French interview sheds new light on Pokémon MMO status

[Talon87]

In this French interview from last October, Junichi Masuda sings a slightly different tune regarding a Pokémon MMO than he has in previous years. ;o

JDGa: Internet a plein de fantasmes et un de ces fantasmes, c’est un MMO Pokémon. Est-ce inconcevable?

Masuda: Ça peut être une possibilité. En terme de stratégie, nous réfléchissons toujours à l’avenir de la licence Pokémon. Que ce soit en terme de jeux ou en terme de support, notre but est toujours de satisfaire les gens qui nous ont suivis, mais aussi de les surprendre. Nous voulons susciter de l’intérêt. Or, quand on veut susciter de l’intérêt, il faut essayer d’aller là où on ne nous attend pas. Mais surtout, nous voulons offrir aux joueurs des expériences qui soient excellentes. À partir de ce moment-là, on ne s’interdit rien ! On expérimente énormément de choses et si le genre de projet que vous avez évoqué s’avère viable, on ne s’interdit rien. Je pense que les gens peuvent continuer d’espérer, il est possible, qu’un jour, nous allions dans cette direction.

Most of his answer is the usual PR bullshit that dodges the original question. But at the very end, Masuda says this: "Je pense que les gens peuvent continuer d’espérer, il est possible, qu’un jour, nous allions dans cette direction." In English, I believe: "I think that people can continue to hope, it is possible, that one day, we would go in that direction." While this could mean nothing -- "Yeah, you suckers can keep on dreamin'. Ain't gonna happen " -- it could also indicate that the company is warming up to the idea after a decade of fan requests. It's certainly different language from what has been said in previous interviews regarding a Pokémon MMO.

[Shuckle]

It's kinda weird, seeing as Pokemon Bank is an unsubtle attempt to warm the userbase up to the idea of a monthly $5 subscription fee, and Dream World is an unsubtle attempt at "online pokemans".

Reading through the translated speech, it's the stuff before that really interests me. There's a lot of talk about possibilities and forbidden things.

This makes me think that PokeMMO is in the design stages, where they're trying to figure out what they want out of it. And that's really difficult! People who are gunning for a Pokemon MMO really don't have much beyond "IT'S POKEMON, AND IT'S MMO, TOGETHER!" - which I don't see the appeal of, as there are other genres of games that are more fun that could be combined with Pokemon.

I would probably die of happiness if there was a Pokemon First Person Shooter that was similar to Metroid, for example. You only need to have the main character be a Charizard that breathes streams of flame to immediately reap millions in profits.

So yeah, they're just trying to figure out which direction they want to go - set the vision, decide what the game's about, decide what features they want to make a core part of the game's function. That's pretty promising, actually.

Something interesting to note though:

>Decade of fan requests

Might some of these fans be working at Nintendo now? Fan requests are one thing. "Hey boss I was thinking of making this thing with this group of people by this time with this funding" is a loooot different.

[Jerichi]

Unofficial PokéMMO's have been done in the past and I've found them to be largely uninteresting and often subject to the I HAVE SIX MEWTWOS syndrome that plagues much of online Pokémon.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

Unofficial PokéMMO's have been done in the past and I've found them to be largely uninteresting and often subject to the I HAVE SIX MEWTWOS syndrome that plagues much of online Pokémon.

I would say that that's because those projects are all mismanaged. A proper Pokémon would put the "legendary" back in legendary. You should know better than to bring up this sort of argument when you've been a member of both the PASBL and Fizzy Bubbles, two Pokémon RPGs neither of which makes getting a legendary easy or in some cases even possible.

The point of a Pokémon RPG isn't to recreate the normal video games in an MMORPG space. It's to create the illusion of being an inhabitant of the Pokémon world. Part of creating that illusion is making it so that, for most players, your starter is the only starter you'll get in one year of playing; breeding is not something you can do willy nilly; eggs hatch through a combination of steps taken and time passed, where the minimum amount of time that must pass ranges from weeks to months; you can only have one egg at a time (seems typical of the anime world); and many other factors.

