3rd Gen What went wrong with FRLG?

BettyNewbie · Feb 3, 2015

As some of you may already know, I've never held Generation 3 in that high of regard to begin with. I've always had many issues with the Hoenn games--They killed compatibility with the previous two Gens, featured a bland and poorly-designed region that had zero connections to either of the previous two, had a mostly boring cast of characters and a storyline that made zero sense if you knew what the Water Cycle was, began the tradition of using new Pokémon to "replace" instead of compliment the old ones, and started the trend of GF increasingly catering to competitive battling instead of casual play. Also, the graphics fell considerably below what the GBA was capable of, the music sounded like nails on a chalkboard (sorry, trumpet fans), the overhauled stat system was useless outside of competitive and only made in-game play more tedious, and way too many good features from the previous Gen were removed (like Day/Night).

My stance on the Hoenn games has softened a little bit over time, though. I ended up liking many Pokémon introduced in these games (the starters, Gardevoir, Breloom, and Milotic, for example), and the modern remakes--OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire--are great-looking games that fix many of the problems the originals had.

On the other hand, it's the other half of Generation 3 that's increasingly starting to frustrate me.

I love Generation 1. How could I not? Yellow was my very first game way back in 1999, and I came of age right at the height of Pokémania. I had the games, the anime (on these things called "VHS tapes"), the toys, everything. There's just so much nostalgia associated with these games, and they still hold up pretty well for me. The region is memorable, the characters are memorable, the storyline is simple, yet effective, and there's a lot of great Pokémon to choose from. Granted, the Even Better Sequels eventually superseded Gen 1 as my favorite Gen, but old-school Red, Blue, and Yellow still rank pretty high in my book.

So, why don't I like FireRed and LeafGreen, then? Why do the games fill me with more rage than joy? I mean, my favorite Generation's remakes don't invoke the same feelings; in fact, I quite like them and even consider them a gold standard for what good remakes should look like. They look good, they play well, and they do a fantastic job of integrating all three Gen 2 games together and adding enough new content to set them apart from the originals.

And, then, I think about it and realize... None of those things are true for FireRed and LeafGreen. They aren't "good remakes" by any stretch of the word. In fact, they're pretty terrible.

Why did FRLG fail, while HGSS (and later, ORAS) prevail? What do the later remakes have that the first ones don't? What went wrong with FRLG?

1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.

What do you think? Did any of these things bother you as much as they bothered me? Would I have seen the games differently if I had been a newcomer instead of a Gen 1-2 veteran?

Mega_Kris · Feb 3, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.

This isn't a strong reason to hate the game. Things introduced in Gold/Silver/Crystal doesn't mean they were NOT introduced in Red/Blue. Sure there were somethings i think FGLG could've used from Gen 2 that would still feel like its Red/Blue remake. Games such as

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

This would've been nice. but considering your first game was Yellow, and you show off your love for yellow more than gen 1 at all. I believe you're taking it harder than most.

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

this is the only one i feel as strongly.

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?

they brought forth the same game as before with new re-designed graphics. Again...when you think of "remake" you think it means it's a new game with emphasis of new features. you expected new features and because you didn't get many, you pushed on it harder than necessary. Overall though FRLG seems to get even more hate than necessary. Most remakes for its time never added anything major changes.

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.

[/INDENT]What do you think? Did any of these things bother you as much as they bothered me? Would I have seen the games differently if I had been a newcomer instead of a Gen 1-2 veteran?[/QUOTE]

A favor for nostalgia is good.....keep in mind, some people actually WANT to play the original games but with better graphics, and few updated features. if you don't think thats good in any way....so be it....but that doesn't mean the remake "FAILED" because it did what every remake should.

BettyNewbie · Feb 3, 2015

Shiny_Unown said:
This isn't a strong reason to hate the game. Things introduced in Gold/Silver/Crystal doesn't mean they were NOT introduced in Red/Blue. Sure there were somethings i think FGLG could've used from Gen 2 that would still feel like its Red/Blue remake.

But, FRLG came out after GSC, so they should, theoretically, have all of the new mechanics and Pokémon those games brought to Kanto, right? Games are supposed to go forwards, not backwards. A GBA game should not feel less modern than a GBC one.

Shiny_Unown said:
This would've been nice. but considering your first game was Yellow, and you show off your love for yellow more than gen 1 at all. I believe you're taking it harder than most.

Yes, I prefer Yellow to Red/Blue, so what? It's not that different from all of the Emerald fans bemoaning ORAS for not including many Emerald features (and there are many).

Shiny_Unown said:
they brought forth the same game as before with new re-designed graphics.

Technically, the international Red/Blue (and the limited release JP Blue) were also that in regards to the original Red/Green, same game with (slightly) different graphics. By that standard, even Yellow added more to Gen 1 than FRLG.

Shiny_Unown said:
Again...when you think of "remake" you think it means it's a new game with emphasis of new features. you expected new features and because you didn't get many, you pushed on it harder than necessary. Overall though FRLG seems to get even more hate than necessary. Most remakes for its time never added anything major changes.

