PDA

View Full Version : Do u think PBR is a dissapointment compared to stadium?


kabigon
December 13th, 2007, 01:27 PM
I do. PBR is lacking so many of the fun features that stadium had and I really think PBR is a dissapointment.

Thomas
December 13th, 2007, 01:44 PM
From what I've heard, the game cube titles are better than Battle Revolution, but not the stadium titles.

kabigon
December 13th, 2007, 01:50 PM
I have played the gamecube games and stadium games and the stadium ones were better in my opinion.

Ausaudriel
December 13th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Well, I haven't played Battle Revolution yet, but from everything I know about it I'd say Stadium 1/2 are better. D:

Colosseum and Gale of Darkness were utter garbage in comparison. :x Different styles of game, I know, but in terms of console games, I just think Stadium and Stadium 2 were the best, I'd like them revisited on the Wii, myself.

Ooka
December 13th, 2007, 02:35 PM
Well, it depends on what you like, if you like having no Wi-Fi, and having to actually level your Pokemon to level 100 on your GB before they can be an even level with the game, then you should go with Stadium 1/2. If you like Wi-Fi, and auto level 50 battles, go with Battle Revolution.

P.S., I don't think it's a dissapointment.

Coyotl
December 13th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Back in the day stadium was actually something exciting and revolutionary for gamers. Pokemon Battle "Revolution" is a skimpy game with almost no depth outside of random battles. At least stadium had minigames and other things to do. I traded in PBR after a few weeks of owning it.

So yes, Pokemon Battle "Revolution" was in my opinion, pretty mediocre shovelware thrown out by the Pokemon Company in order to make a quick buck on gamers whose eyes twinkled at the thought of 3D online battles. Which it did, sadly. Because 3D online battles were the only thing it had that were worth getting. But NOT for $50.00 MSRP.

wakachamo
December 13th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Exactly. PBR is a disappointment compared to Stadium simply because the novelty's gone.

sims796
December 13th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Back in the day stadium was actually something exciting and revolutionary for gamers. Pokemon Battle "Revolution" is a skimpy game with almost no depth outside of random battles. At least stadium had minigames and other things to do. I traded in PBR after a few weeks of owning it.

So yes, Pokemon Battle "Revolution" was in my opinion, pretty mediocre shovelware thrown out by the Pokemon Company in order to make a quick buck on gamers whose eyes twinkled at the thought of 3D online battles. Which it did, sadly. Because 3D online battles were the only thing it had that were worth getting. But NOT for $50.00 MSRP.

Exactly. PBR is a disappointment compared to Stadium simply because the novelty's gone.

Oh my God, yes. I couldn't agree more on this. I would buy it if it was $30 cheaper.

Anti
December 13th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I actually like gale of darkness, it's a decent spin-off. I just like getting my heal bell articuno :P

But I agree, PKMN Battle Revolution was kind of meh. Being a Wii owner, I was greatly disappoonted. I found myself bored...it's a good thing I rented it!

Kittyipawd
December 13th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Well I haven’t exactly owned it but I think it is awesome because it is like an "addition" to D/P, sort of like a mini game; you get to prove yourself again in poketopia. I heard the last coliseum is especially hard after you beat it so that would be fun and random wifi battles are so much better than scheduling them on D/P in my opinion .
________________

Shiny Umbreon
December 13th, 2007, 06:48 PM
Well I haven’t exactly owned it but I think it is awesome because it is like an "addition" to D/P, sort of like a mini game; you get to prove yourself again in poketopia. I heard the last coliseum is especially hard after you beat it so that would be fun and random wifi battles are so much better than scheduling them on D/P in my opinion .

But it's not worth $50. You get pretty much the same fun in the Battle Tower or through Wi-Fi battles in D/P.

Kittyipawd
December 13th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I unlike most people I appreciate the graphics of PBR (D/P's are to boring) I just don't really like how the physical moves are displayed though but PBR good sides are...

good: it is in 3-D, there is a awesome ranking system ,i love that annoucer dude and all of his scripts, Poketopia itself.

bad: It pretty much sucks if you don't have wifi or a competitive team , and it is $50 bucks

Thats about it

Yingxue
December 14th, 2007, 07:32 AM
I think that it would've been a lot better had they added some of the same features that Stadium had. It would've probably made for a better game. Though I've never played Battle Revolution, I don't know if I want to.

wakachamo
December 14th, 2007, 07:35 AM
I unlike most people I appreciate the graphics of PBR (D/P's are to boring) I just don't really like how the physical moves are displayed though but PBR good sides are...

good: it is in 3-D, there is a awesome ranking system ,i love that annoucer dude and all of his scripts, Poketopia itself.

bad: It pretty much sucks if you don't have wifi or a competitive team , and it is $50 bucks

Thats about it

The bold part is pretty much what makes you not buy the game, taking in consideration the "good" parts.

Eirikr
December 20th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I had it for one day, and screamed that my fears were confirmed, I wasted 400 on a useless gimmicky brick when I could have bought a PS3. I had the Wii for 6 months by then, and hated the controls for everything besides Wii Sports.
I have a PS3 now, so I'm happy, I can play things worth playing. Sorry Wii, I am only keeping you because RE UC's controls aren't too annoying and SSBB is compatable with the classic controller. It's not the Wii's fault exactly, it's the remote. Every game need classic controller compatability because the remote is awful alot of the time due to Dev's, including nintendo, not knowing to only use it when realy needed.

Virtual Chatot
December 20th, 2007, 05:56 PM
It was kind of meh...

But its somewhat better than 2D wifi on D/P, but then that makes the entire point to the game a DP upgrade

Jake
December 20th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I had it for one day, and screamed that my fears were confirmed, I wasted 400 on a useless gimmicky brick when I could have bought a PS3. I had the Wii for 6 months by then, and hated the controls for everything besides Wii Sports.
I have a PS3 now, so I'm happy, I can play things worth playing. Sorry Wii, I am only keeping you because RE UC's controls aren't too annoying and SSBB is compatable with the classic controller. It's not the Wii's fault exactly, it's the remote. Every game need classic controller compatability because the remote is awful alot of the time due to Dev's, including nintendo, not knowing to only use it when realy needed.

If the classic controller was used for every game, Nintendo would be stuck in the crap hole Sony is in. People don't buy PS3 cause basically *meaning to offend Sony* the games are all cheap knock offs of games made before, the good games come out for 360 too (MGS4 and DMC4, yeah PS3 only has 2 good games) the price is too high for even the normal, and I need Blu-Ray why? People buy the Wii for the controls. If it was the same control franchise over and over, you bring death to video games.

On-Topic

If you play Pokémon for catching and breeding, and stuff along those lines, of course it's a dissapointment. Pokémon is about battling. Stadium wasn't anything special may I remind. A few mini-games don't make or break a game. I bought Battle Revolution on it's release day, I love it. It's the same exact thing as Stadium minus the mini games. I don't think it's a dissapointment at all.

Eirikr
December 21st, 2007, 05:39 PM
If the classic controller was used for every game, Nintendo would be stuck in the crap hole Sony is in.
People don't buy PS3 cause basically *meaning to offend Sony* the games are all cheap knock offs of games made before,

the good games come out for 360 too (MGS4 and DMC4, yeah PS3 only has 2 good games)

the price is too high for even the normal,

and I need Blu-Ray why?

People buy the Wii for the controls. If it was the same control franchise over and over, you bring death to video games.

Bold 1
-Well, please, be my guest to defend the majority of Wii games that are awful only because of the Wii Remote. The PS3 only doesn't sell in comparason to the computer and the gimmic box, but it is far from a rut.

Bold 2
-Zelda is a port, as is RE4, said games, Mario, Metroid, Pokemon, and most games on the Wii that are not complete garbage, and some that are, are also sequel. The term is sequel.

Bold 3
-Not true, MGS4, Ratchet and Clank+Sequel, Resistance+Sequel, FFXIII, FFXIII VS, Folklore and quite a few others are exclusives. And now the new Dev kit is cheaper, more devs are using the ps3. Also, ALL 360 titles that are exclusives, except DOA, end up on the PC anyway. Not exactly exclusive, especialy when the PC version is much cheaper.

