Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > machomuu

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.



Conversation Between machomuu and Pinkie-Dawn
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 10
  1. machomuu
    October 4th, 2014 10:31 AM
    machomuu
    Thanks Dawn!
  2. Pinkie-Dawn
    October 2nd, 2014 01:20 PM
    Pinkie-Dawn
    Happy birthday, machomuu.
  3. machomuu
    June 6th, 2014 10:29 AM
    machomuu
    That doesn't really change my stance on it. In fact, I think it makes more sense that Watch_Dogs uses dead memes (which, surprisingly, is a term used in the same sense as the way that I use it). That's the only reason I really think it's appropriate, because it seems self aware, especially considering that this hacker is posting these in what is supposed to be a real-world reflection of Chicago.

    Memes and jokes are meant to be created chemically, they're not supposed to be forced (hence why forced memes exist), and any attempts at creating memes will end horribly. If they really wanted to force something funny then they would use original content, and likely use the many dialogue outlets they have available, such as the text conversations, talking, cutscenes, etc. But it hardly seems like they were using it in that sense since Billboards are such a minute part of the game that they seem more as if they're there for fanservice rather than anything else. Initially, they spur shock in those not expecting memes so old and so dead to resurface, such as "All your base r belong to us" and "Over 9000", and later, it just becomes a test to see how far you can date yourself. I don't really see anything wrong with that, it's just a small bit of fanservice, not a means to force dated memes on people for laughs.
  4. Pinkie-Dawn
    June 6th, 2014 09:18 AM
    Pinkie-Dawn
    This video should explain why adding real-world memes on Watch Dogs was not a good idea to begin with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaKYsLQ-98A
  5. Pinkie-Dawn
    August 1st, 2013 06:30 AM
    Pinkie-Dawn
    I'm flattered about being important to the VG forum. Thanks.
  6. machomuu
    July 31st, 2013 08:51 PM
    machomuu
    Happy birthday! I may not know you that well, but you are a rather important member of the Video Game forum, so I thought that it made sense to congratulate you on another year (and hopefully more to come).
  7. machomuu
    July 25th, 2013 08:04 AM
    machomuu
    As I said, they've been fixed. However, as I said before, these fixes alone and the small changes between each game are not enough to make for full-blown sequels. Those technical issues are hardly game breakers, and they don't destroy the experiences on their own, nor do the fixes alone make the later games better. A game is more than just technicalities, and those are only a few problems. This is why so many people can and have played Pokemon GSC without having played them when they came out. Newer, younger gamers who didn't play from the beginning, who started from DPP or BW.

    I'm against bias, and I only wear nostalgia goggles when it's needed, but I've examined the games from a critical point of view, and they're still solid. If you let a few problems take precedence over the solid parts of a game then you're just trying not to like it. Again, those are a problems, but they're hardly big problems. They aren't game breakers, and just because some people don't care doesn't mean that the fanbase is broken. It'd be broken if they wanted that stuff back, but they don't. It'd be broken if they said that they games were worse than their modern contemporaries because of those issues alone. All games have flaws, and if those are the only flaws, not all of which I consider flaws...well, I don't think it should be so hard to see why it has such acclaim.

    Of course, there are others. There are other problems, but I've already explained why people like RBY/GSC so much. Maybe they're not the best games in the series, but as an original and as a sequel to RBY respectively, they deserved the most acclaim for what they did (and they, especially GSC, still do things that the modern games don't). You can accuse it of being a case of nostalgia goggles and ignorant fandom all you want, but there's more to their popularity than just their technical flaws. That's why even non-pokemon fans enjoy them. The only thing that I think is "broken" about the fandom is that they don't demand more, that they've been so okay with more of the same for years. People have left the franchise for that reason. I almost left the franchise for that reason. It's not about the fanbase or nostalgia.

    Though, when you think about it, XY's acclaim doesn't mean a thing. Main pokemon games always get massive appeal, and the chance that the acclaim for XY will reach that of the 13 year old GSC is...not unlikely. Actually, Pokemon games have reached it before. Many times. By many reviewers. It's not a new thing, the main Pokemon games always get massive acclaim and always appear of "Best Of System" lists. The games just have a lot of fans, and that's a testament to the fact that people like the games for their merit, not because they're classics or nostalgic. And the merit is what matters, the merit is the reason I looked at BW2 and started to realize that they care again, and the merit is the reason that I'm looking forward to XY. There wasn't a massive amount for change, but they're changing anyway. They're working to make the sequels feel like sequels...and that's really all I could ask for from them.