When most people think of remakes, they think of an old story with all of the graphical and mechanical advancements of newer games. This is especially true for a series like Pokémon, where there's a heavy emphasis placed on new features with each new Generation.

Remember the huge outcry over ORAS not having trainer customization? That's exactly how people who wanted to experience Gen 1 with things like Day/Night (or, just a clock, period), breeding, and newer Pokémon felt about FRLG.

Mega_Kris · Feb 4, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
But, FRLG came out after GSC, so they should, theoretically, have all of the new mechanics and Pokémon those games brought to Kanto, right? Games are supposed to go forwards, not backwards. A GBA game should not feel less modern than a GBC one.

keyword "should". you're saying since these games aafter they should have more, regardless if it even is a remake. so theoretically, no they shouldn't. They could've. They might've. but not should've.

you want to play games based on the software capabilities of the console. thats not what remakes are about. sure its part of it, but not ALL of it. and if thats all you care about (which you seem to constantly focus on and bash FRLG) then yes.

Yes, I prefer Yellow to Red/Blue, so what?

Don't you think its bias to hate FRLG a little more just for that? Yellow is still a bigger shift apart from RB....primarily that it was designed to feel like the anime.

Technically, the international Red/Blue (and the limited release JP Blue) were also that in regards to the original Red/Green, same game with (slightly) different graphics. By that standard, even Yellow added more to Gen 1 than FRLG.

If we're going to be technical. international Red and Blue used both aspects from JP Red/Green and JP limited edition Blue. They were refined, still considered the same game. But regardless, my main point is this....it was still a game based on the originals. Yellow was a shift to focus on Pikachu and most of the additions were based on anime/pikachu. the original Red/Green/Blue had absolutely no focus on Pikachu

When most people think of remakes, they think of an old story with all of the graphical and mechanical advancements of newer games. This is especially true for a series like Pokémon, where there's a heavy emphasis placed on new features with each new Generation.

with very few remakes. its not that true. Let's keep in mind that not most people think "mechanical" advancements....that is only on you and maybe a select demented few.

Regardless of what you believe "most" people think, most remakes objectively are the same story, the same gameplay. Changes are often done graphically or covering up a major plot hole, or something that was heavily criticized. Any changes to gameplay is often to be

additions were refinements and "bonus". expansions are often done as well. sometimes remakes are also designed so they can open up to sequels, so they add in additional scenes especially the ending for the sake of making more. but it all depends on what the remake is for. MOST people know that remakes are designed to experience the original games with modern graphics, with some additions that do NOT overshadow the original experience.

Remember the huge outcry over ORAS not having trainer customization? That's exactly how people who wanted to experience Gen 1 with things like Day/Night (or, just a clock, period), breeding, and newer Pokémon felt about FRLG.

which is why i believe Pokemon Alpha Sapphire should've been remade BEFORE XY came out. that way, one of the more newer 3D games could've taken advantage of the new features and at the same time, not make a mess of the games. adding more features to each remake, makes it difficult to follow.

Now that ORAS has features of XY, what will DP have? what will BW and B2W2 have?

In pokemon red and blue there was no day/night feature. but you also have to consider, most of the pokemon weren't designed to take advantage of the day/night feature, and it would've been far easier to capture all pokemon.

when gold/silver came out more pokemon took advantage of the day/night feature because of the roster. it also helped encountering more pokemon since the roster got far bigger this time. made pokemon more rare. so i completely understand why they didn't bother with it. it wasn't as beneficial as Gold/Silver

Egon Spengler · Feb 4, 2015

Boooooooo!

This is all I have ever played really, I have never played any of the RSE games, just FRLG for me. As soon as I get every one from these games I do plan on continuing on though.

You hate Gen III so much, but what about Colosseum and Gale of Darkness?

moon · Feb 4, 2015

Egon Spengler said:
You hate Gen III so much, but what about Colosseum and Gale of Darkness?

Those are not part of the main game series and can't really be fitted into a generation like that. In ways, yeah, but I wouldn't say so :)

BettyNewbie, I actually agree with all of your points. FR/LG are the worst pokemon games I have played. They feel like plastic after Gen 2's deep world, and the environments are plain boring after Hoenn's wild nature. They could have made the region better, instead of making it the most plain and least exciting part of the series.

One point I'm especially appalled with is the music. Hoenn's tracks were unique and modern on the GBA system, but the soundfont used in FRLG was just... Boring. Bad. Dulled down the beautiful original tunes from the GB.

BettyNewbie · Feb 4, 2015

Shiny_Unown said:
keyword "should". you're saying since these games aafter they should have more, regardless if it even is a remake. so theoretically, no they shouldn't. They could've. They might've. but not should've.

Because, I should expect Generation 3 games to have all of the new features that had been introduced in the franchise up until that point.