Bold 4
-Please, come out of the US where the 360 titles start at the same price as PS3 and also, aquaint yourself with the prospect of saving money. The PS3 isn't that expencive, it is relitively close to the opening price of the PS2 and has had the same bumpy start, the only difference being the competition.

Bold 5
-Blu Ray allows the devs to make games longer if needed, MGS4 for example requires 2. For movies, DVD is fine imo.

Bold 6
-Lullergasms. Every game console with exception of the Wii and the Virtual Boy as usage for this argument.

GeneralGuy
December 21st, 2007, 05:59 PM
Not really. If anything, it's a major improvement because of the improved graphics and gameplay.

Iceman3k
December 21st, 2007, 06:42 PM
PBR could had least had more battle modes and some stuff N64 Stadium had. =/
These days, I don't get any use out of PBR except to milk Stone Edge TMs and Special Berries from it.

Waker of Chaos
December 21st, 2007, 07:04 PM
First and foremost, let's not turn this thread into a Wii VS PS3 flamewar. The Wii's better because it's less expensive and has better games, WITH the Wii Remote. It's no one's fault but your own that you can't enjoy revolutionary game control. And of the games mentioned, Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy VS XIII are the only things, in my opinion, that are worth looking forward to. These are just simple facts, and thus can't be disputed, so let's just leave it at that.

As for Pokémon Battle Revolution, I say it's better than Pokémon Stadium and Pokémon Stadium 2. The only thing the Stadium games had going for them was the fact you could use it to access your PC in the GB/GBC game and move stuff around, but you could do that in the game itself anyway. This is a vast improvement over the Stadium games, especially since you can actually see the Trainer, customize his/her appearance, and not have to go through the game, possibly missing the Surfing Pikachu. The Surfing Pikachu in Pokémon Battle Revolution can't be missed, it just gets added to the Mystery Gift Shop.

CrimsonEdge
December 21st, 2007, 08:09 PM
Bold 1
-Well, please, be my guest to defend the majority of Wii games that are awful only because of the Wii Remote. The PS3 only doesn't sell in comparason to the computer and the gimmic box, but it is far from a rut.

Bold 2
-Zelda is a port, as is RE4, said games, Mario, Metroid, Pokemon, and most games on the Wii that are not complete garbage, and some that are, are also sequel. The term is sequel.

Bold 3
-Not true, MGS4, Ratchet and Clank+Sequel, Resistance+Sequel, FFXIII, FFXIII VS, Folklore and quite a few others are exclusives. And now the new Dev kit is cheaper, more devs are using the ps3. Also, ALL 360 titles that are exclusives, except DOA, end up on the PC anyway. Not exactly exclusive, especialy when the PC version is much cheaper.

Bold 4
-Please, come out of the US where the 360 titles start at the same price as PS3 and also, aquaint yourself with the prospect of saving money. The PS3 isn't that expencive, it is relitively close to the opening price of the PS2 and has had the same bumpy start, the only difference being the competition.

Bold 5
-Blu Ray allows the devs to make games longer if needed, MGS4 for example requires 2. For movies, DVD is fine imo.

Bold 6
-Lullergasms. Every game console with exception of the Wii and the Virtual Boy as usage for this argument.

You call Nintendo on being sequal heavy when six out of the 8 games you list are sequels in pre-existing franchises...yes I counted those "sequel"s as well I'm pretty sure anybody who has an unbiased viewpoint can tell you...the PS3 is a in a flaming hellhole of a rut....it's being outsold by EVERY console out there handhelds included... Granted the Wii doesn't have many stellar titles I think it has FAR more potential and IS and will continue to dominate the market. If you're wii-mote challenged just fess up to it and move along... Just because you have wii-mote trouble doesn't mean the console itself is bad. Not to freaking mention that as all those consoles you use in your argument are OLD and NOT next gen.....do you think the industry would continue to live if it stayed stagnant? With games like Brain Age and Big brain Academy on the DS and Wii as well as Wii Sports and Wii fit coming soon clearly the shift is successful. I can still play my Zelda game but now mom or dad can play wii sports or do their daily brain age session. The shift in gaming that Nintendo is bringing has been nothing but successful...Wildly so

Skaterzpenguin
December 22nd, 2007, 08:48 AM
The only thing I was mad about that there was no cups/gym leaders and couldn't rent every single pokemon.:\

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 10:10 AM
Well, I haven't played Battle Revolution yet, but from everything I know about it I'd say Stadium 1/2 are better. D:

Colosseum and Gale of Darkness were utter garbage in comparison. :x Different styles of game, I know, but in terms of console games, I just think Stadium and Stadium 2 were the best, I'd like them revisited on the Wii, myself.

Expect it to probably come out on VC sometime.

Why the heck are you guys doing bringing Sony and PS(1-3) into this discussion? Graphics have nothing to do with how great the game can be, it's the game play that matter. This is why many Sony fans completely dislike Nintendo games, because they're so used to the awesome realism. If I wanted realism, I'd go outside and move on with my life.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 10:28 AM
Why? Simple. If PBR is NOTHING but battling, which is what Diamond/Pearl is for, than they better have some top notch graphics. Honestly. PBR has nothing else to offer at all. No minigames, no storyline. So if its only something to look at, it better look good.

Graphics are very important for games. Just like food. If the food looks like crap, no matter how good it might taste, you won't eat it, if it looks disgusting.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 11:18 AM
I have a small correction to make. Kingdom Hearts III (for lack of the official title) will be on the PS3, so it has three games to look forward to and one good game (Sonic the Hedgehog), and that's it. The Wii wipes it out anyway.

Anyway, I'm not disappointed with Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics. I think that it's about darned time that the Pokémon actually approaches the enemy to perform a physical strike. Give me this over the bad graphics of Pokémon Pearl and Diamond Versions any day. And did you see Dialga and Palkia in Pokémon Battle Revolution? They look awesome! And this is coming from a guy who has played Final Fantasy XII.

Anyway, unless they make a new Wii Classic Controller that has a Transfer Pak slot or something, I wouldn't expect Pokémon Stadium or Pokémon Stadium 2 to return. We have almost double of what we used to, so the Stadium games are no more than mere memories now. Plus, what good would they be, since the old games can't communicate with the new? Nintendo would have to fix that if they're going to bring the Stadiums back.

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 12:10 PM
Why? Simple. If PBR is NOTHING but battling, which is what Diamond/Pearl is for, than they better have some top notch graphics. Honestly. PBR has nothing else to offer at all. No minigames, no storyline. So if its only something to look at, it better look good.

You would believe the better the realism the better it will sell? In this ever changing and advancing world of games and game development we are reaching the tip of "realistic graphics". This is where Sony and Microsoft have been competing for... because of this people put Sony and Microsoft as the best console and game designers. But look at it this way with Nintendo and their "simple" graphics and easy game play many people say that their console is for a young (children) / old (60+) audience. This is false, Nintendo has realized that sooner or later everyone will have realistic graphics and is focusing now on innovation (ds & Wii).

In addition as many know PS3's and 360's are breaking quite often, because the tech they use are so advanced and thrown together that the systems can fully handle is. Where if you look at Nintendo very very few have broken. Look at NES; heck, I'm sure all of our NES's still work. That is because Nintendo knows how the game industry should be, they know how games and consoles need to be. Sony and Microsoft do not compare to Nintendo in the knowledge regarding the gaming industry. Imagine that on the 360/PS3, there is some "ultra-great" high definition tennis game, with almost flawless graphics.
Now, compare it to the simplistic art style and fun game play experience of Wii Sports.

The winner would most likely be Wii Sports, simply because the game is actually FUN and doesn't need graphics to attract people to it.
Not saying the other tennis game automatically sucks, but we've been moving control sticks and mashing buttons for years.... The new innovation of the Nintendo Wii draws crowds to it, and this is why it has surpassed the 360 in total sales, and with games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers Brawl, I don't think there's a way to stop the Wii's success until the next Nintendo console.