[The Morg]

I'm now imagining a networked Pokemon game called Ultimate Pokemon Network. Yeah, that'll work!

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Talon87

The point of a Pokémon RPG isn't to recreate the normal video games in an MMORPG space. It's to create the illusion of being an inhabitant of the Pokémon world. Part of creating that illusion is making it so that, for most players, your starter is the only starter you'll get in one year of playing; breeding is not something you can do willy nilly; eggs hatch through a combination of steps taken and time passed, where the minimum amount of time that must pass ranges from weeks to months; you can only have one egg at a time (seems typical of the anime world); and many other factors.

My problem with this (and based on my experience with Pokemon Online, which ate up a good year of my time in 2001) is the RP issue. What you're describing could be better achieved with complex simulation than real people, because to the end user outside of not being able to bring in real-world or online friends the interaction is the same. I haven't seen an MMO yet where the players didn't form a metagame culture and/or strip down the MMO down to its core equations for min/max manipulation.

Pokemon as an online game would basically be Smogon with a UI. While there's certain appeal to being able to curb the power creep, as you bring up it's already the case with many text-based Pokemon RPGs and the graphics become just a gimmick. Certainly, some gimmicks are essential to get people to play things (like the Team Rocket-themed Mafia) but in this case it's dressing up something people already play a lot of.

[Mercutio]

I really can't see how a pokémon MMO would be any good, sadly. A fully 3D, possibly first person, open world RPG where you can actually ride your pokémon and make them do stuff? Sweet. An MMO would just be idiots running around with ubers killing NPC Tyranitar.

[Chalis]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I really can't see how a pokémon MMO would be any good, sadly. A fully 3D, possibly first person, open world RPG where you can actually ride your pokémon and make them do stuff? Sweet. An MMO would just be idiots running around with ubers killing NPC Tyranitar.

This.
My thoughts exactly.
Although we already have Monster MMORPG.

[Shuckle]

Well I mean I'd give it a shot. And if it's fun that's great.

Talon, you shared the news so even though your post is neutral about it I feel you might want this maybe at least a little bit?

What would be the appeal of a PokeMMO?

[Talon87]

For the sake of simplifying my answer to your question, I'm going to ask us to start off with Fizzy Bubbles and to work from there. If you don't know how Fizzy Bubbles works, check it out or ask someone who does to explain it to you.

So ... imagine you have Fizzy Bubbles ... Now make the following changes:

• full confidence in the system's impartiality
• updates as much as you want as often as you want
• updates that you live rather than read about
• visuals which cut through the onerous burden of descriptive text
• the ability to co-adventure with other parties at will
• the ability to cease co-adventuring with other parties at will
• more trainer battles
• gym battles
• player-created content (including memes and other thought-content)
• community-wide shared experiences (FB has some of these but they are very rare)

In response to Doppel's and others' allegation that the game would reduce to munchkining, there are entire servers dedicated for roleplayers' use in many of the largest and most successful MMORPGs. If you don't want to roleplay, no one is stopping you from signing up on a different server. If you do want to roleplay, then you'll join a roleplaying server.

In response to Kush's claim that the MMO requester's desires would be better met by a single-player sandbox (like a Grand Theft Auto), a sandbox would be a fine upgrade from the JRPGs we're currently stuck with, yes, but it doesn't fill the same niche as an MMO. Namely this:

• single player sandbox: you're playing all by yourself
• multiplayer sandbox: you and a couple of friends or strangers on the Internet interact occasionally, perhaps play together continuously in hours-long sessions
• massively multiplayer sandbox: 10% to arbitrarily near but below 100% of the society in the game consists of player-controlled characters