Shiny_Unown said:
If we're going to be technical. international Red and Blue used both aspects from JP Red/Green and JP limited edition Blue. They were refined, still considered the same game. But regardless, my main point is this....it was still a game based on the originals. Yellow was a shift to focus on Pikachu and most of the additions were based on anime/pikachu. the original Red/Green/Blue had absolutely no focus on Pikachu

International RB was still, basically, just a re-release of the original RG with slightly different graphics and slightly fewer bugs. (As bad as RB's sprites were, they were still, believe it or not, an upgrade over RG's sprites.)

Yellow went even further by including new features (many inspired by the then popular anime), fixing more bugs, adding GBC colors, and adding much nicer sprites.

Shiny_Unown said:
with very few remakes. its not that true. Let's keep in mind that not most people think "mechanical" advancements....that is only on you and maybe a select demented few.

Hey, there! Watch the name-calling!

Shiny_Unown said:
Regardless of what you believe "most" people think, most remakes objectively are the same story, the same gameplay. Changes are often done graphically or covering up a major plot hole, or something that was heavily criticized. Any changes to gameplay is often to be

additions were refinements and "bonus". expansions are often done as well. sometimes remakes are also designed so they can open up to sequels, so they add in additional scenes especially the ending for the sake of making more. but it all depends on what the remake is for. MOST people know that remakes are designed to experience the original games with modern graphics, with some additions that do NOT overshadow the original experience.

As I explained in the other thread, you're equating Pokémon with more story-driven franchises like Zelda, which doesn't really work that well. Zelda doesn't place nearly as much of an emphasis on new gameplay features and mechanics with each new release, so it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not the Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask remakes have things that Wind Waker and Twilight Princess had. The main thing that drives those games is story, not gameplay.

Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. The biggest thing that separates one Gen from another is their graphics, mechanics, features, and most of all, Pokémon count. That's the main criteria people use to determine how "modern" a Pokémon game is.

Shiny_Unown said:
which is why i believe Pokemon Alpha Sapphire should've been remade BEFORE XY came out. that way, one of the more newer 3D games could've taken advantage of the new features and at the same time, not make a mess of the games. adding more features to each remake, makes it difficult to follow.

So, you wanted them to be made for the DS at the very end of Gen 5, then?

Shiny_Unown said:
Now that ORAS has features of XY, what will DP have? what will BW and B2W2 have?

They'll have the features of whatever Generation they're remade in, which probably won't happen Gen 8 or 9, at the very earliest.

Shiny_Unown said:
In pokemon red and blue there was no day/night feature. but you also have to consider, most of the pokemon weren't designed to take advantage of the day/night feature, and it would've been far easier to capture all pokemon.

So, what? FRLG weren't Gen 1 games, they were Gen 3 games, and last I checked, internal clocks had become a standard feature of the games by then.

Shiny_Unown said:
when gold/silver came out more pokemon took advantage of the day/night feature because of the roster. it also helped encountering more pokemon since the roster got far bigger this time. made pokemon more rare. so i completely understand why they didn't bother with it. it wasn't as beneficial as Gold/Silver

No other game besides GSC and HGSS have had Pokémon based on the time of day, and yet, they all still have Day/Night. The feature has more benefits than just that.

Doctor said:
BettyNewbie, I actually agree with all of your points. FR/LG are the worst pokemon games I have played. They feel like plastic after Gen 2's deep world, and the environments are plain boring after Hoenn's wild nature. They could have made the region better, instead of making it the most plain and least exciting part of the series.

That's one of my biggest gripes, right there. FRLG felt like several steps backwards from GSC and RS, which is just wrong. Just because they were remakes didn't mean that they had to ignore almost everything that Gens 2 and 3 had brought to the franchise. If all people wanted was Gen 1 with different graphics and a few bugfixes and new features, Yellow already did that well enough. FRLG needed to be a lot more than that.

Doctor said:
One point I'm especially appalled with is the music. Hoenn's tracks were unique and modern on the GBA system, but the soundfont used in FRLG was just... Boring. Bad. Dulled down the beautiful original tunes from the GB.

Oh, I didn't mention it, but I have a special hatred for FRLG's music, myself. The GBA didn't have great sound quality to begin with, but FRLG's soundfont was far below even that standard. If they couldn't give us decent remixes, could they have, at least, just given us the original music? Even with a "GB Sounds" item?

Bellsprout · Feb 4, 2015

Weirdly enough fr/lg are probably my favorite remakes lol. I thought the overworld graphics were cute. Idk something about the style of the game was really endearing for me. I personally never found the features in gsc to be that great. I never cared for the day/night system and I wasn't a big berry user in gsc or rse. So I wasn't that sad they weren't included.

I really loved the addition of the Sevii islands. I found it to be so much fun exploring all the islands and I especially loved the added story to them after you defeated the Champion. For me that was such a pleasant addition that tied into the game nicely. I guess I really enjoyed the simplicity of the originals so I was happy that it was improved upon, but yet preserved at the same time.