Graphics are very important for games. Just like food. If the food looks like crap, no matter how good it might taste, you won't eat it, if it looks disgusting.


Graphics are add-ons, what makes food so similar? Food is required automatically.
I'm sure many of you have played Pokemon Red and Blue versions, no? They're one of the best selling video games of all time. Did they have great graphics? No, they obviously didn't. I can understand where you are coming from, but graphics isn't everything in gaming. If you want realism, you're better off playing Halo 3. For that matter, have you ever played a fun game that doesn't have realistic graphics?

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 01:30 PM
You would believe the better the realism the better it will sell? In this ever changing and advancing world of games and game development we are reaching the tip of "realistic graphics". This is where Sony and Microsoft have been competing for... because of this people put Sony and Microsoft as the best console and game designers. But look at it this way with Nintendo and their "simple" graphics and easy game play many people say that their console is for a young (children) / old (60+) audience. This is false, Nintendo has realized that sooner or later everyone will have realistic graphics and is focusing now on innovation (ds & Wii).

In addition as many know PS3's and 360's are breaking quite often, because the tech they use are so advanced and thrown together that the systems can fully handle is. Where if you look at Nintendo very very few have broken. Look at NES; heck, I'm sure all of our NES's still work. That is because Nintendo knows how the game industry should be, they know how games and consoles need to be. Sony and Microsoft do not compare to Nintendo in the knowledge regarding the gaming industry. Imagine that on the 360/PS3, there is some "ultra-great" high definition tennis game, with almost flawless graphics.
Now, compare it to the simplistic art style and fun game play experience of Wii Sports.

The winner would most likely be Wii Sports, simply because the game is actually FUN and doesn't need graphics to attract people to it.
Not saying the other tennis game automatically sucks, but we've been moving control sticks and mashing buttons for years.... The new innovation of the Nintendo Wii draws crowds to it, and this is why it has surpassed the 360 in total sales, and with games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers Brawl, I don't think there's a way to stop the Wii's success until the next Nintendo console.

Ah, well the PS3 & 360 are nowhere near being out of the race. Like it or not, they are getting a growing fanbase. The thing is, games evolve. In every way. To see the game take a step back this way is appauling. Did you see the graphics on Twilight Princess? On Brawl? On Galaxy? Beautiful. If what you are saying is true, then Nintendo is abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back.


Graphics are add-ons, what makes food so similar? Food is required automatically. This isn't really an arguement-heck, it shouldn't have been said. You should have gotten my analogy. Sure, food is reqiured, but that being, we could stuff our faces with anything. We do not do that. When we go to a restaraunt, a four star restaraunt, we expect fine food, in every ssense.



I'm sure many of you have played Pokemon Red and Blue versions, no? They're one of the best selling video games of all time. Did they have great graphics? No, they obviously didn't. The thing is, Red/Blue was made SOOOOO FAR BACK, this isn't really a valid arguement. Graphics were still primative, & programming weren't as developed as today. Let that be the case, should we revert back to Atari times?

I can understand where you are coming from, but graphics isn't everything in gaming. If you want realism, you're better off playing Halo 3. For that matter, have you ever played a fun game that doesn't have realistic graphics? Sure I have. This isn't one of them



As I said, gaming is like fine dining. (If you don't get the OBVIOUS analogy I'm using, then debating is pointless. I know we MUST eat, but bear with me.)

When we go to a restaraunt, we expect the food to look good. After all, we're paying for it. It should be eye pleasing. No matter how good it is, we won't eat something that looks like it was scrapped from the bottom of the pot. Any real gamer could tell you that graphics are important. They are the results of the game designer time & comitment in making the game. PBR, however, is ONLY ABOUT WIFI BATTLING IN 3D! If that's ALL it offers, it should look eye pleasing. Its the EXACT SAME THING as Diamond/Pearl, but less. They just got lazy this time.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 01:34 PM
I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 01:46 PM
I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

Thank you. To say graphics aren't is pretty short sighted. Sure, we used to play Re/Blue, but I'll be damned to reuse those old graphics nowadays. To the casual player, who cares, but to the real players, they are very much important.

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 02:22 PM
I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

Runescape is the worst game, because it doesn't have a full blown asset of graphics at it's disposal in order to properly entertain it's users. I must wonder why it has over 1,000+ players and the graphics are really bad.


Thank you. To say graphics aren't is pretty short sighted. Sure, we used to play Re/Blue, but I'll be damned to reuse those old graphics nowadays. To the casual player, who cares, but to the real players, they are very much important.


'short sighted'? This is coming out of the one who expects graphics to magically bring entertainment to a game. Real players are those who actually focus on the enjoyment of the game, and not the looks. Why are you struggling to not understand this? Graphics are not everything in a game. Graphics are just a typical add-on made to enhance the visual interface of the game itself. Think of it as makeup. I would much prefer playing Pokemon Stadium 1 than I would Halo 3.


Ah, well the PS3 & 360 are nowhere near being out of the race. Like it or not, they are getting a growing fanbase. The thing is, games evolve. In every way. To see the game take a step back this way is appauling. Did you see the graphics on Twilight Princess? On Brawl? On Galaxy? Beautiful. If what you are saying is true, then Nintendo is abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back.


This growing fanbase you speak of is mostly composed of biased people who think graphics are every aspect of them, and consider Nintendo a bad company. Nintendo is the leading industry, why would they be abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back just because they don't provide the graphics you expect them to provide? Now answer me this on those three games. Were they 'fun', or did you just spend an hour looking at the TV screen and admiring the landscape?


This isn't really an arguement-heck, it shouldn't have been said. You should have gotten my analogy. Sure, food is reqiured, but that being, we could stuff our faces with anything. We do not do that. When we go to a restaraunt, a four star restaraunt, we expect fine food, in every ssense.



Sure I have. This isn't one of them


I'm sorry you hated the graphics. You get what you pay for. Should have given it a little more thought by checking up on some demonstrations/screenshots if you were to primarily rate upon graphics. I imagine that's why some reviewers put videos up for. So players can see how the game is actually like.



As I said, gaming is like fine dining. (If you don't get the OBVIOUS analogy I'm using, then debating is pointless. I know we MUST eat, but bear with me.)

When we go to a restaraunt, we expect the food to look good. After all, we're paying for it. It should be eye pleasing. No matter how good it is, we won't eat something that looks like it was scrapped from the bottom of the pot. Any real gamer could tell you that graphics are important. They are the results of the game designer time & comitment in making the game. PBR, however, is ONLY ABOUT WIFI BATTLING IN 3D! If that's ALL it offers, it should look eye pleasing. Its the EXACT SAME THING as Diamond/Pearl, but less. They just got lazy this time.


I'd be assuming that you'd prefer getting a good looking and disgusting meal than a plain meal that tastes delicious? Come on, you really have to agree that plain, good food is much better than good looking bad food. I can't imagine you agreeing that the second option would be better, just to keep your dignity and not admit that looks can be deceiving, or 'You don't know what's good unless you tried it'.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 02:27 PM
Runescape is the worst game, because it doesn't have a full blown asset of graphics at it's disposal in order to properly entertain it's users. I must wonder why it has over 1,000+ players and the graphics are really bad.

Because the graphics are good enough to actually be able to tell what's going on, and they are better than most for online MMORPGs. That's just one reason why it has over one thousand players. It has other things going for it as well, such as interaction with other people without having to worry if they're going to punch your lights out for saying something completely idiotic, such as, "RuneScape is terrible because the graphics are bad", or perhaps, "Pokémon Battle Revolution suchs because Mewtwo's paws don't look right".

Sasuke_Uchiha
December 22nd, 2007, 02:36 PM
Graffics arent that important....Whats important is the story line or if you enjoy playing it.....NOt the grffics. Yeah graffics make the game intersting but its not that important....

