; and while I agree Pokemon needs a shot in the arm, I think taking away the one last big commercially successful turn based franchise would be a big blow to the genre.

On a related note; in a fairer world we’d probably have a ton more turn based RPGs out there; and some of the Pokemon-likes have shown us that the systems can be toyed with to great effect.

[gigabowserpwns]

The thing about it no longer being turn based is, that would be good for a spinoff, but I want the main series to stay like that. Imagine if the next mainline mario decided the series was no longer a platformer.

[OniLink]

This ended up being a much more nuanced discussion than I feared it might be, so kudos Arlo! Really well done =D Not to speak for you, but as someone who designs RPGs myself, I actually don't think the battle system is your main issue with Pokemon - but rather, it's how that battle system is used. The balance and design of a Pokemon game's content tends to be really flat and uninspired. They don't create unique scenarios or challenges that the player has to overcome in battle; they don't try to teach you the nuances of combat and then put it to the test; and too often they repeat the same few Pokemon in battle, rather than using the immense number of Pokemon to provide constant variety in every fight. Presentation can also be an issue too.

I'm all for Pokemon's combat evolving though, and Arceus looks like it's done exactly what I'd hoped for by introducing a turn order system with attack speeds factoring into battle. To be fair to the devs, the fact that Pokemon maintain a system that's complex enough for high-level PvP, but simple enough for millions of children to pick up, is incredible. Honestly, in that way, the Pokemon devs have a challenge that no other RPG developer I can think of has. But I think the foundations are solid; a lot of the issue is just how those foundations are utilised in the core game.

Also, on the top of turn-based combat being antiquated, that's a bit of a misnomer. While turn-based combat was definitely a perfect fit for the limited hardware of the 80s, it wasn't developed purely because of limitations - but rather spun out of classic war games and tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. The Game Boy and NES had *far* more action games than they did turn-based ones; turn-based just allowed for a more strategic and thoughtful kind of combat. In general, I'd say genres are never antiquated; it just depends on what kind of game you want to develop and play =)

[thepokemonqueen]

switching up the combat can be interesting, but the main reason I like the turn-based combat is that it's not reaction-based, so I get a chance to think and strategize. if it was full real-time action, I know I'd definitely struggle, especially because in games like smash bros I end up just button mashing.

however, this is why the spin offs exist! pokemon ranger, mystery dungeon, rumble, pokepark, GO, even the stadium and colosseum games provide alternate gameplay and we're at the point where there's something for almost everyone. I definitely understand the frustration from people that don't like how the main game gameplay has been pretty stagnant over the years, but again I both like the combat as it is and I'm not keen on changing it drastically in general 😅

with legends arceus though, I hope that it's enough of a change to keep people happy, but similar enough that people like me don't feel lost. I'd argue that Pokémon is in a unique position, the sheer size of the franchise means that a change of any size will be even more noticeable. from what I've seen of pla though I'm definitely looking forward to it, including the combat system

[awesomeness]

Well I'm always of the mind that you can do anything you want in spin-offs so you can always test before you change like what legends Arceus seems to be doing.

[roperl]

I think we shouldnt discount the importance of turn based combat as a system, turning it to an action rpg is the equivelent to giving two chess grandmasters a pair of boxing gloves and having them duke it out that way, its not to say theres not something interesting with that, but the two are entirely different games and I think you could build on turn based rpgs in their own way, legends arceus having the speed bar in itself is kind of crazy a change in itself, other games include features like moving around a board such as fire embelem, another thing we gotta consider is one of the big sells of pokemon is the pvp elements, i think you could do something with that as an alternate match system, because they have explored alternate match systems such as double and tripple battles and the battle royal and even contests, i think theres something they could do with turn based combat still that shouldnt be discounted

[ArloStuff]

Just for the record, I know that Pokémon's current system does have depth, especially when you look at the competitive scene. Maybe I should have clarified that. But when I play a Pokémon game, almost none of that depth actually comes through. The four-move system only REALLY works when you consider the whole meta. Just playing casually, I've grown bored with it. I maintain that it's too simple and could use a shake-up, even if it never ditches the turn-based style.

OKAY ALSO ADDING, people are coming away from this video thinking I don't like turn-based combat and that I think all of it is antiquated. That's simply not the case, at all. I specifically mentioned how I like it. But maybe I didn't spend enough time elaborating or something? Dunno. Just please know that that's not what I'm saying in this video. I'm just trying to explore all sides of the argument.

[feynxwright]

I don't think Pokémon needs to expand more after arceus, between types, weather, buffs, abilities, just different moves and now priority all they need to do is make the player use these systems

[jetpackandbutlers]

Absolutely, turn based for pokemon makes sense since, you are not controlling the Pokemon, you are the trainer giving commands to the Pokemon, converting that to Action would be pretty messy. A tactical RPG though would be an interesting change

[numberfifth]

My two cents: turn-based combat is very important to me in gaming because when every action needs to timed, I panic. I don't think well on the fly, and I enjoy games far, far more when I'm able to take each action at my own pace.
As many others are pointing out, the pokemon combat system is and has become quite rich, at least if you look at the meta. The problem lies within the main campaign, which is why simply adding different difficulty options in-game (MAJOR difference to self-imposed limitations like nuzlockes) would go a long way. Also, y'know, utilizing the hardware to make the battles LOOK way more dynamic. Right now, they are incredibly stale, at least from a visual perspective.