BettyNewbie said:
3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)?

I don't really understand why you would think they would include missingno among other glitches that were present in the original games. The forced battle tutorial wasn't that bad imo. It was literally just your first battle with your rival with some pointers from Oak. I felt like it was just an emphasis on how much of a green horn you're supposed to be in the story.

BettyNewbie said:
4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea.

I agree these games didn't really add much. Yeah the vs seeker was a bit like previous gear we've seen, but I found it far more useful. the pokegear was imo horrible when it came to battling people again. There was only a set amount of trainers you could register and their calls were pretty annoying. The PokeNav was an improvement upon this, but even so I didn't find it as useful as the vs seeker. Ultimately the seeker let you pick which trainers you wanted to battle, even if they didn't jump up right away you could easily recharge the thing and try again. I found it really useful for grinding. It's one of my all time fav items in the games.

BettyNewbie · Feb 4, 2015

Ayselipera said:
I personally never found the features in gsc to be that great. I never cared for the day/night system and I wasn't a big berry user in gsc or rse. So I wasn't that sad they weren't included.

Well, that's why RBY existed. They didn't have any of GSC's or RSE's features, and they could still be played on a GBA. The only issue was that they couldn't trade with RSE, which is pretty much a moot point nowadays (as none of the older games, GB/C or GBA, are compatible with the newest ones).

Ayselipera said:
I really loved the addition of the Sevii islands. I found it to be so much fun exploring all the islands and I especially loved the added story to them after you defeated the Champion. For me that was such a pleasant addition that tied into the game nicely. I guess I really enjoyed the simplicity of the originals so I was happy that it was improved upon, but yet preserved at the same time.

I found the Sevii Islands to be extremely underwhelming. Nothing about them was unique or distinctive (even their very soundtrack was ripped off from Johto), and there really wasn't anything to do there but a couple of tedious fetch quests and catching weak, underleveled Gen 2 Pokémon like Sentret and Hoppip that should've been in the Kanto Dex to begin with. Storytelling was next to non-existent.

They should've been something more like the anime's Orange Islands, with their own League and backstory, as well as distinct tropical setting. And, if GF was unwilling to give us that, they could've, at least, let us visit Johto, instead (HGSS were still a good 5-6 years away, after all).

Ayselipera said:
I don't really understand why you would think they would include missingno among other glitches that were present in the original games.

I never said that. (Even though those glitches did have more use than the Teachy TV.)

Ayselipera said:
The forced battle tutorial wasn't that bad imo. It was literally just your first battle with your rival with some pointers from Oak. I felt like it was just an emphasis on how much of a green horn you're supposed to be in the story.

But, the problem is that we, the players, were far from being "green horns." Many of us were going into FRLG with two whole Generations under our belt, including the very games FRLG were remaking (which didn't include any tutorials aside from the Old Man, despite being the actual first Pokémon games).

Megan · Feb 4, 2015

FRLG definitely threw a ton of potential out of the window. I mean, I'm not a fan of textbox tutorials and all that stuff in general (in fact I really hate those with a passion), but seeing how Oak explains to you in your first battle, how battles work also pains me in a second aspect: the feature is never used again.
It's a feature that's in the game, a feature, that's actually used. But why is it only used once? Why doesn't Giovanni talk to you during one of your battles against him? Sure, they implemented that feature in future games, but why did it take so long?

It's the same with those automated battles, especially in RSE. First you get your Pokeballs which allow you to catch Pokemon and then some time later they show you a catching tutorial anyway. I mean, at least Wally catching his Pokemon was somewhat plot relevant, so it's not that big of a deal, but why never use these scripted battles outside of this tutorial?

It's stuff like that, that just pains me, because it could have improved the playing experience a little bit more. And like I said, it's features that are already in the gen 3 games.

Also evolution lock. Why showing us in the other games, that some Pokemon evolve by friendship, when in FRLG these don't work pre National Dex? Explaining that it's not because the friendship isn't high enough, but because it just didn't work? That's terrible design. Fortunately they fixed that in the other remakes.

Including the Sevii Islands...tbh. long before the remakes where released (heck, long before RS were released) I already heared some rumors about some islands named after numbers that were supposed to be in the gen 1 games, but where scrapped because of lack of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if those rumors where true and GF decided to make FRLG what RBGY where supposed to be. Unfortunately that's not a step forward and the islands themself were really boring, too. They weren't explorative, instead they just let you run some erands to get some jewelry and passwords.

BettyNewbie · Feb 4, 2015

R.F. said:
FRLG definitely threw a ton of potential out of the window. I mean, I'm not a fan of textbox tutorials and all that stuff in general (in fact I really hate those with a passion),

They weren't even needed, too. I mean, we got along just fine in RBY without a "how to battle" tutorial, so why did we need one in FRLG? Were they aiming these games at preschoolers, or something?