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 02:38 PM
Because the graphics are good enough to actually be able to tell what's going on, and they are better than most for online MMORPGs. That's just one reason why it has over one thousand players. It has other things going for it as well, such as interaction with other people without having to worry if they're going to punch your lights out for saying something completely idiotic, such as, "RuneScape is terrible because the graphics are bad", or perhaps, "Pokémon Battle Revolution suchs because Mewtwo's paws don't look right".


PBR is no exception to this, which further extends my point. PBR's graphics are acceptable enough. Who cares if Mewtwo's paws don't look right? Did you actually enjoy the game, or did you throw a hissy fit because Mewtwo's paws
actually have a different look?

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 02:39 PM
PBR is no exception to this, which further extends my point. PBR's graphics are acceptable enough. Who cares if Mewtwo's paws don't look right? Did you actually enjoy the game, or did you throw a hissy fit because Mewtwo's paws
actually have a different look?

Again, I love the game. I think the graphics are just fine. Had you read my first few posts here, you'd have known that.

My point is that graphics are important, but don't make or break the game except in extreme circumstances.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 02:40 PM
Oh boy. Like it or not, graphics are an important part of games. Saying that all PS3 & 360 players only care about graphics is still short sided. Speaking of reviewers, maybe you should look at them. Watch X-Play. Read Game Informer. Even they say that graphics are an important part of the game. Along with great graphics, those games were also fun. I find it highly offensive to categorize me like that, because I own both Wii & 360. I play 360, enjoy the graphics, & the games are amazing They aren't just playing the game because of graphics-they are damn well fun. But the graphics enhance the play. Don't believe me-check the scores. Video games are an art form. Yes, good graphics does not make a good game. I NEVER said that. A game can be good with bad graphics-PBR is not one of them. But graphics still play a part in the game. As I said, any real gamer can tell you that.

As for the food comment, you are still not getting my point. If it looks like crap, I won't eat it. If it taste like crap, I won't eat it. It should both look & taste good. I don't see why you seem to think that if the graphics are good, that = bad game.

Also, I RENTED the game, & found it bad. So don't cross any personal lines, & keep this on topic.

EDIT: Plus, as I said, PBR is ONLY ABOUT 3D BATTLING. IT IS JUST EYE CANDY. So it should at least looks good.



This is an excert from the Game Informer review:


5.75

CONCEPT:
Pokémon battle other Pokémon! Yeah, that’s it


GRAPHICS:
Bleh...


SOUND:
The announcer may have only two phrases for every action. “The red trainer has only one remaining Pokémon”


PLAYABILITY:
Don’t worry about getting confused. There is actually a mini tutorial that teaches you how to point the freaking Wii remote. Fantastic!


ENTERTAINMENT:
Not a whole lot of value here. Only the hardest of the hardcore Pokéfreaks will find this entertaining for long...or for short, even


REPLAY:
Low

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 02:52 PM
Oh boy. Like it or not, graphics are an important part of games. Saying that all PS3 & 360 players only care about graphics is still short sided. Speaking of reviewers, maybe you should look at them. Watch X-Play. Read Game Informer. Even they say that graphics are an important part of the game. Along with great graphics, those games were also fun. I find it highly offensive to categorize me like that, because I own both Wii & 360. I play 360, enjoy the graphics, & the games are amazing They aren't just playing the game because of graphics-they are damn well fun. But the graphics enhance the play. Don't believe me-check the scores. Video games are an art form. Yes, good graphics does not make a good game. I NEVER said that. A game can be good with bad graphics-PBR is not one of them. But graphics still play a part in the game. As I said, any real gamer can tell you that.

It's a matter of fact true old-school gamers like me prefer the entertainment of the games, because that's what video games were made for. We never cared for 3D graphics before because video games used to serve their purpose back then. They were made for the purpose of having fun. Graphics are an add-on. Why did it take you this many posts to realize this? Sorry, don't watch X-Play. I have a tendency of not listening to what other Television shows say about what real gamers should consider. The Microsoft and Sony fan base makes it seem that way. Have a look at IGN for the numerous topics of users mentioning something similar about graphics sucking about such game and that such games characters face looks like the deformed face of Godzilla.



As for the food comment, you are still not getting my point. If it looks like crap, I won't eat it. If it taste like crap, I won't eat it. It should both look & taste good. I don't see why you seem to think that if the graphics are good, that = bad game.



Also, I RENTED the game, & found it bad. So don't cross any personal lines, & keep this on topic.


I'm sorry you're so used to getting what you always want, but it's not always that way. Then I wasn't the only one that was not getting the point. Since when did I say good graphics make a bad game? I even




EDIT: Plus, as I said, PBR is ONLY ABOUT 3D BATTLING. IT IS JUST EYE CANDY. So it should at least looks good.

We don't always get what we want, but sometimes we just have to deal with it if it doesn't fit out personal preference.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 03:05 PM
It's a matter of fact true old-school gamers like me prefer the entertainment of the games, because that's what video games were made for. We never cared for 3D graphics before because video games used to serve their purpose back then. They were made for the purpose of having fun. Graphics are an add-on. Why did it take you this many posts to realize this? Sorry, don't watch X-Play. I have a tendency of not listening to what other Television shows say about what real gamers should consider. The Microsoft and Sony fan base makes it seem that way. Have a look at IGN for the numerous topics of users mentioning something similar about graphics sucking about such game and that such games characters face looks like the deformed face of Godzilla.
What do you mean "Why did it take me this many post to realize this"? As I said, DON"T insult me again. YOU bought up the senerio of using reviews. You are critisizing people for there preferences. Don't watch X-Play. But watch your tone. If you like to stick to the old school, so be it. Go right ahead & stay there. I'd like to evolve with the times. Those people that you are critisizing ar right to feel that way, because those two particular games are crap.





I'm sorry you're so used to getting what you always want, but it's not always that way. Then I wasn't the only one that was not getting the point. Since when did I say good graphics make a bad game? I even

I should report you for insulting me like this, at a simple debate. I can show you multiplle times where you implied that good graphics can't equal good games. What the hell do you mean, "used to always getting what I want?" One more reply like that, & I'm reporting. I know not all games are up to my standards. Hence why I am not buying it. I don't have the right to say "I dislike this game"? Thats what this thread is about. I'm being a baby for complaining? Also what this thread is about.



We don't always get what we want, but sometimes we just have to deal with it if it doesn't fit out personal preference.

As I said, this thread is about stating your enjoyment or dislike over the game, not critisizing people for their reasons of not liking it. And I can show you the post that you did.

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 03:21 PM
What do you mean "Why did it take me this many post to realize this"? As I said, DON"T insult me again. YOU bought up the senerio of using reviews. You are critisizing people for there preferences. Don't watch X-Play. But watch your tone. If you like to stick to the old school, so be it. Go right ahead & stay there. I'd like to evolve with the times. Those people that you are critisizing ar right to feel that way, because those two particular games are crap.


No, you're just merely misunderstanding the what makes a good game, and what doesn't. Me, being a game developer myself, and being an old-school gamer since 1994, I know the basic elements of what a good game is composed of. I mentioned graphics don't make a good game, it's the entertainment. I never mentioned that good graphics are a bad game.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 03:33 PM
Once again, you are critisizing my choices. You don't have the right to say what makes a game good. Even if you make them. Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony can tell you that even they have no place to say what makes a game good. Its the people who plays them. They would be nothing without their costumers. They know that. Which is why Nintendo is constantly updating Smash Bros.com. Which is why Nintendo finally [apparantly] shown initiative (excuse my spelling) towards wifi. Miyamoto made this statement once before for the GameCube-People don't care about online play. They don't want to pay the fees. Boy, did Xbox prove them wrong.

So please, don't come here off your high horse to tell me that I'm misunderstanding what makes a game good. I don't care how long you've been playing. I've been playing since 1992-does that mean I have the right to critisize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people atg IGN do. But you are the one critisizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gamming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunatley, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 03:41 PM
Once again, you are critisizing my choices. You don't have the right to say what makes a game good. Even if you make them. Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony can tell you that even they have no place to say what makes a game good. Its the people who plays them. They would be nothing without their costumers. They know that. Which is why Nintendo is constantly updating Smash Bros.com. Which is why Nintendo finally [apparantly] shown initiative (excuse my spelling) towards wifi. Miyamoto made this statement once before for the GameCube-People don't care about online play. They don't want to pay the fees. Boy, did Xbox prove them wrong.

