1st Gen I honestly think that Gen 1 is horrible

[Mega_Kris]

All FRLG did was change the graphics and battling mechanics to Ruby/Sapphire standards. Otherwise, the story was the exact same, the Pokémon selection was the exact same, and even some of the mechanics were the exact same (like no clock or Berries).

Unless you wanted to trade with RSE (or play Gen 1 on a DS/Lite), there was literally no point in playing FRLG over RBY. The games added nothing new to Gen 1, and don't have hardly anything to set them apart from the originals like HGSS and ORAS.

Which is exactly what a remake is....what makes a remake a "remake" is the fact that it gets remade. For example: Ocarina of Time 3D was literally remade from the ground up. despite how reliable it is to the original, and how close it is to the original. the game is technically a "REMAKE".


Games such as Final Fantasy X / X2 and Kingdom Hearts 1/2.5 HD Remix. those games are "enhanced". they used the same graphics, the same engine, the same everything from the previous game "LITERALLY" and only enhanced them.

but i definitely want to play a more updated RB, one that is designed to connect with Gold/Silver. Keep in mind, I'm not denying Red and Blue remake doesn't need aditions..but i don't believe they should go by the standards of today.

 

[BettyNewbie]

Which is exactly what a remake is....what makes a remake a "remake" is the fact that it gets remade. For example: Ocarina of Time 3D was literally remade from the ground up. despite how reliable it is to the original, and how close it is to the original. the game is technically a "REMAKE".

Games such as Final Fantasy X / X2 and Kingdom Hearts 1/2.5 HD Remix. those games are "enhanced". they used the same graphics, the same engine, the same everything from the previous game "LITERALLY" and only enhanced them.

You're just playing semantics, now. No need to start a fight over that. :sideways:

(You'd agree with me, though, that HGSS and ORAS are more distinct from their originals than FRLG is from RBY, right? And, that there's more of a reason to play HGSS and ORAS over GSC and RSE than there is to play FRLG over RBY?)

but i definitely want to play a more updated RB, one that is designed to connect with Gold/Silver.

Um... RBY can already connect with GSC. It's RSE that was the problem, which is why they made FRLG. (The lone reason to play those games over RBY.)

Keep in mind, I'm not denying Red and Blue remake doesn't need aditions..but i don't believe they should go by the standards of today.

So, Gen 1's story should forever be wedded to outdated graphics and mechanics? How nice.

Nostalgia's great and all, but that's what the original games are for. And, ROM hacks.

 

[Mega_Kris]

You're just playing semantics, now. No need to start a fight over that. :sideways:

I want a remake. but i don't want to play a new game with an updated soul. i want the outer shell of a new game with very few new features that don't interfere with the original story...not 40% original, 60% new features.

(You'd agree with me, though, that HGSS and ORAS are more distinct from their originals than FRLG is from RBY, right? And, that there's more of a reason to play HGSS and ORAS over GSC and RSE than there is to play FRLG over RBY?)

HGSS added few new features that made it feel just an enhancement of the original. ORAS feels more different.

Um... RBY can already connect with GSC. It's RSE that was the problem, which is why they made FRLG. (The lone reason to play those games over RBY.)

I was referring story-wise. some subtle hints that could hint towards Johto region. at the same time i also believe johto could've used some more references toward the original

So, Gen 1's story should forever be wedded to outdated graphics and mechanics? How nice.

Nostalgia's great and all, but that's what the original games are for. And, ROM hacks.

No...But ORAS has been added features....games that are made to the point that i personally don't consider them "remakes" of the original Saphire/ruby. they added way too many...

If their going to update the graphics to today's standards that's fine. And if they want to refine the mechanics, then thats fine as well. But my main driving force is how much they will "change" for the sake of new experience. Which not too long ago you were mainly talking about "STORY". which is my biggest gripe. if they enhance the story (add new dialogue that further suggest what the original already implied) but i dont want new story or new additions to the story that were never needed to make the story better.

 

[BettyNewbie]

I want a remake. but i don't want to play a new game with an updated soul. i want the outer shell of a new game with very few new features that don't interfere with the original story...not 40% original, 60% new features.

What's the point of even remaking an old game if you're not going to update it to modern standards? They might as well just put RBY on the e-shop.

HGSS added few new features that made it feel just an enhancement of the original.