R.F. said:
but seeing how Oak explains to you in your first battle, how battles work also pains me in a second aspect: the feature is never used again.
It's a feature that's in the game, a feature, that's actually used. But why is it only used once? Why doesn't Giovanni talk to you during one of your battles against him? Sure, they implemented that feature in future games, but why did it take so long?

That's very true! What a waste of a potentially useful feature. I would've loved to see in-battle dialog for Giovanni, if not also Blue, the other Gym Leaders, and Elite Four.

Speaking of wasted things, there's also the Fame Checker. What's the point of this thing? It makes you go through this scavenger hunt all over the game for absolutely no reward. Maybe, they thought they were doing "character development" with it, but that could've just as easily been achieved by, I don't know, showing the Gym Leaders and E4 Members outside of their rooms and doing things and interacting with other characters.

R.F. said:
Also evolution lock. Why showing us in the other games, that some Pokemon evolve by friendship, when in FRLG these don't work pre National Dex? Explaining that it's not because the friendship isn't high enough, but because it just didn't work? That's terrible design. Fortunately they fixed that in the other remakes.

Because, apparently, they thought your cartridge would explode if Golbat was allowed to evolve like it can in every other post-RBY game. :rolleyes2:

(And, let me remind you that Crobat, along with about 60 other Gen 2 Pokémon, was originally planned for Red and Green. Crobat's cry even exists in Red and Blue's data! Wanna do Gen 1 right? Give us these 60 scrapped Pokémon!)

R.F. said:
Including the Sevii Islands...tbh. long before the remakes where released (heck, long before RS were released) I already heared some rumors about some islands named after numbers that were supposed to be in the gen 1 games, but where scrapped because of lack of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if those rumors where true and GF decided to make FRLG what RBGY where supposed to be. Unfortunately that's not a step forward and the islands themself were really boring, too. They weren't explorative, instead they just let you run some erands to get some jewelry and passwords.

I've never heard of that rumor, myself. (I have heard of several Orange Islands rumors, none of which were true, of course.) Evidence?

Now, what I *do* know is that the Sevii Islands were originally going to be a lot larger than they actually ended up being. Why were these extra islands scrapped? Did they run out of time, or something? They could've done so much more with that place.

CoffeeDrink · Feb 4, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

I'm a tad confused here. I'll have to cut this up in a few sections:

1. The battle tutorial at the beginning of the game on how to battle? Is what you're referring to the Battle with Blue? Because if it is, the point would be completely nullified by the fact that you were forced to battle your rival in the Original games to begin with. To take it out would be like saying Greedo shot first, and it would completely change the entire character of Blue simply because of- - SMELL YOU LATER GRAMPS! *struts out* . . . as I was saying, the 'tutorial' is a key part of the story in Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow and it would not make as much sense to have the Rival continually harass you if it wasn't shown right out the gate "I know! I'll ask my sister for a Town Map. I'll tell her not to give you one, Red!" So, if this is the tutorial you are speaking of, it needs to remain in the games to establish Blue's overall douche-like character.

2. Giovanni. I feel that your perception of Giovanni is completely off. Here is the example: In Pokémon Blue, Green, and Red Versions Giovanni utilizes an Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Screech, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Horn Attack. That's it.) and a Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Comet Punch, Rage, Bite) when you first encounter him.

However in Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green Versions Giovanni utilizes the following: An Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Harden, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Stomp, Scary Face, Fury Attack, Tail Whip), and Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Fakeout, Bite, Mega Punch, Tail Whip). This is a clear case of an upgrade. The move sets were fleshed out and his Pokémon all know four moves and aren't limited to one or two. While it might be confusing to you as to why he still utilizes a Rhyhorn coming off of Pokémon Yellow, I must remind you that Pokémon Versions Fire Red and leaf Green are based off of Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Green Version Respectively, and more closely mirror those games and not Pokémon Yellow Version.

3. The Missing No. glitch was never meant to be in the game in the first place, so removing the issue was the only logical solution. While it was fun, it was also very corruptive and could harm the game data in numerous ways. There is also something to be said about trying to recreate an 4-Megait glitch with a 128-Megabit cartridge. While it might be a little weird, I'm glad they 'fixed' it (in actuality they didn't have to fix it because they were working off a completely different system). And to be honest, there could never be a true remake without culling the new types to begin with (Poison is Super Effective against Bugs don't you know?).

Some of these gripes I find to be minor, but the idea that they dumbed down some trainers is a bit much. Take a gander at Blue himself! His Rhydon didn't know a single Rock or Ground type move until the games were remade.

Bellsprout · Feb 5, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
I never said that. (Even though those glitches did have more use than the Teachy TV.)

oh, it just seemed like that's what you meant by how you worded it, nvm.

BettyNewbie said:
But, the problem is that we, the players, were far from being "green horns." Many of us were going into FRLG with two whole Generations under our belt, including the very games FRLG were remaking (which didn't include any tutorials aside from the Old Man, despite being the actual first Pokémon games).

no matter how many generations you have under your belt there's always new players. when i first started playing i was very young and there were barely any tutorials and i didn't know wtf i was doing for a while there lol. i think in general the tutorials are helpful for new players and yeah slightly annoying for people who have played awhile, but there's been other more tedious and annoying tutorials in the games for me to really consider this one bad in any way.

