Start-To-Pokémon

[Maruno]

We all know that making creatures fight each other is the point of Pokémon games. On that note, how long do you think you should play a game before:

a) being given a Pokémon?
b) being let loose into the world with it?

Are there any situations in which it would be acceptable to make these times longer? Is there such a thing as "too soon"?

 

[TechSkylander1518]

I think getting up to being given a Pokemon should happen pretty quickly after the initial burst of story. Most of the interaction with the world requires having a Pokemon, and there's the barrier of tall grass to worry about. But that's assuming the game takes things a standard route-with a more unique plot or setting, the player can go a good while before getting one. (Attack on Silph Co is a great example of this)

Being let loose seems like it should happen right after the Pokemon is received-there's only so many times you can look at a front sprite, after all-but it's not like having the Pokemon is causing the player any extra burden. If something else happens between then, there's not going to be much trouble, save for maybe the player getting antsy.

I don't think "too soon" can really be a problem-a lot of the canon games tend to start with getting a Pokemon and heading off into the next route.

 

[Ice]

The start of a fangame is difficult because I want your story to grasp me and draw me in, but I, like many others, also get bored by long cut scenes and short bursts of gameplay where you just... walk. I personally feel like the first route is a great place to set up story. Create a quick but poignant scene to hand a player their pokemon, but from there on, infuse some basic story set-up in gameplay.

 

[Dragonite]

I think when you get the Pokémon should be heavily dependent on what the story is about. On one extreme you could play the "amnesia" card (:thinking face:) and give the player the starter almost immediately and let them figure out why on their own time, while on the other extreme maybe you could play the "overprotective mom who doesn't want you to have a Pokémon" card and force the player to run a good number of errands around town before letting you have one. Saying a game mechanic has to be a certain way is generally less-than-productive.

Disclosure: I was one of the few people who did not give a flying skitty that the rest of the Internet considered the beginning to Sun and Moon "slow." Gen 8 could make me wait until Act II to give me my starter for all I care.

 

[Deo]

I'm definitely a fan of getting your starter Pokémon and getting the adventure started sooner rather than later. Even if the player is railroaded into a bunch of plot events afterwards, it at least feels like they have a little bit more freedom and that the game has "started", so to speak.

When I play fan games that have a lot of time in-between starting and getting your first Pokémon, I start to wonder if maybe whatever exposition or story events that are going on (assuming they aren't directly related to getting your starter) could have been eased into after letting the player loose. And if there isn't any story stuff happening and it's more "let's make the player walk two towns over for their Pokémon!", why include it if nothing interesting is going on? How does it benefit from the player not having a Pokémon?

For my own projects, I try to keep this sort of stuff in mind and even ended up timing how long it took to get your starter. The player's time is valuable, so you may as well try to capture their interest early on.

 

[Hematite]

I definitely agree that a fast start is ideal in most cases, but just to add something as an example of a slow start that was justified: in SM, if you'd gotten your starter before rather than after meeting Lillie on the bridge, the bridge scene would have gone down completely differently, which may have been something that Game Freak wanted to avoid or that would have kept them from telling the story they wanted. Something like that - where your game has a very strong beginning as it is and you can tell a better story by waiting to give Pokémon, whether to show that the player is already a good person without relying on them or because having Pokémon would change the resolution of a problem - is definitely a valid reason to hold off.

But if it's just exposition and not things happening in the present and to the player, you can surely stand to wait to do those things until the player has a Pokémon! Do whichever gives you more options, not fewer.

In before USUM have the same plot, but you get your starter sooner and the entire thing snowballs from there into a different story.

 

[doof]

Well, personally, if the story stuff leading up to it is interesting and well-written, even better when I can actually interact and do stuff, then I'd be fine sitting through it. But if it's just 'mash A until I can move' then I'l probably have an issue with it.

I would agree that it's best to get a starter as soon as possible, however in certain scenarios you could probably have a longer gap before then - provided it's done well enough to keep the player engaged.

 

[entei]

It's gonna be a lot better for the player the earlier they can play. They play the game to experience battling and such, so there's usually not much reason to take that away from them. The only time I'd say it's excusable is if the game is a lot more story-based, but that only tends to work if you can fit in the narrative that it gives you without it dragging on too long.

The main example of working in a story not being beneficial to the player in my opinion was Insurgence. Before you get into the game you're forced to play through a 10-15 minute story sequence. Although working in a good story is nice and all, it just kinda diminished my excitement to play through the game a bit by not letting me actually go onto my adventure until 20~ minutes in.