You consider a new female PC (who appears as a new pseudo-rival if you play as the guy and vice-versa), two new Routes, a new Safari Zone, the Pokéathlon, following Pokémon, an altered Kimono Girls story, an altered Suicune story, Gym Leader phone numbers, and a completely overhauled Kanto to be just a "few new features"?

I was referring story-wise. some subtle hints that could hint towards Johto region. at the same time i also believe johto could've used some more references toward the original

I want to see things like, too, but that would mean altering and deepening the original story, which you seem to be against.

No...But ORAS has been added features....games that are made to the point that i personally don't consider them "remakes" of the original Saphire/ruby. they added way too many...

Yes, how dare they try to be modern 3DS games instead of GBA games with 3D graphics pasted on! How dare they try to give more character development to characters who badly needed it! How dare they acknowledge Pokémon that were created after Gen 3!

Besides, it's not like ORAS were the first games to alter Hoenn's story. Whoops.

Which not too long ago you were mainly talking about "STORY". which is my biggest gripe. if they enhance the story (add new dialogue that further suggest what the original already implied) but i dont want new story or new additions to the story that were never needed to make the story better.

In any remake, no matter how extensive, the same core story would be there. (Just like how the same core story of RS is still in ORAS, even if you don't think it is.) Ideally, it would just be fleshed out a lot more, and let's face it, while Gen 1 had a good-enough story for its day, it's very simple by modern standards. Some more character development and fleshing-out would be much appreciated.

 

[Mega_Kris]

What's the point of even remaking an old game if you're not going to update it to modern standards? They might as well just put RBY on the e-shop.

you clearly look for remakes for something entirely different. And the problem again with semantics, what do you think i consider "modern" standards.

I personally want to play a game the original with updated graphics and a few new features that don't over shadow the original ones. Its still a "new" game....its just updated to appeal the newer audience, but also experience the same game with new perspective. Example: Ocarina of Time 3D.

You consider a new female PC (who appears as a new pseudo-rival if you play as the guy and vice-versa), two new Routes, a new Safari Zone, the Pokéathlon, following Pokémon, an altered Kimono Girls story, an altered Suicune story, Gym Leader phone numbers, and a completely overhauled Kanto to be just a "few new features"?

New PC or old redesigned PC? We don't fully know whether Lyra isn't Kris. new routes weren't so story-driven. Altered Kimono story was more of additional than anything elsey. Suicune story was indeed expanded. And Kanto overhauled was mostly additions than alterations. and any alterations that were done wasn't the point of Gold/Silver. kanto region was post game.

All those things seem to be things that were originally cut from the original due to space issues. It was still the same game. The story was still the same, with very very little variation.

Yes, how dare they try to be modern 3DS games instead of GBA games with 3D graphics pasted on! How dare they try to give more character development to characters who badly needed it! How dare they acknowledge Pokémon that were created after Gen 3!

they can still be modern 3DS games without adding in heavy aditional features that overshadow the original experience. more character development isn't all too bad. its the alterations that get me. And ORAS looks pretty, but it also pisses me off. and it makes me never wish to see another remake. And acknowledging Pokemon post Gen 3, in a game that was originally Gen 3? Yeah...that to me is stupid....

Besides, it's not like ORAS were the first games to alter Hoenn's story. Whoops.

The changes were equivalent to Pokemon Crystal's additions to the additional story regarding the legendary pokemon. The only thing was that Emerald included both team magma and team aqua. which makes sense since Ruby/Sapphire were reliant on which villain you wanted. but like i said, Its not as extensive as what ORAS went, and you know it. If you don't mind, that's fine. but don't expect others to be satisfied with heavy changes.

I want a remake, not a half remake, half new game. Why not officially call these games alternate universe.. that way, they don't get classified remakes.

In any remake, no matter how extensive, the same core story would be there. (Just like how the same core story of RS is still in ORAS, even if you don't think it is.) Ideally, it would just be fleshed out a lot more, and let's face it, while Gen 1 had a good-enough story for its day, it's very simple by modern standards. Some more character development and fleshing-out would be much appreciated.

Not exactly....i've seen plenty of games that modify it so heavily that it gets criticized. One of those is Mega Man X / Mega Man X: Maverick Hunters. The same gameplay, but they changed everything it build up.