BettyNewbie · Feb 5, 2015

CoffeeDrink said:
1. The battle tutorial at the beginning of the game on how to battle? Is what you're referring to the Battle with Blue? Because if it is, the point would be completely nullified by the fact that you were forced to battle your rival in the Original games to begin with. To take it out would be like saying Greedo shot first, and it would completely change the entire character of Blue simply because of- - SMELL YOU LATER GRAMPS! *struts out* . . . as I was saying, the 'tutorial' is a key part of the story in Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow and it would not make as much sense to have the Rival continually harass you if it wasn't shown right out the gate "I know! I'll ask my sister for a Town Map. I'll tell her not to give you one, Red!" So, if this is the tutorial you are speaking of, it needs to remain in the games to establish Blue's overall douche-like character.

In FRLG, Oak gives you a step-by-step tutorial through the first battle with Blue. He doesn't do this at all in the original games, where it's just a normal battle with no interrupting dialog.

CoffeeDrink said:
2. Giovanni. I feel that your perception of Giovanni is completely off. Here is the example: In Pokémon Blue, Green, and Red Versions Giovanni utilizes an Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Screech, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Horn Attack. That's it.) and a Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Comet Punch, Rage, Bite) when you first encounter him.

However in Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green Versions Giovanni utilizes the following: An Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Harden, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Stomp, Scary Face, Fury Attack, Tail Whip), and Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Fakeout, Bite, Mega Punch, Tail Whip). This is a clear case of an upgrade. The move sets were fleshed out and his Pokémon all know four moves and aren't limited to one or two.

I was talking about the FINAL Gym battle against him. In Red/Blue, his ace was a L51 Rhydon. In Yellow, it was a L55 Rhydon. FRLG? A L49 Rhyhorn. Not only was its level dropped from even Red/Blue, but it was also devolved. Why else would they do this if not to make him even more stupidly easy than he was in the originals?

(And, BTW, the Pokémon in Yellow did have good movesets, at least for the time. Giovanni's Rhydon had Rock Slide/Earthquake, while both of his Nidos had Earthquake/Thunder. He was still pretty easy, though.)

CoffeeDrink said:
I must remind you that Pokémon Versions Fire Red and leaf Green are based off of Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Green Version Respectively, and more closely mirror those games and not Pokémon Yellow Version.

So, what? Being called "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" didn't stop those games from including Eusine, Buena's password, ExtremeSpeed Dratini, and other Crystal exclusives. Even ORAS, at least, had the Delta Episode as a slight acknowledgment of Emerald (which, I admit, they could've done a better job with; Emerald was a part of Gen 3, too). Remakes are supposed to represent the entire Generation and not just the paired games.

CoffeeDrink · Feb 5, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
I was talking about the FINAL Gym battle against him. In Red/Blue, his ace was a L51 Rhydon. In Yellow, it was a L55 Rhydon. FRLG? A L49 Rhyhorn. Not only was its level dropped from even Red/Blue, but it was also devolved. Why else would they do this if not to make him even more stupidly easy than he was in the originals?

(And, BTW, the Pokémon in Yellow did have good movesets, at least for the time. Giovanni's Rhydon had Rock Slide/Earthquake, while both of his Nidos had Earthquake/Thunder. He was still pretty easy, though.)

While I will concede to the fact that Giovanni uses a lv.50 Rhyhorn in Fire Read and Leaf Green Versions, I will not accept the fact that it's weaker than his Lv.50 Rhydon in Pokémon Versions Blue, Green, and Red. Giovanni's Rhydon in Red, Green and Blue utilized Horn Drill, Fissure, Tail Whip and Stomp. Effectively three of these moves can be deemed nigh useless by simply coupling two OHKO moves with Tail Whip. Giovanni's re-issued Lv.50 Rhyhorn made better use of it's skill set, and his entire team in general was overhauled as well to include a better variety of moves.

Simply because the fact that his entire team is weak to Water and Ice Type moves makes most of the argument of making him easier or more difficult mostly moot; but the same could be said with nearly every gym leader in every game we've seen so far. So I suppose it really comes down to opinion on whether or not things became more or less difficult with gained knowledge of previous games. Don't forget that there were also moves introduced that didn't exist in the Originals and the fact that Typing changed with the additions of two new types may also have a bearing on how well you perform against his Pokémon.

Other than that, I don't know what much else I could tell you.

Mega_Kris · Feb 5, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
Because, I should expect Generation 3 games to have all of the new features that had been introduced in the franchise up until that point.

Because obviously Gen 3 is relying on game mechanics...Generations are labels....To me, Gen 3 is defined by "New Pokemon". If we see a new roster of pokemon, its a new Generation. It means nothing to me relating Game mechanics, or even "Graphics" for that matter.