If I want to play a canned Pokémon experience that is shared by everyone else on Planet Earth and then relay this experience to my friends on the Internet, I can already do this. Have already done this. But if I want to "co-op it" with a friend, I can't do that in a current Pokémon game. (Closest thing we have to co-op is multiplayer challenges at the Battle Frontier ... and the fools left that out of XY altogether. ) And if I want to have a more MMO-esque experience of on-again off-again adventuring with people, then I certainly can't do that. The game Kush describes would either tie me at the hip to my co-op partner or else deny me a multiplayer experience altogether. Only if it's like an MMO, where people can tune in and out of your party at will, could I hope to have the experience of a character whose story feels realistic. To provide some Kanto-appreciable examples:

• I make my way to Viridian City by myself.
• There, I meet up with Kuno. He escorts me through Viridian Forest, the two of us working together and splitting the spoils.
• Once we reach Pewter, he jets, having things he wants to do on Cinnabar Island. Meanwhile I explore Pewter solo.
• I make my way to Mt. Moon solo.
• Inside, I run into Yuki. Well hello! :o Would you like to team up?
• Yuki's like "Well sure! :o" and we team up. We have fun exploring Mt. Moon together. Neither of us has been here before, we don't have a map, it's dark, etc. It looks like she chose a Squirtle for her starter. I chose a Charmander. Maybe our types can cover one another's weaknesses in this cave ...
• Reaching Cerulean, Yuki and I decide to stick together a little while longer. We keep playing together on until we meet Bill.
• After meeting Bill, Yuki could use a break. So she (in-character) stays behind at Bill's cottage to talk to Bill about stuff / (out of character) logs out of the game here. Meanwhile I press onward towards Misty's gym.
• Some time later ...
• My starter is now a Level 32 Charmeleon and here I am, ready to head out on a hunt for a rare sighting: a shiny Oddish. Who wants to come with?
• Kindrindra pipes up. "I'd like to come with. :o" He's just started playing, only has a Level 11 Bulbasaur. I figure "Sure, we can look near Cerulean."
• Kind and I spend the afternoon on the banks of the river that courses through Cerulean City looking for a shiny Oddish. We're unsuccessful, but we have fun nonetheless.
• I part ways with Kind here, eager to return to the Celadon City Auction House. ;o Kind presses on with his adventure, readying to fight Misty. (Good luck!)

So on and so forth. You can't have these experiences with the standard games. And you can't have these experiences even if the standard games were refitted to feature a conventional co-op mode. If the standard games featured a co-op mode that permitted everything I've just described, then -- visuals killing the immersion aside -- it would pretty much be doing everything I've asked for. And would pretty much make the Pokémon games into de facto MMOs at that point. But if there's no chance of serendipitously running into player-controlled friends or strangers inside of caves or forests ... if instead you've gotta send out a friend invite any time you want to do co-op ... then no, sorry, but it's not doing what I want it to do.

I could probably explain more, but this should give more than enough for you to start with, Shuckle.

[Shuckle]

Ok you pretty much described Minecraft, which as MMOs go is fairly often overlooked (like 80% of the time i swear). That's actually a good thing, though, as Minecraft has a great design for an MMO, probably one of the best MMO designs ever. It supports a wide variety of user experiences ranging from "play wit muh 2 best friends" to "I WANT THE WHOLE INTERNET WITH ME RIGHT NOW", with minimized lag levels and a unique user experience. So that's all good with me that you want Nintendo to imitate that.

The proooooblem, though, is that Nintendo has to manage all this MMOing and adventuring ^_^;; and meanwhile it has to maintain that all-important family friendly atmosphere. Say hello, censors! Say hello, limited character customization! And say hello, hats!

I think? When someone says PokeMMO, they want PokeWoW. And let me tell you, I would never play a PokeWoW.

So we could end up with a multiplayer sandbox, which would be great. But I'd prefer a strict control over who I let into my game (like, Dream World level control where the difficulties are on the side of "holy balls how do i get people into this world" not "holy balls where did all these people come from with their 6 mewtwos and why won't they leave"), and with most of the experience coming from "Pokemon game with friends!" and not "Friends with Pokemon game!"