Gen 1 had a very simple story, but it didn't feel "incomplete" if they can expand any more while still staying true to the original that would be great. if you want a completely new game, with the label of "remake" of the original. thats you. me, i want a REAL remake.


Now it would be a little difficult

 

[Danny-E 33]

But there is a hacked ROM that gives the game gen 2 color and gen 2 sprites. Which actually makes Gen 1 shine even more. The trees look great, better than Gen 2's in my opinion.
https://hax.iimarck.us/topic/3399/

Thank you for pointing out our hack. I'm glad people are gaining awareness of it.

the typing system is flawed. I'm relatively sure that when it comes to dual-typed Pokémon, only one of those types (i think the second?) is taken into account by the 'damage algorithm'

You are mistaken. As you can see, both types of the attacker and both types of the defender, as well as the type of the attack being used, are taken into account.

 

[giradialkia]

Thank you for pointing out our hack. I'm glad people are gaining awareness of it.



You are mistaken. As you can see, both types of the attacker and both types of the defender, as well as the type of the attack being used, are taken into account.

I guess I didn't recall correctly, although I have definitely encountered some abnormalities in the battle system when compared to later Pokémon games, that's the main point I was making.

 

[BettyNewbie]

you clearly look for remakes for something entirely different. And the problem again with semantics, what do you think i consider "modern" standards.

"Modern" standards would mean having all of the graphical and mechanical enhancements that have been introduced since the original games were released.

I personally want to play a game the original with updated graphics and a few new features that don't over shadow the original ones. Its still a "new" game....its just updated to appeal the newer audience, but also experience the same game with new perspective. Example: Ocarina of Time 3D.

I think this is the problem, right there... You're equating Pokémon with completely different games like Zelda. What works for a more story-driven franchise like Zelda won't work for something like Pokémon, which places a heavy emphasis on new graphics, mechanics, and features with each new release.

The Ocarina of Time remake didn't need a ton of features from later Zelda games, because, new gameplay mechanics aren't what drive the franchise, to begin with. Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. Just re-releasing the exact same game with the exact same features and only new graphics won't work for Pokémon.

New PC or old redesigned PC? We don't fully know whether Lyra isn't Kris. new routes weren't so story-driven. Altered Kimono story was more of additional than anything elsey. Suicune story was indeed expanded. And Kanto overhauled was mostly additions than alterations. and any alterations that were done wasn't the point of Gold/Silver. kanto region was post game.

All those things seem to be things that were originally cut from the original due to space issues. It was still the same game. The story was still the same, with very very little variation.

Those are still some pretty significant changes from Gold/Silver and even, Crystal. Far more changes than FRLG gave to Gen 1.

And acknowledging Pokemon post Gen 3, in a game that was originally Gen 3? Yeah...that to me is stupid....

How? ORAS may be Gen 3 remakes, but they're still Gen 6 games, so why shouldn't they acknowledge things that were introduced in Gens 4-6? Do you really want people to suddenly forget, after two whole Generations, that male Ralts can become Gallade and that female Snorunt can become Froslass, just because of something as arbitrary as "nostalgia"? And, if that many people were upset over the removal of customization, imagine just how much worse it would've been if Mega Evolutions were removed as well. You know, for "nostalgia." :rolleyes2:

The changes were equivalent to Pokemon Crystal's additions to the additional story regarding the legendary pokemon. The only thing was that Emerald included both team magma and team aqua. which makes sense since Ruby/Sapphire were reliant on which villain you wanted. but like i said, Its not as extensive as what ORAS went, and you know it. If you don't mind, that's fine. but don't expect others to be satisfied with heavy changes.

It's still a noticeable change from RS' story, enough to make many people prefer it to RS (and even ORAS, in some cases).

I want a remake, not a half remake, half new game. Why not officially call these games alternate universe.. that way, they don't get classified remakes.

Um, they did exactly that in the Delta Episode. Gen 6 is not part of the same timeline as Gens 3-5.

 

[atomtanned]

If you compare them to just Red/Blue, then, yes, FRLG probably are an improvement. You have a Bag that you don't have to constantly dump out every 20 items, and you can play as a girl.