International RB was still, basically, just a re-release of the original RG with slightly different graphics and slightly fewer bugs. (As bad as RB's sprites were, they were still, believe it or not, an upgrade over RG's sprites.)

Yellow went even further by including new features (many inspired by the then popular anime), fixing more bugs, adding GBC colors, and adding much nicer sprites.

point being that

As I explained in the other thread, you're equating Pokémon with more story-driven franchises like Zelda, which doesn't really work that well. Zelda doesn't place nearly as much of an emphasis on new gameplay features and mechanics with each new release, so it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not the Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask remakes have things that Wind Waker and Twilight Princess had. The main thing that drives those games is story, not gameplay.

you clearly not a Zelda fan, because gameplay is just as much as a driving force than story....the only difference is Pokemon fans consider story and gameplay expendable when it comes to the next big thing. I mean, you're willing to get new gameplay features (to the point that its not even close to the original) and still be ok to be labeled as a remake. instead you strive for a remake that's anything but a label. Which to me i ask? Why do you even care? seriously? Why?

FRLG was a real, standard remake. what barely made it a Gen 3 (to me) was that they added a few Gen 3 pokemon. and this was the FIRST remake...no one should complain for staying true to the original. I will however agree it could've used so much more without hurting the original. They could've added a new route, some more hidden minigames / side quests. Etc. etc. but al lin the terms of feeling an additional bonus, not the striving force of the game.

Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. The biggest thing that separates one Gen from another is their graphics, mechanics, features, and most of all, Pokémon count. That's the main criteria people use to determine how "modern" a Pokémon game is.

Tthe only thing that makes a new generation is just the Pokemon...and even then, its just a way for Nintendo and fans to organize the series without thinking too hard.

So, you wanted them to be made for the DS at the very end of Gen 5, then?

What i want is a remake...a true remake, real remake.....the whole point of remakes is it to "remade". it doesn't mean "add all these features, change the story, and label it a remake".

They'll have the features of whatever Generation they're remade in, which probably won't happen Gen 8 or 9, at the very earliest.

Which to me, basically don't even call them remakes.

So, what? FRLG weren't Gen 1 games, they were Gen 3 games, and last I checked, internal clocks had become a standard feature of the games by then

No other game besides GSC and HGSS have had Pokémon based on the time of day, and yet, they all still have Day/Night. The feature has more benefits than just that.

which makes me care even less about the day/night feature on FRLG. it didn't matter to me at all in Emerald. this is just complainign for the sake of it.

BettyNewbie · Feb 5, 2015

CoffeeDrink said:
While I will concede to the fact that Giovanni uses a lv.50 Rhyhorn in Fire Read and Leaf Green Versions, I will not accept the fact that it's weaker than his Lv.50 Rhydon in Pokémon Versions Blue, Green, and Red. Giovanni's Rhydon in Red, Green and Blue utilized Horn Drill, Fissure, Tail Whip and Stomp. Effectively three of these moves can be deemed nigh useless by simply coupling two OHKO moves with Tail Whip. Giovanni's re-issued Lv.50 Rhyhorn made better use of it's skill set, and his entire team in general was overhauled as well to include a better variety of moves.

As I said, his Yellow Rhydon had a much better moveset and was higher leveled... Much more challenging that the Rhyhorn from FRLG (which actually has a weaker Rock move than the Yellow Rhydon). Plus, Rhyhorn gives almost no EXP for that point of the game, which is the last thing you want with the E4 coming up.

His Nidos also actually have worse movesets in FRLG than in Yellow, knowing Poison Sting (!) instead of Thunder. The movesets may be better than Red/Blue, but they're on par with Yellow, at best, which is just sad.

CoffeeDrink said:
Typing changed with the additions of two new types may also have a bearing on how well you perform against his Pokémon.

Two new types that barely existed in FRLG because of the tiny, restrictive Dex. All you had was Magneton for Steel, and there weren't any Dark types. Good luck against Sabrina!

Megan · Feb 5, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
They weren't even needed, too. I mean, we got along just fine in RBY without a "how to battle" tutorial, so why did we need one in FRLG? Were they aiming these games at preschoolers, or something?

To be fair, that's a problem the whole game developing industry seems to have. I don't know if they think their players are too stupid to figure out how the easiest controls work. What I do know, however: when people talk about making tutorials in video games, they always tell you to make everything as intuitive as possible, so the player can figure out everything on his own.
Also let's be honest: children don't care for textbox tutorials, they just press buttons, until everything works as it should. {XD}

I've never heard of that rumor, myself. (I have heard of several Orange Islands rumors, none of which were true, of course.) Evidence?

Unfortunately it's the same kind of rumors like Mew living under the truck in RBY. Back then I was still at school, but the fact that this rumor was around before any of the gen 3 games hit the market, kind of makes me believe that there might have been some bit of truth for a change.
I mean it's already established, that GF wanted for the first games to contain more stuff than they ended up with and it seems kind of logical to me that they would want to make the remakes what the originals should have been.