So please, don't come here off your high horse to tell me that I'm misunderstanding what makes a game good. I don't care how long you've been playing. I've been playing since 1992-does that mean I have the right to critisize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people atg IGN do. But you are the one critisizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gamming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunatley, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

*Apparently, gaming, criticizing, unfortunately, at, you're, and criticize are misspelled. Everything else is fine, since you asked. I bolded them for you.

Faltzer
December 22nd, 2007, 03:41 PM
Who cares about what IGN thinks about PBR? IGN is just a gaming web site that has gaming content, and game reviews. IGN is not the authority on video gaming. You're basically just sticking to what IGN says with their view of the game. That's not your opinion, that's just indecisive siding with another gaming companies review.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 03:46 PM
And again, you completely missed the point of my post. I mentioned IGN because YOU mentioned IGN

Have a look at IGN for the numerous topics of users mentioning something similar about graphics sucking about such game and that such games characters face looks like the deformed face of Godzilla.

The post was about you saying that I'm misunderstanding what makes a good game. How you have no right to say that. How you completely missed that to come to the conclusion that I'm a IGN clone is beyond me. I never even been there before.

Plus, even if I side with that, I have that right, & you have no right to tell me I'm wrong.

Forest Grovyle
December 22nd, 2007, 03:47 PM
Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 03:51 PM
Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

Thank you for that.

Who cares about what IGN thinks about PBR? IGN is just a gaming web site that has gaming content, and game reviews. IGN is not the authority on video gaming. You're basically just sticking to what IGN says with their view of the game. That's not your opinion, that's just indecisive siding with another gaming companies review.

I'd like to point out that IGN hires people to review video games, and more than one person (at least three, if I remember correctly) has to review it. They have to do a good job, too, and that means playing through the entire game.

In the case of Pokémon Battle Revolution, IGN's reviewers didn't really like much about it. Had I reviewed it, I'd have given it a higher score, because I know what role the game is meant to play: It's just like Pokémon Stadium, but with Gear for your Trainer and Battle Passes instead of minigames and playing your Diamond/Pearl game on the Wii.

In my opinion, that's an improvement.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 03:55 PM
Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

Gets ya wondering why there isn't a mod round here. I'll PM an Admin.


Thank you for that.



I'd like to point out that IGN hires people to review video games, and more than one person (at least three, if I remember correctly) has to review it. They have to do a good job, too, and that means playing through the entire game.
I get what your saying. Its not one person reviewing, its multiple opinions.

In the case of Pokémon Battle Revolution, IGN's reviewers didn't really like much about it. Had I reviewed it, I'd have given it a higher score, because I know what role the game is meant to play: It's just like Pokémon Stadium, but with Gear for your Trainer and Battle Passes instead of minigames and playing your Diamond/Pearl game on the Wii.

In my opinion, that's an improvement.

Meh. If only the game was cheaper. Then it would be worth my time. Ah well.

CrimsonEdge
December 22nd, 2007, 03:56 PM
Once again, you are criticizing my choices. You don't have the right to say what makes a game good. Even if you make them. Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony can tell you that even they have no place to say what makes a game good. Its the people who plays them. They would be nothing without their costumers. They know that. Which is why Nintendo is constantly updating Smash Bros.com. Which is why Nintendo finally [apparently] shown initiative (excuse my spelling) towards wifi. Miyamoto made this statement once before for the GameCube-People don't care about online play. They don't want to pay the fees. Boy, did Xbox prove them wrong.

So please, don't come here off your high horse to tell me that I'm misunderstanding what makes a game good. I don't care how long you've been playing. I've been playing since 1992-does that mean I have the right to criticize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people at IGN do. But you are the one criticizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gaming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunately, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

A good game has a balance of sufficient visuals and game play.... I'm sure many games would BENEFIT from better graphics why wouldn't they? The fact is a lot of more seasoned gamers agree it's the game play that makes or breaks the game....it's called GAME play for a reason, if the game plays well it's a good game! I'm not here to make an argument against Sony or M-soft. If you enjoy a game it's a good game right? At the end of the day your money is best spent on something you'll enjoy to play. There are standards visually for each console out there and as long as the visuals aren't below that standard the graphics are FINE!



By the way sims....I'd check my spelling more if I was you.... Well articulated and correctly spelled arguments garner more respect.

Zorua
December 22nd, 2007, 03:57 PM
Thank you for that.



I'd like to point out that IGN hires people to review video games, and more than one person (at least three, if I remember correctly) has to review it. They have to do a good job, too, and that means playing through the entire game.

In the case of Pokémon Battle Revolution, IGN's reviewers didn't really like much about it. Had I reviewed it, I'd have given it a higher score, because I know what role the game is meant to play: It's just like Pokémon Stadium, but with Gear for your Trainer and Battle Passes instead of minigames and playing your Diamond/Pearl game on the Wii.

In my opinion, that's an improvement.

Keep in mind that is IGN's opinion about the game. Doesn't mean that they're complete facts. Its what they think about the game. They hire people to review games, yes. But look at this: They hire people to what they think would give good reviews, to something that would influence the reader and probably make them consider what IGN thinks.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 03:58 PM
Meh. If only the game was cheaper. Then it would be worth my time. Ah well.

I got mine for $10. :P

But yeah, this is a great game for its role. On its own, not really, but that's not the purpose it's meant to serve. As was posted by another person earlier, it's basically an extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions simply for battling and getting items you otherwise would only have one of.

Keep in mind that is IGN's opinion about the game. Doesn't mean that they're complete facts. Its what they think about the game. They hire people to review games, yes. But look at this: They hire people to what they think would give good reviews, to something that would influence the reader and probably make them consider what IGN thinks.

True indeed, but may I remind you that I never claimed what IGN thinks is fact, not opinion? Quite the opposite, in fact.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:00 PM
A good game has a balance of sufficient visuals and game play.... I'm sure many games would BENEFIT from better graphics why wouldn't they? The fact is a lot of more seasoned gamers agree it's the game play that makes or breaks the game....it's called GAME play for a reason, if the game plays well it's a good game! I'm not here to make an argument against Sony or M-soft. If you enjoy a game it's a good game right? At the end of the day your money is best spent on something you'll enjoy to play. There are standards visually for each console out there and as long as the visuals aren't below that standard the graphics are FINE!



By the way sims....I'd check my spelling more if I was you.... Well articulated and correctly spelled arguments garner more respect.

Well, at least I was close. I'm feeling very sick today, so you'll have to excuse my errors. I can't seem to concentrate. At least I'm not some mindless drone of a noob, just posting crap LIEK TIS!!!!!!

But you hit what I meant. The visuals are very important, but I never said that it is the sole defining factor.

wakachamo
December 22nd, 2007, 04:04 PM
Keep in mind that is IGN's opinion about the game. Doesn't mean that they're complete facts. Its what they think about the game. They hire people to review games, yes. But look at this: They hire people to what they think would give good reviews, to something that would influence the reader and probably make them consider what IGN thinks.

Thank-you for bringing in some sense into this thread.

I find the fact that people are comparing opinions with IGN laughable. IGN is composed of people like us.

A game reviewer is NOT an expert at every aspect of gaming, nor are they some sort of superhuman who loves every type of game. You're always going to see a bias, no matter how much you agree/disagree with a reviewer.
This guy is my supreme idea of a good Reviewer, without regard for his job, he has consistently reviewed games as he sees fit. Do they agree with majority opinion? Maybe not, but that's not the freakin' point of a Game Reviewer is it?

IGN's opinion can differ from ours due to this. It's not the general mainstream media opinion that makes this game good, it's the consumer's. Seeing as we all have different opinions as well, most of us find this game mediocre.

Zorua
December 22nd, 2007, 04:04 PM
I got mine for $10. :P

But yeah, this is a great game for its role. On its own, not really, but that's not the purpose it's meant to serve. As was posted by another person earlier, it's basically an extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions simply for battling and getting items you otherwise would only have one of.