Probably you have no experience with MMOs, which is likely because they are for a certain kind of people (very few of whom are part of UPN). Let me tell you: your idea is nothing like the most popular MMOs marketed as MMOs (this excludes things like minecraft that have thriving single player modes; minecraft is closer to Kush's and your idea than World of Warcraft is.)

tl;dr: Please don't make pokemon world of warcraft, make a game where I get to ride a charizard and let me invite friends into it if I want.

[Talon87]

Considering I wrote my post based on the experiences of myself and my friends playing World of Warcraft ...

Considering that I don't think I at all describe Minecraft, which is an almost entirely unscripted experience (in the sense that nearly EVERYTHING is player-created, even the physical infrastructure of the world) ...

I feel like you just chose to see in my answer what you wanted to see. I mean, I guess that's good that you say you loved what I described? ^^; But what I described ... is what you'd find on a WoW RP server, based on my (admittedly limited) experience with the game as a player and my (much more lengthy) second-hand experience from friends' reports.

[Kindrindra]

Yeah, I don't really see what you're saying with it not being WoW-y, shuckle. When I was reading it, the game which sprung to mind from my experience was Dragon Nest, not Minecraft at all. And Dragon Nest is basically a more anime-y WoW, so.

But, yeah, what Talon described is pretty much exactly what I'd want to see in a pokemon MMO, too. Of course, I'm fully aware that such a thing would take a hilarious amount of work to make, but... I'd enjoy it. Even if it had a subscription fee, something I usually avoid.

[Shuckle]

WOW I'M SO SORRY I DON'T PLAY WOW JESUS H CHRIST MY CHEEKS THEY BURN WITH A THOUSAND EMBARRASSED SUNS

[Mercutio]

I really just can't see any way to make a pokeMMO that doesn't hugely suck dick.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I really just can't see any way to make a pokeMMO that doesn't hugely suck dick.

Care to explain?

[Mercutio]

Not really tbh.

[Shuckle]

Well personally I don't think it's going to end up like you described at all. It's going to end up "huge waiting times" "worlds filled with people" "6 mewtwos syndrome" and there really isn't a good way to stop it.

If you take away "play with many, many, MANY, MANY MANY MANY MANY other people," it's not an MMO anymore. You need some kind of open, public world for people to exist in. This means that either you need a very good system to separate the good from the bad from the godly or you need to make it so that the godly can't just go around crushing the bad.

No matter which way you slice it, it's not fun for anyone except for those who were there first, paradoxically due to those people who were there first.

[Mercutio]

I think there are plenty of elements of things like WoW or GW that you could do in a limited way. Guild Wars Alliance Battles with one pokémon each would basically be ASB's Grand Melees, for example.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Not really tbh.

I figured you'd say that. That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced that you're right and I'm wrong when all you're going to offer is doom-and-gloom naysaying with nothing to back it up. I completely understand if you would rather just agree to disagree though. That's fine.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Well personally I don't think it's going to end up like you described at all. It's going to end up "huge waiting times" "worlds filled with people" "6 mewtwos syndrome" and there really isn't a good way to stop it.

If you take away "play with many, many, MANY, MANY MANY MANY MANY other people," it's not an MMO anymore. You need some kind of open, public world for people to exist in. This means that either you need a very good system to separate the good from the bad from the godly or you need to make it so that the godly can't just go around crushing the bad.

No matter which way you slice it, it's not fun for anyone except for those who were there first, paradoxically due to those people who were there first.

One solution would be to have smaller caps on the total size of any given world-instance. So for example, if on World of Warcraft's servers the walkable area is 44,000 square miles and the population averages 29,000 players, then square mile for square mile we want to divide this by some number (say eight, arbitrarily) to make the world feel less populated by humans.

