Jump to content


Should there be a Pokemon tactics


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_kiyosaki

Guest_kiyosaki
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:04 PM

So i haven't played all the Pokemon games but I'm pretty sure Pokemon doesn't have a tactics version of it. yet.I've always wanted a tactical version of the game to be released simply because it would take the game into a new level of fighting with Pokemon. When ever playing Pokemon I've always used Brut strength to fight my opponents, thus resulting in my decline interest in the game.But,Imagine if Pokemon was like TRPG like advance wars or fire emblem or final fantasy tactics. not only would there be greater skill involved, things like terrain, positioning of PKMN, PKMN type, number of PKMN, how to catch other PKMN, how to fight groups of PKMN etcwould greatly increase the difficult and enjoyability of Pokemon.So what do you guys think? Should there be a Pokemon tactics?
  • 0

#2 Guest_Munkatten

Guest_Munkatten
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 17 June 2009 - 01:22 PM

Pokemon is a great universe for a tactics game, and anyone who's played a pokemon game would instantly understand unit types and attacks. Making it a tactics game would be amazing.So yes! There should be a pokemon tactics. With online play.
  • 0

#3 Guest_rayquaza92

Guest_rayquaza92
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 23 June 2009 - 03:56 AM

I'd like to get it if there is one. Yeah definitely there should be one tactical game for pokemon.
  • 0

#4 Guest_ads_10_11

Guest_ads_10_11
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 26 September 2009 - 12:23 PM

I don't think pokemon should change it's original turn based RPG... BUT!! I saw this, and thought to myself.. I love tactics games, loved the final fantasy on GBA, and Advanced Wars, Fire Emblem etc. And I am just checking out Final Fantasy tactics on DS, and I think that pokemon as a tactics game would be great! I think it would be an interesting game, I would definitely play it, but i can't really say whether it will be very successful or not.
  • 0