True indeed, but may I remind you that I never claimed what IGN thinks is fact, not opinion? Quite the opposite, in fact.

I just said keep in mind. Never said you DID say it.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:09 PM
Thank-you for bringing in some sense into this thread.

I find the fact that people are comparing opinions with IGN laughable. IGN is composed of people like us.

A game reviewer is NOT an expert at every aspect of gaming, nor are they some sort of superhuman who loves every type of game. You're always going to see a bias, no matter how much you agree/disagree with a reviewer.
This guy is my supreme idea of a good Reviewer, without regard for his job, he has consistently reviewed games as he sees fit. Do they agree with majority opinion? Maybe not, but that's not the freakin' point of a Game Reviewer is it?

IGN's opinion can differ from ours due to this. It's not the general mainstream media opinion that makes this game good, it's the consumer's. Seeing as we all have different opinions as well, most of us find this game mediocre.
Meh, I never said that IGN is the ultimate in opinions. Not one post did I say that I value their opinion. Heck, its a bit disheartening that ya said he bought sense in this thread, as ONLY ONE PERSON actually used their opinion. And he used it in a bad light.

Regardless, I do feel this game mediocre.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 04:18 PM
I just said keep in mind. Never said you DID say it.

Yeah, that's true.

As far as Pokémon Battle Revolution goes, I love it. I'm obese, so I'm jealous of the Cool Guy you can have on your Battle Pass. That might be enough incentive for me to start working out. Yes, I did just admit that. :P

On a more serious note, battling was always my favorite thing about Pokémon anyway. It's like a form of art, like swordplay is.

And the graphics are just FINE! Keep in mind that this game's not meant to stand on its own, it's meant to be a pretty extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions for battling, and it fulfills that role perfectly, graphics and control included.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Zorua
December 22nd, 2007, 04:19 PM
Meh, I never said that IGN is the ultimate in opinions. Not one post did I say that I value their opinion. Heck, its a bit disheartening that ya said he bought sense in this thread, as ONLY ONE PERSON actually used their opinion. And he used it in a bad light.

Regardless, I do feel this game mediocre.

It's a bit disheartening that people don't read my posts throughly.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:21 PM
Yeah, that's true.

As far as Pokémon Battle Revolution goes, I love it. I'm obese, so I'm jealous of the Cool Guy you can have on your Battle Pass. That might be enough incentive for me to start working out. Yes, I did just admit that. :P

On a more serious note, battling was always my favorite thing about Pokémon anyway. It's like a form of art, like swordplay is.

And the graphics are just FINE! Keep in mind that this game's not meant to stand on its own, it's meant to be a pretty extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions for battling, and it fulfills that role perfectly, graphics and control included.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

This is where I disagree with you. Respectfully, of course. If its JUST an expantion, then it should look gorgeous. To me, & possibly omachaw, they just slapped Pokemon on the title, & waited for the fans to come.

It's a bit disheartening that people don't read my posts throughly.

This was for omachaw's post, not yours.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:29 PM
You quoted waka's post, saying that it's disheartening that I brought sense into this thread.

And since waka said "I'm the one that brought sense into this thread" well..

This is just advice, to prevent you from assuming my post is all insult:

Use proper wording next time so people won't misread your posts.

No, not YOU! I meant the person I was arguing with. Falthazer, or something. I was commenting that he said that you bought sense to this thread, because we didn't lose common sense-just lost sight of the topic.

That was my poor wording, excuse me.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 04:40 PM
This is where I disagree with you. Respectfully, of course. If its JUST an expantion, then it should look gorgeous. To me, & possibly omachaw, they just slapped Pokemon on the title, & waited for the fans to come.

That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon.

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

wakachamo
December 22nd, 2007, 04:44 PM
That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon.

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

I'm sorry but you must be confused or something because Twilight Princess wasn't exactly applauded for its graphics as much as Metroid Prime 3 or Galaxy were.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 04:47 PM
I'm sorry but you must be confused or something because Twilight Princess wasn't exactly applauded for its graphics as much as Metroid Prime 3 or Galaxy were.

But the same can be said about Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption regardless.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:48 PM
That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon. But right there, you mentioned three games that looks amazing. Galaxy, Brawl, RE4, Twilight Princess, hell, even Rayman looks VERY good for Wii games. So being the Wii is no excuse. Quilava's fire looks like cheap cellophane. Grotyle's jaw is so squared, its like, WTF?

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

AHA! Now this is turning into a real disscusion. Thank you, Waker.

Despite that, It can still make great looking games. You mentioned a few. Ever seen Metal of Honor on the Wii? Atrocious. Looks like it was on the N64. Not acceptable. So sure,, the Wii isn't a graphic powerhouse, but we shouldn't let that be an excuse.

EDIT: & omachaw, it was still credited for great visuals, although it was still critisized (yeah yeah, who cares) for not being "perfect" in a sense.

wakachamo
December 22nd, 2007, 04:49 PM
But the same can be said about Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption regardless.

Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphics*****s and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

Zorua
December 22nd, 2007, 04:53 PM
AHA! Now this is turning into a real disscusion. Thank you, Waker.

Despite that, It can still make great looking games. You mentioned a few. Ever seen Metal of Honor on the Wii? Atrocious. Looks like it was on the N64. Not acceptable. So sure,, the Wii isn't a graphic powerhouse, but we shouldn't let that be an excuse.

EDIT: & omachaw, it was still credited for great visuals, although it was still critisized (yeah yeah, who cares) for not being "perfect" in a sense.

If you're looking for graphics, please go stick with PS3 or 360 or and HD-PC. The Wii is the Wii, and it was not meant to be a ripoff of the other two.

Sorry if this sounds like an insult, but graphics aren't everything. Pokemon Gold and Silver never had 3d graphics, and yet even to this day, it's hugely popular. Popular enough that people demand remakes.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 04:54 PM
Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphics*****s and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

I bolded the key part of your argument that furthers my point. There will ALWAYS be "a few" who are disappointed with a certain aspect.

Still, if we were to put games like those on the PS3, they'd likely look much better. The PS3's more geared up than the Wii for graphics.

As for MEDAL of Honor, no I haven't. I don't look at war games. Though, you bring up a good point here about the Wii's graphics capability. They could have done better, yes, but they also could have done much worse.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:55 PM
Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphics*****s and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

Ok, we get the point. He was making a comparison about graphics on systems. Can we drop the Twilight graphics, please? We get it.

Besides, it was still credited on its visuals, despite it not being perfect. I would expect Galaxy & Corruption as being more appealing, as they were made later on, when they had the opportunity to advance.

Medal! Well, I'm sick. thats my excuse. So lets drop my spelling, shall we? Although that time, I thought it was Metal

wakachamo
December 22nd, 2007, 04:55 PM
EDIT: & omachaw, it was still credited for great visuals, although it was still critisized (yeah yeah, who cares) for not being "perfect" in a sense.

Could you give me a link? I'm sure I'd be most grateful if I saw somebody criticizing Super Mario Galaxy/Metroid Prime 3. I can't say I've seen anybody make fun of either of those games' visuals.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 04:57 PM
If you're looking for graphics, please go stick with PS3 or 360 or and HD-PC. The Wii is the Wii, and it was not meant to be a ripoff of the other two.

Sorry if this sounds like an insult, but graphics aren't everything. Pokemon Gold and Silver never had 3d graphics, and yet even to this day, it's hugely popular. Popular enough that people demand remakes.

As I said, I KNOW THAT THE WII IS NOT A GRAPHICS POWERHOUSE. But that is no excuse to make hideous games. ESPECIALLY SINCE PBR IS ONLY ABOUT 3D GRAPHICS. But not to Waker!

Sorry I had to put caps, but those points I wanted to make.

EDIT: ARGH! NO ONE IS PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO MY POSTS! I said they were critisizing TWILIGHT PRINCESS. Come on, now. Lets please drop it.