But, unfortunately, Yellow, Gold/Silver, Crystal, and Ruby/Sapphire all happened in-between Red/Blue and FRLG. Yellow gave us a following starter, harder Gym Leaders, and Pikachu's Beach. Gold/Silver gave us Day/Night, breeding, Berry trees, a cell phone, 100 new Pokémon (many of which were pre/evolutions of older ones), and a brand new region to expand off from Kanto. Crystal gave us a female PC, animated sprites, more involved Legendaries, and a Battle Tower. Ruby/Sapphire gave us Berry growing, contests, Dive, even more involved Legendaries, and a lot of new Pokémon (albeit, at the expense of many of the older ones.)

...

Gen 1 needs a new remake more than ever.

Well, that's why I said all of those criticisms were valid, haha. For me personally, I enjoyed playing FR/LG because they fixed some truly obnoxious issues that make the originals pretty much unplayable for me now. Honestly, a lot of the stuff you mentioned from previous games wasn't a big deal to me to have missing from FR/LG - I did all my breeding etc in Emerald anyways, and I have never enjoyed contests. It was a nice nostalgia trip (and frankly, I saw them as more of a companion to RSE, rather than outright standalone games). I might have been more upset if I bought them right when they came out, though - mine were a few bucks from my local game store. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I absolutely agree though - I would love to see some of the older games brought into Gen VI standards - actually would love to see Sinnoh as well, Platinum was one of my favorite games.

 

[Arylett Charnoa]

Personally, GSC has all of my nostalgia. They were my first games. And I remember going to play the originals after them as a child, and thinking: "This is so much more of an inferior experience. This isn't worth playing compared to a game that's better in every way and has the same region."

That's how I felt back in the past. And it's kind of how I still feel now. But I also carry a small amount of nostalgia for Gen I, because it looks similar to Gen II. I'm fascinated by the broken game mechanics and find the simplicity alluring. It is indeed something I like to jump into from time to time to take a break from hearing all about the competitive scene to hear instead of childhood wonder from the 90's and glitches. I kind of liked the fact that no real competitive scene existed back then. It makes me feel less left out as a casual player, because it often seems to me that there's more competitive battlers in the Pokemon battling scene than people who just want to battle for the hell of it.

So basically, I kind of have a love-hate with the games. Like I do with most old games that get remade. They're so horribly outdated and have a plethora of things wrong, as well as the fact that playing them today is useless because you can't even transfer up, but still fascinating because of their brokenness and ugly sprites. Those sprites are like a train wreck - you just can't look away. And that old font. I love the font used in both Gen I and Gen II. It just has such a charm to it.

Also, I don't have much experience with them, so they're largely a new experience to me. (Minus the Pokemon, many of which I've used in GSC playthroughs) Because I've discovered an extremely complex method that lets me convert them to Gen III and transfer them all the way up to current gens, I'll probably actually be starting a proper playthrough of Red or Yellow version.

Do I think they're unplayable? A bit, yes. Even though the GBA remakes aren't really my scene, (I basically agree with Betty, although I have less hatred of FRLG specifically and more so am just not too fond of the GBA games in general) they're still far more playable experiences than the original games. But if you play them casually on emulators or on your phone or what have you, they can still be fun, as a person above me has said. So whilst they're kind of unplayable for the sake of immersing yourself more into the world due to the really bad graphics (as well as for any semblance of competitive balance), they are playable as a casual thing. And also very playable if you experiment with glitches.

Thus, my opinion in a nutshell: I both dislike and like the original Gen I.

Also, I would like to see a 3DS remake of them. I'd like to see a 3DS remake of Sinnoh more, BUT I do agree that the originals could use it. It would also give me a chance to be more familiarized with everyone else's nostalgic experiences. And who wants to have to go through transferring Gen III Pokemon all the way to VI really? It's such a hassle. With ORAS, that necessity was partially erased. I'd like to see them go all the way, so that Kanto can have the convenience of Gen VI's Pokemon Bank.

 

[BettyNewbie]

(and frankly, I saw them as more of a companion to RSE, rather than outright standalone games). I might have been more upset if I bought them right when they came out, though - mine were a few bucks from my local game store. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's pretty much what FRLG were, an expansion to RSE that allowed them to better complete the National Dex. Great for newcomers who started with the Hoenn games, but doesn't offer a whole lot for veterans, especially those without any interest in RSE.

I guess, one other thing they have over RBY is that they can be played on a DS or DS Lite, but that doesn't mean as much now that the older DSs are obsolete and long out of production.

I absolutely agree though - I would love to see some of the older games brought into Gen VI standards - actually would love to see Sinnoh as well, Platinum was one of my favorite games.