LusoTrainer · Feb 5, 2015

BettyNewbie said:
2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

I'm glad they ignored Yellow. The first generation is composed by Red/Green (Blue being the special edition of that generation and used as the basis for the international release). Yellow was a cheap anime tie-in, nothing more.

As for the remakes: the faithfulness is one of its greatest strenghts. I've started with Red/Blue and FR/LG are still the versions I go to the most to play that storyline and region.

giradialkia · Feb 5, 2015

Why did FRLG fail, while HGSS (and later, ORAS) prevail? What do the later remakes have that the first ones don't? What went wrong with FRLG?

1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.

I gotta agree with you there. After GSC had the PokéGear and RS had the PokéNav, it would've been nice for them to modernise the world of Kanto with some similar communications device. Instead, we got a damn Teachy TV. I hadn't thought about it before, but you definitely have a point when it comes to 'kiddifying' Pokémon. I don't so much mind that the newer Pokémon weren't immediately available, but certain 'mon like Espeon, Umbreon, Crobat, Blissey, etc should absolutely have been available, and simply weren't.

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

This, I'm not so much on board with. If you really think about it, Yellow was the one and only anime tie-in they've ever done in the main series, and even then the differences between Yellow and RB were pretty miniscule.
I think it's important to view Yellow as having *specifically Pikachu* following you, not *your starter following you*. Remember, Pikachu counts as a character throughout Yellow, reacting to things in the overworld and some people comment on it.
TLDR; I don't think Yellow introduced enough content to warrant its features being in FRLG.

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

I've already agreed that the Teachy TV is so so so so so stupid, so no worries there (except come on, they're never going to willingly give you access to something that was a complete glitch in the original games :P). I guess all I can say is, I'm glad they've not been kiddy (to the same extent) since then.

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?

I remember, the first thing I did in FRLG when I got it, was march to the route west of Viridian to see how they covered up the existance of Johto. And to be honest, I was a little surprised. I mean, whatever about being faithful to a remake - by now, we knew that Johto existed, and even if they'd never let us travel to Johto in FRLG, I remain a little flabbergasted that they'd flat out pretend it wasn't there - I don't think "being faithful to the originals" is an excuse. Still, I for one was pleased by the presence of the Sevii Islands. I liked that they had remixed Johto music, and they let us have some Johto Pokémon, and I thought the extended Team Rocket storyline was pretty good. Basically, the Sevii Island post-game was good, but everything was a bit too half-hearted. There's small references to the radio-evolution experiment they conduct in GSC. And an even bigger deal? "No, your not Giovanni's kid, his kid has red hair."

And then they let us fester for 7 years on the fact that our rival in GSC was Giovanni's son. All in all, I've always thought there was more to be done for the whole Kanto/Johto storyline that they've decidedly left unsaid, but I'm very much nostalgic about the whole thing.

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.

I think, all in all, it's important to remember a couple things when discussing FRLG. Firstly, players had a long, long time to get used to Kanto Pokémon, because they were present throughout the first and second generations of games. 3rd gen arrives, and suddenly it's all these new Pokémon. A lot of Pokémon that were (arguably) considered favourites weren't available, like the original fossils, the likes of Arcanine, Gastly's line, and a lot of others. RS were seen as a bit of a reboot to the franchise. It's hard to say, but maybe they really did approach FRLG as a bit of an expansion to RSE rather than their own games. They wanted to stay faithful to the originals, so they really just left out a lot of potentially new material: for example, once I discovered there was now a female Player character, I fully expected them to go the RSE route and have her as at least a secondary character in-game, as an opponent or otherwise. But nope, she doesn't exist if you play as a boy, and vice versa.
Basically, because of the lack of connectivity between 2nd and 3rd gen (something they thankfully never let happen again), FRLG served only to reintroduce the Kanto (and a verrrrry select few Johto) Pokémon to help players fill up their Pokédexes. Colosseum, Gale of Darkness and Emerald later filled in the remaining gaps.

The remakes of GSC and RSE have both significantly added to the features available within their generations; in fact, I think it's pretty fair to say the HGSS and ORAS are the best games of their generations. The same can't be said for FRLG, definitely not, because of... well, all that they're lacking. I think it's safe to say that Game Freak have sinced learned from their mistake, and have managed to retain nostalgia in their remakes without ruining things by keeping them too close to the originals. Unfortunately in most cases of things being remade, staying "faithful" to the originals usually means sticking with something that is old, dated, and basically.. in need of renewal.

3rd Gen What went wrong with FRLG?

More options

BettyNewbie

Mega_Kris

BettyNewbie

Mega_Kris

Egon Spengler

moon

BettyNewbie

Bellsprout

.

BettyNewbie

Megan

BettyNewbie

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Bellsprout

.

BettyNewbie

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Mega_Kris

BettyNewbie

Megan

LusoTrainer

giradialkia