    As far as sales are concerned, RBY is...a special case. First Gen Pokemon had 6 games. Six games. There was Red (Japan), Green (Japan), Blue (Japan), Red, Blue, and Yellow. Now, let's pair this with the fact that, at the time, Pokemon was THE thing. It was the talk of the town. Kids everywhere watched the show, and collected the toys. Its popularity was unfounded, with kids often buying both versions and the third (or fourth) version. Now, let's go further with that. Piracy wasn't big back then, at all. It happened, but it wasn't as easy or seamless as it is now. It was because of this popularity that GSC sold so well, but with this it is understandable why GSC, which is often considered the more popular of the two, sold less (though not by too much).

    Nowadays Pokemon is popular, but not nearly as popular as it was at the beginning. A lot of the kids who liked it when they were younger grew up and stopped liking pokemon or games altogether, and the next generation generation of kids weren't as taken by it as the first. The chance that any Pokemon game's sales would reach RBGY are pretty close to zero, because the factors are too extraordinaire.
  8. Pinkie-Dawn
    July 25th, 2013 06:52 AM
    Pinkie-Dawn
    Quote:
    As for Red/Blue and GSC, I can go on record and say that I can't really say those problems are deal breakers for me or for most of the people that play/ed the games. Sure, they were hard compared to the current ones, but I think most people will agree in saying that the recent games aren't that hard. I think RBY/GSC had a moderate difficulty (though I hear BW2's doing a good job bringing it back). As for post-game content, that was fine as well. Sure, there were no battle frontiers or Sevii Isles, but that didn't stop people from getting tremendous playtimes and always finding more to do. As for the type diversity and the rosters, they weren't huge problems, and they certainly weren't problems that made you want to throw your system at the wall because the forgiving nature of the pokemon series always balanced that out. Plus, as you said, those were merely technical issues, and they're hardly deal breakers. They aren't minor, but they could be fixed easily. And they were. Heck, there are people that go back to play the games because of those things. That doesn't mean we should overlook them, but the music in the first two gens was so great, and they still did well at what they did, offering memorable characters, locations, and story that people never forgot. They didn't mind the technical "problems" because they had so much fun with the game, as well as with the technical problems, that they enjoyed the problems themselves. If we were to look at each title as if they all came out at the same time, maybe outlook would be different thanks to the different features, but regardless, people like the games, especially GSC, for their merit. People like RBY/GSC not just because they were something fresh, but because they complimented each other as prequels and sequels. They had a lot to offer, and a lot of new to offer. If BW had been the second game or if DP had been the second game, all with the improvements that the games that preceded them had, they would have been meet with incredible praise because as sequels to RBY they work. However, as sequels to RSE/DPP and RSE respectively, they just don't cut it as full blown sequels.
    That's not the difficulty curve I'm talking about; I was talking about underleveled Pokemon in GSC such as Lance's underleveled Dragonites. Compared to R/B's level curve, where the Elite Four had lvl 50-60 Pokemon, it was a step backwards, especially how it made level grinding more frustrating due to the lack of lvl 50-60 wild Pokemon to battle before facing Red. I've seen some people in other Pokemon forums pointing out these technical flaws on how these games haven't aged well, because they weren't wearing any nostalgia goggles. Even the remakes failed to fix these technical problems (reworking the gym leader rosters, add more Johto Pokemon in the wild, give some Pokemon additional Ghost or Dragon typings for Agatha, Morty, Claire, and Lance's team, etc). It's these people who don't care about the technical improvements on why I worry about Pokemon's future for not being able to dethrone the first two gens, because of the broken fanbase.
  9. machomuu
    July 24th, 2013 08:36 PM
    machomuu
    Not necessarily, and I think that Final Fantasy is a chief example of this. On a basic level, one could say that Final Fantasy 1-10 are pretty much the same. In a very basic sense, one would be right. However, when you start to look at each one and look just a little bit beneath the surface, one starts to realize how different each game is, and they only become more diverse from there.

    Not every series needs to do that. Heck, I might say that Final Fantasy is something of a minor extreme in terms of making each game different and trying new concepts, so we take a look at Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem is a series that is identifiable by its gameplay, and when one plays a game, they'll know it's Fire Emblem because it feels like the others.

    So why do I think this is a good example? Because it knows how to play it safe and still introduce new concepts. I could play Fire Emblem One and not feel too jetlagged, but it wouldn't feel as much like Fire Emblem. However, after they introduced the Weapon Wheel, they didn't stop there. They tried to make each game feel like its own game, introducing and removing mechanics so that no matter where one looked in the series they would see a unique experience.

    Another example, and I think this is incredibly relevant, is Shin Megami Tensei. Shin Megami Tensei and Pokemon are pretty similar in many respects, but the difference between the titles is that Shin Megami Tensei didn't have to totally change it's genre or gametype to feel fresh but it still managed to evolve without feeling like it was stuck in time. It managed to apply that modern coat while adding more and more to the game, as if the game always had more to offer you, but it still felt like Shin Megami Tensei.