Zorua
December 22nd, 2007, 05:00 PM
As I said, I KNOW THAT THE WII IS NOT A GRAPHICS POWERHOUSE. But that is no excuse to make hideous games. ESPECIALLY SINCE PBR IS ONLY ABOUT 3D GRAPHICS. But not to Waker!

Sorry I had to put caps, but those points I wanted to make.

And here's the point I want to make:

If you're looking for graphics, please go stick with PS3 or 360 or/ and HD-PC. and

but graphics aren't everythingYou quite contradicted yourself too.

If you know the Wii isn't a graphic powerhouse, then why care about the graphics at all? :|

EDIT: After this post, no one continue anything, or else trouble is going to start, seriously...

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 05:03 PM
Could you give me a link? I'm sure I'd be most grateful if I saw somebody criticizing Super Mario Galaxy/Metroid Prime 3. I can't say I've seen anybody make fun of either of those games' visuals.

Super Mario Galaxy looks like a kiddie play-doh game! NYAH NYAH!! :P

There you go.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 05:04 PM
And here's the point I want to make:

and

You quite contradicted yourself too.

If you know the Wii isn't a graphic powerhouse, then why care about the graphics at all? :|

EDIT: After this post, no one continue anything, or else trouble is going to start, seriously...



I can't take it. For my health, I might stop posting. No one is listening to me at all. I said that while I know its not a graphic powerhopuse, its no excuse tp graphics that looks like it was on N64. Not at all. I never said those two post on the bottom, so how am I contradicting myself? Despite the fact that its not a powerhouse, its no excuse for pitiful graphics! Look at the games that I, Waker, & Wachamo quoted numerous times.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 05:05 PM
I can't take it. For my health, I might stop posting. No one is listening to me at all. I said that while I know its not a graphic powerhopuse, its no excuse tp graphics that looks like it was on N64. Not at all. I never said those two post on the bottom, so how am I contradicting myself?

Dude, you play video games. You're already crazy, just like everyone else who comes to this forum. :P

But I haven't been ignoring you, I just didn't have any reply yet.

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 05:06 PM
I can't take it. For my health, I might stop posting. No one is listening to me at all. I said that while I know its not a graphic powerhopuse, its no excuse tp graphics that looks like it was on N64. Not at all. I never said those two post on the bottom, so how am I contradicting myself? Despite the fact that its not a powerhouse, its no excuse for pitiful graphics! Look at the games that I, Waker, & Wachamo quoted numerous times.

Sorry, I edited something I wanted you guys to see.

kakarot
December 22nd, 2007, 05:11 PM
Yeah... ooook. :\

I love PBR for the simple fact that the Neo (Fortune) battle has given me the hardest time in my 30 years of playing video games.

I'm copping the worst luck with picking the opponents crud Pokemon and he gets my good ones.

I walked through Stadium, Stadium 2 and Colosseum , so I'm loving the challenge here.

:D

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 05:14 PM
I love PBR for the simple fact that the Neo (Fortune) battle has given me the hardest time in my 30 years of playing video games.

Oh, do you mean the Neon Colosseum?

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 05:25 PM
Yeah... ooook. :\Rude sarcasm FTW!!!

I love PBR for the simple fact that the Neo (Fortune) battle has given me the hardest time in my 30 years of playing video games.

I'm copping the worst luck with picking the opponents crud Pokemon and he gets my good ones.

I walked through Stadium, Stadium 2 and Colosseum , so I'm loving the challenge here.

:D

Really? He did? Hm. I do hope you didn't use rentals.

kakarot
December 22nd, 2007, 07:02 PM
That's it... Neon Colosseum.

Strangely though, I get further using a rental pass than getting my butt kicked with my own Lv 100 Rayquaza and co.

My point was, I love a game that i can't finish in an hour... this is keeping me interested.

And yeah... I'm a big fan of sarcasm.

:D

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 07:29 PM
That's it... Neon Colosseum.

Strangely though, I get further using a rental pass than getting my butt kicked with my own Lv 100 Rayquaza and co.

My point was, I love a game that i can't finish in an hour... this is keeping me interested.

And yeah... I'm a big fan of sarcasm.

:D

Well, keep the sarcasm above the belt :\

I'm at an impass, but we can all say this:

Different strokes for different blokes, I suppose.

pokejungle
December 22nd, 2007, 07:41 PM
I think every single console game since Stadium has been a disappointment. Hmph.

Waker of Chaos
December 22nd, 2007, 07:41 PM
That's it... Neon Colosseum.

Strangely though, I get further using a rental pass than getting my butt kicked with my own Lv 100 Rayquaza and co.

My point was, I love a game that i can't finish in an hour... this is keeping me interested.

And yeah... I'm a big fan of sarcasm.

:D

That's not strange, that's obvious. The Pokémon on the Rental Passes are basically just wild Pokémon that Anna or some other Pokétopia staff caught at Lv. 50. You actually trained your Pokémon so of course they're far stronger.

kakarot
December 22nd, 2007, 07:52 PM
Well, keep the sarcasm above the belt :\



Awww... sorry if you were offended but the 'ok' was directed at the grossly off topic tangent this thread was heading in.

And with the way some kids wear their pants these days, it's getting harder to keep it above the belt.

haha... j/k big fella!

;)

sims796
December 22nd, 2007, 07:54 PM
Awww... sorry if you were offended but the 'ok' was directed at the grossly off topic tangent this thread was heading in.

And with the way some kids wear their pants these days, it's getting harder to keep it above the belt.

haha... j/k big fella!

;)
Ya do know....I was being sarcastic too, right?

latioslegends
December 22nd, 2007, 10:23 PM
Welll I was a stadium fan (but I was a total nOOb), I thik PBR can only be proud of two things. Wifi game play, and item download (like the event pokes) so yeah I was dissapointment to stadium.

SBaby
December 23rd, 2007, 02:06 PM
Compared to Stadium, I don't know. I've never played Stadium.

But I do think PBR is a disappointment in general. You can literally beat the game faster than Halo 3, and it still costs 50 bucks. What a rip.

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 02:16 PM
Compared to Stadium, I don't know. I've never played Stadium.

But I do think PBR is a disappointment in general. You can literally beat the game faster than Halo 3, and it still costs 50 bucks. What a rip.

Since Halo 3 is a huge disappointment anyway (as is the XBox 360 and all games for it), I'd think that Pokémon Battle Revolution surpasses it with this logic. If a game's a disappointment, then the shorter it is, the better.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 02:29 PM
Since Halo 3 is a huge disappointment anyway (as is the XBox 360 and all games for it), I'd think that Pokémon Battle Revolution surpasses it with this logic. If a game's a disappointment, then the shorter it is, the better.

Watch your mouth. That is your opinion on it, as the VAST majority choses Halo 3 over PBR. Did you see the press, the lines (despite the fact that there was still more games around), the hype? & look at the sales. On both Halo 3 & the 360. Compare that with PBR. Hm.

& the game being short is possibly adding to the crapiness. I'm not sure.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 02:32 PM
Since Halo 3 is a huge disappointment anyway (as is the XBox 360 and all games for it), I'd think that Pokémon Battle Revolution surpasses it with this logic. If a game's a disappointment, then the shorter it is, the better.

How dare you mock Halo 3!

Halo 3's glory shines the most in Xbox Live, thats the problem where idiots were just playing it for the storyline.

Play it online and then tell me how bad it is

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 02:38 PM
Watch your mouth. That is your opinion on it, as the VAST majority choses Halo 3 over PBR. Did you see the press, the lines (despite the fact that there was still more games around), the hype? & look at the sales. On both Halo 3 & the 360. Compare that with PBR. Hm.

& the game being short is possibly adding to the crapiness. I'm not sure.

1) You watch yours. Saying "watch your mouth" to me is the same thing as kicking a populated bees' nest.

2) I don't often watch the news, but I know that Halo 3 was a disappointment because I've played it. The controls are too confusing, the story was crap, and the graphics were the only good thing Halo had. So I guess if you can put up with crappy controls, a console that will probably explode in your face, and shiny, spacey armor, then yeah, go with Halo. No one will blame you if they look at the press, lines, and hype, but they will when your IQ drops below 50 and you can't leave your XBox 360 for fear that you might actually move on with life.