Another solution that is far less taxing on the server (I would think) would be to program it so that only 10% of the players on the server show up to you. The other 90%, who are playing around you even as we speak, you can't see. They're invisible. The 10% you can see are randomly assigned. If you friend someone in the 90%, they'll move over to the 10%. So you won't be locked out of seeing your friends who are on the same server as you. (Though you may be required to break the illusion of RPing for just a brief minute while you add this person you've yet to meet in game to your friend list.) You just won't see 90% of the server, all of whom are strangers. They'll still leave effects on your world which you can see or hear about. (Example: if Leeroy Jenkins is in your 90%, you can bet that people in your 10% will still be talking about him.) But they won't be running all about in your field of vision constantly. Also, the 90% don't have to be rigidly locked in. The game can randomly generate your list of who is in your 10% and who is in your 90% at regular intervals. (Once a month? Once a week? Once per session?) So again, it's not like you'll never have a chance to meet a particular stranger on your server: just that in any given session your odds are low.

Regarding the "Six Mewtwo Syndrome" people keep bringing up ...

• First, you make it so that no one can capture legendaries. Period. They can be interacted with in game as guides, bosses, etc. And perhaps select NPCs may own one or more. But no player-controlled characters may own one. Whether legendaries are powerful or not in the regular games, they're called "legendaries" precisely because they're like dragons and unicorns in real life: creatures that people once believed were real, and maybe they are real, but in the modern age we've come to the conclusion that they're myths because no one in modern times has been able to prove that they've seen one or that one at any time existed. In real life, there isn't one man in Ottawa who is known to own the world's only known unicorn. No one is known to own a unicorn. And so no one should be known to own a unicorn, i.e. a legendary, in Pokémon either. (Again, if you absolutely must have someone owning one, then have it be an NPC.)
• Second, while I don't believe that it should even be of concern to you that the occasional person wants to have a team of six Talonflame or six Raichu or whatever, the programmers could easily put measures in place which encourage players to diversify. Measures which say, "If you want to have the same thing six times over then you can, but you're going to have to sign off on this paperwork to do it, you're going to have to prepare to have a bad time on occasion, etc. Basically, we hope that having the same thing six times over is its own reward to you. " Not that I think they should even bother with this. If someone wants to run around with six Nidoking, let him. But I'm saying, it'd be rather easy to implement if you're so worried about it. Sample pressures include:
  • making it difficult to extricate yourself from combat in the wild; and at the same time programming it so that no area outside the basic training grounds can be curbstomped by a single type. Example: if you're running a team of six Talonflame in a forest area, yes, you'll murder most things there ... but then suddenly you're waylaid by three Dwebble and oh shit you just got wiped out. (This pressure already exists in the real games.)
  • requiring players to reach a benchmark before they can own a duplicate creature. Example: you have to have three gym badges. Similar benchmarks for triplicates, quadruplicates, and so on.
  • requiring players to pay an obscene amount of currency to buy the duplicate slot. Making the affair cost prohibitive for all save the players who most desperately want a squad of all the same creature.
  • designing the world in such a way that it will generally be impassable if you insist on running all of the same creature. Example: six Talonflame can't swim, six Seaking can't climb mountains, and six Golem can't fly.
  • Making it so that you can't change your team except at designated stations; and that you can't easily reach those stations out in the middle of the wilderness. (Again, the real games already do this.) Possibly even making it so that, in the first few expansions of the game, trainers cannot use their Pokémon to fly, teleport, or dig from place to place.
  Like I said, I'm not saying I like any one of these. I've specifically stated that I don't even think you should care about what other people want to do with their teams. But I'm just saying that the concerns you've expressed are easily dealt with by a team that shares your views. Unavoidable they are most definitely not.

[Mercutio]

Well it's more that others have said much of it and I can see almost limitless flaws in the basic premise that would take a lot of combing through to come up with something cogent.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Well it's more that others have said much of it and I can see almost limitless flaws in the basic premise that would take a lot of combing through to come up with something cogent.

"Limitless" ... such as?

[Doppleganger]

Legendaries can be in the game, but they can't breed except with other legendaries or they don't make legendary babies. Similar to breeding with rare and endangered animals right now, nobody's seen a javan rhino in ages.

Also, I want to marry Erika. How to resolve this when another guy wants to marry her. Do I just kill him and turn his Pokemon into Magikarp food?