    And those are just a few examples. Turn-Based RPGs of any kind do evolve and they do change. Some make drastic, series altering changes and others make traditional but still sequel worthy changes. Pokemon does add things, but at a much, much slower rate. Heck, I'd go as far as to say that XY should be the fourth generation game, because if you culminated all that was added between DPP, BW/2, and XY, you'd get enough content to warrant a sequel. On their own, however, they just don't add that much (well, except maybe XY, but that doesn't change the point. It doesn't have to be like Final Fantasy and play with other genres. and it doesn't need to completely rework its gameplay, but all I know is that over the past couple of generations, it's been doing what it can to get the most money the fastest possible way, and XY is my ray of hope that they are starting to care again (as was BW/2, but we'll see).

    As for Red/Blue and GSC, I can go on record and say that I can't really say those problems are deal breakers for me or for most of the people that play/ed the games. Sure, they were hard compared to the current ones, but I think most people will agree in saying that the recent games aren't that hard. I think RBY/GSC had a moderate difficulty (though I hear BW2's doing a good job bringing it back). As for post-game content, that was fine as well. Sure, there were no battle frontiers or Sevii Isles, but that didn't stop people from getting tremendous playtimes and always finding more to do. As for the type diversity and the rosters, they weren't huge problems, and they certainly weren't problems that made you want to throw your system at the wall because the forgiving nature of the pokemon series always balanced that out. Plus, as you said, those were merely technical issues, and they're hardly deal breakers. They aren't minor, but they could be fixed easily. And they were. Heck, there are people that go back to play the games because of those things. That doesn't mean we should overlook them, but the music in the first two gens was so great, and they still did well at what they did, offering memorable characters, locations, and story that people never forgot. They didn't mind the technical "problems" because they had so much fun with the game, as well as with the technical problems, that they enjoyed the problems themselves. If we were to look at each title as if they all came out at the same time, maybe outlook would be different thanks to the different features, but regardless, people like the games, especially GSC, for their merit. People like RBY/GSC not just because they were something fresh, but because they complimented each other as prequels and sequels. They had a lot to offer, and a lot of new to offer. If BW had been the second game or if DP had been the second game, all with the improvements that the games that preceded them had, they would have been meet with incredible praise because as sequels to RBY they work. However, as sequels to RSE/DPP and RSE respectively, they just don't cut it as full blown sequels.

    As for the games you listed, I don't think Zelda II is bad at all, and I think Gamnonbanned and AVGN highlight pretty well the reasons why. It was hard, I'll give it that, but it set in place RPG elements and a open world that was unseen in a NES game, and the music was still great. Sure, it wasn't LoZ, but I'd hardly call it bad or even anything but good.

    Same with Adventures. I'm not going to say it was great, but I think people would have looked at the game rather differently had it gone with it's original concept and passed up the Star Fox coat. People can sometimes be averse to change, and I realize that there's more than one franchise out there that would have gotten a lot less flak if its "black sheep" title had different name.

    Eh...sorry for the wall of text. I just started typing and realized that I had a lot to say, I might have went a little overboard, though -.-'
  10. Pinkie-Dawn
    July 24th, 2013 07:34 PM
    Pinkie-Dawn
    Just to move this discussion from my thread, so it doesn't become off-topic with our Pokemon talk:

    Quote:
    Now let's take Pokemon. You know, I, too, would like XY to exceed the critical acclaim that GSC did, because I loved GSC and would love for another game in the series to meet it's calibre. I don't see that happening for two reasons, though. The first reason is because of what I stated above-partially. Not only is GSC a classic, but it's a timeless classic. I could easily play GSC from beginning to end without feeling generational whiplash. This goes for RBY, too. This segues into my second point, pokemon is slow to innovate. Very. That's the reason that RSE/DPP/BW/2 aren't as lauded as the first two, because they simply feel like pretty much the same game with a modern coating and a few new features in between, but not so many that you can play the first two entries and be blown away by "how far we've come". XY hasn't really proved to be an overhaul of the franchise, and it may be the same case as the others...but it could be better. Still, I don't think that it will reach the popular heights that GSC/RBY did, and that's a good thing. As long as those two stand on top, people will demand more, and the potential for change will increase.
    Wouldn't the same apply to every other turn-based RPG? Changing the core gameplay can really hurt the franchise, just ask other franchises to did poorly for being different (Zelda II, SF Adventures, Nuts 'n' Bolts, etc.). Also, I wouldn't call the first two gens kings due to suffering a lot of technical problems such as the difficulty curve, bad type diversity, lack of more post-game content, and questionable gym leader/elite four rosters.

All times are UTC -8. The time now is 12:50 AM.