How dare you mock Halo 3!

Halo 3's glory shines the most in Xbox Live, thats the problem where idiots were just playing it for the storyline.

Play it online and then tell me how bad it is

1) It only has glory because of fanboys, apparently like yourself.

2) Already have. It's terrible.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 02:49 PM
1) You watch yours. Saying "watch your mouth" to me is the same thing as kicking a populated bees' nest.
Stop acting like you have true weight around here. It was obviously a joke, and spouting off isn't scaring anyone. If you want to start flamming or cursing as if that hurts anyone & get yourself banned, go right ahead.

2) I don't often watch the news, but I know that Halo 3 was a disappointment because I've played it. The controls are too confusing, the story was crap, and the graphics were the only good thing Halo had. So I guess if you can put up with crappy controls, a console that will probably explode in your face, and shiny, spacey armor, then yeah, go with Halo. No one will blame you if they look at the press, lines, and hype, but they will when your IQ drops below 50 and you can't leave your XBox 360 for fear that you might actually move on with life.
Just because YOU dislike the game doesn't make it a bad game at ALL. This is the major problem. It doesn't go by your standards, so everyone who plays it are idiots. I used the press as an example because apparently, it can't be all that bad, since so many plays it. Insulting people who plays it doesn't make you look smart.


1) It only has glory because of fanboys, apparently like yourself.
Glory of fanboys, huh? That is exactly what can be of PBR. Barely. Apparently, most of the population are fanboys. At least post some fact OUTSIDE your own opinion.
2) Already have. It's terrible.

Just because you don't like it, don't start insulting those who do. Saying the word DISSAPOINTMENT meant it dissapointed many. That is clearly not the case.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 02:50 PM
He probably was killed so easily he threw his controller down and said **** this I'm going to go play Pogeymonz

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 02:58 PM
Stop acting like you have true weight around here. It was obviously a joke, and spouting off isn't scaring anyone. If you want to start flamming or cursing as if that hurts anyone & get yourself banned, go right ahead.

It wasn't so obvious to me. I don't know you well, and it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between a joke and an insult online without knowing the person, or the person using something like a :P or whatever.

Just because YOU dislike the game doesn't make it a bad game at ALL. This is the major problem. It doesn't go by your standards, so everyone who plays it are idiots. I used the press as an example because apparently, it can't be all that bad, since so many plays it. Insulting people who plays it doesn't make you look smart.

So I have my standards and you have yours. Don't throw a fit just because mine are different and I don't care about anyone else's opinions.

Glory of fanboys, huh? That is exactly what can be of PBR. Barely. Apparently, most of the population are fanboys. At least post some fact OUTSIDE your own opinion.

That's exactly what can be said about any series, as a matter of fact. What you're a fanboy or fangirl of depends on your opinions based on how much fact you have. A lot of people out there don't have as much fact as you think.

Just because you don't like it, don't start insulting those who do. Saying the word DISSAPOINTMENT meant it dissapointed many. That is clearly not the case.

Again, I don't care about the opinions of others. I care only about my own. So if I say a game was a disappointment, then that applies solely to me.

He probably was killed so easily he threw his controller down and said **** this I'm going to go play Pogeymonz

Actually, I'm pretty good at it. It's just that there are a ton of immature brats who play it as well, and my luck wasn't very good there.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 03:01 PM
Well that is true, but thats why its fun to kill them :3

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:03 PM
He probably was killed so easily he threw his controller down and said **** this I'm going to go play Pogeymonz

I don't know about that. Maybe he just doesn't like the game. No problem.

But insulting people because they do only make you look little. Don't use your own opinion as if it was absolute fact, as if we must go by your definition. Halo 3 is played worldwide. It has more hype. Like it or not, it is a MUCH more popular game. Meaning that using your definition as fact doesn't prove much.

I can compare PBR's graphics with others on the Wii. So I can use that as fact. If MANY people hated Halo 3, then you can use it as fact to support an arguement. But that is not the case.

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 03:04 PM
Well that is true, but thats why its fun to kill them :3

That's what killed it for me. I also play Yu-Gi-Oh!, so I have a ton of elitist morons to deal with a lot of the time. I didn't need them from Halo as well, so I stopped playing it.

Mind you, I never owned an XBox or XBox 360. I played at a friend's house.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 03:05 PM
Makes sense, alright

Well, on topic PBR is a disappointment compared to Stadium

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 03:05 PM
But insulting people because they do only make you look little. Don't use your own opinion as if it was absolute fact, as if we must go by your definition. Halo 3 is played worldwide. It has more hype. Like it or not, it is a MUCH more popular game. Meaning that using your definition as fact doesn't prove much.

I can compare PBR's graphics with others on the Wii. So I can use that as fact. If MANY people hated Halo 3, then you can use it as fact to support an arguement. But that is not the case.

I'll concede this point. It's just that my experience playing Halo 3 was not good at all.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:05 PM
2) I don't often watch the news, but I know that Halo 3 was a disappointment because I've played it. The controls are too confusing, the story was crap, and the graphics were the only good thing Halo had. So I guess if you can put up with crappy controls, a console that will probably explode in your face, and shiny, spacey armor, then yeah, go with Halo. No one will blame you if they look at the press, lines, and hype, but they will when your IQ drops below 50 and you can't leave your XBox 360 for fear that you might actually move on with life.



1) It only has glory because of fanboys, apparently like yourself.

It seems that you are the only one here with the problem of differing opinions. You are insulting members. You are the one throwing a fit. My problem is that you speak as if your opinions are the most valid.

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 03:07 PM
It seems that you are the only one here with the problem of differing opinions. You are insulting members. You are the one throwing a fit. My problem is that you speak as if your opinions are the most valid.

And you are going to drop it. Now.

This topic's about Pokémon Battle Revolution and how it compares to Pokémon Stadium and Pokémon Stadium 2. Keep it that way.

If you find me so insulting, the forum has an ignore list function.

Well, that's how I talk. If you don't like it, read above. No one gives a damn about my opinion anyway.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:08 PM
Really? Please, get over yourself. You've strayed just as much as others. Stop acting as if you are bigger than the other members here.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 03:09 PM
How about both of you stop talking to each other and leave this topic?

Hmm?

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:10 PM
& how about you stop mini modding? You barely contributed anything, only joining to add about Halo 3.

Waker of Chaos
December 23rd, 2007, 03:15 PM
Really? Please, get over yourself. You've strayed just as much as others. Stop acting as if you are bigger than the other members here.

This will be my final post here, because I'm a smart person.

I'm not bigger, but experiences in my life have taught me that I'm smarter than the average person. You're spamming, and I actually tried to get this place back on track. You are now spamming more.

Pokémon Battle Revolution is better than both Pokémon Stadium and Pokémon Stadium 2. That's my opinion.

Virtual Chatot
December 23rd, 2007, 03:16 PM
How is it mini-modding to give you to some sound advice? Arguments on the internet get nowhere, because no one cares about what people say.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:19 PM
This will be my final post here, because I'm a smart person.

I'm not bigger, but experiences in my life have taught me that I'm smarter than the average person. You're spamming, and I actually tried to get this place back on track. You are now spamming more. Oh, really? You spammed just as much as others. Smarter than the average person? Maybe you should stop acting like you are. You are no superior to anyone else here, so stop trying to dictate as if you are. I don't know what experiences told you you are.

Pokémon Battle Revolution is better than both Pokémon Stadium and Pokémon Stadium 2. That's my opinion.

Not in mine. I said it before, I prefer the added features to bland gameplay.

GeneralGuy
December 23rd, 2007, 03:35 PM
Believe it or not, Pokemon Battle Revolution outclasses all other previous titles when you take the gameplay and graphics into account. Not that hard to understand, really.

sims796
December 23rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
Gameplay? Its Poke vs Poke.The exact same thing, except you point & click. Graphics wise, I see no improvement whatsoever. Looks just like Collesium.