Unfortunately, that probably won't happen for a while, since DPP can still be played on the 3DS. The 3DS' successor, on the other hand, will probably cut DS compatibilty, just like the DS cut GB/C compatibility and the 3DS (well, technically, DSi) cut GBA compatibility, so that will be when DPP get their remakes.

Personally, GSC has all of my nostalgia. They were my first games. And I remember going to play the originals after them as a child, and thinking: "This is so much more of an inferior experience. This isn't worth playing compared to a game that's better in every way and has the same region."

That's how I felt back in the past. And it's kind of how I still feel now. But I also carry a small amount of nostalgia for Gen I, because it looks similar to Gen II. I'm fascinated by the broken game mechanics and find the simplicity alluring. It is indeed something I like to jump into from time to time to take a break from hearing all about the competitive scene to hear instead of childhood wonder from the 90's and glitches. I kind of liked the fact that no real competitive scene existed back then. It makes me feel less left out as a casual player, because it often seems to me that there's more competitive battlers in the Pokemon battling scene than people who just want to battle for the hell of it.

So basically, I kind of have a love-hate with the games. Like I do with most old games that get remade. They're so horribly outdated and have a plethora of things wrong, as well as the fact that playing them today is useless because you can't even transfer up, but still fascinating because of their brokenness and ugly sprites. Those sprites are like a train wreck - you just can't look away. And that old font. I love the font used in both Gen I and Gen II. It just has such a charm to it.

Also, I don't have much experience with them, so they're largely a new experience to me. (Minus the Pokemon, many of which I've used in GSC playthroughs) Because I've discovered an extremely complex method that lets me convert them to Gen III and transfer them all the way up to current gens, I'll probably actually be starting a proper playthrough of Red or Yellow version.

Do I think they're unplayable? A bit, yes. Even though the GBA remakes aren't really my scene, (I basically agree with Betty, although I have less hatred of FRLG specifically and more so am just not too fond of the GBA games in general) they're still far more playable experiences than the original games. But if you play them casually on emulators or on your phone or what have you, they can still be fun, as the person above me has said. So whilst they're kind of unplayable for the sake of immersing yourself more into the world due to the really bad graphics (as well as for any semblance of competitive balance), they are playable as a casual thing. And also very playable if you experiment with glitches.

Thus, my opinion in a nutshell: I both dislike and like the original Gen I.

Also, I would like to see a 3DS remake of them. I'd like to see a 3DS remake of Sinnoh more, BUT I do agree that the originals could use it. It would also give me a chance to be more familiarized with everyone else's nostalgic experiences. And who wants to have to go through transferring Gen III Pokemon all the way to VI really? It's such a hassle. With ORAS, that necessity was partially erased. I'd like to see them go all the way, so that Kanto can have the convenience of Gen VI's Pokemon Bank.

I agree with much of what you say, Arylett. While I started with Gen 1 and still have a lot of nostalgia for it, Gen 2 is still my favorite.

I'd like to know more about this: "Because I've discovered an extremely complex method that lets me convert them to Gen III and transfer them all the way up to current gens, I'll probably actually be starting a proper playthrough of Red or Yellow version." I thought RBY/GSC Pokémon couldn't be transferred to Gen 3 and up at all. How were you able to get this to work?

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

I liked the first generation when I first played it. But I was 8 years old at the time, and 8 year old me liked pretty much everything. I tried playing them again, after having played Crystal, and found that it was too slow and old to be enjoyed anymore.

Can't say I like it for nostalgia either, cause I don't really have any sort of nostalgia for the game, or for any of the Pokemon games really. The games quickly deteriorated as soon as the second generation came out, and I don't understand why anyone would want to go back.

Playing red or blue now feels like trying to walk without legs. And why would I want to do that?

 

[Arylett Charnoa]

I'd like to know more about this: "Because I've discovered an extremely complex method that lets me convert them to Gen III and transfer them all the way up to current gens, I'll probably actually be starting a proper playthrough of Red or Yellow version." I thought RBY/GSC Pokémon couldn't be transferred to Gen 3 and up at all. How were you able to get this to work?

I found a guide on how to do it by googling, really. I'd rather not link to it as I think it's kind of legally dubious, involves roms and some odd devices. So if you want to find out, just google about it and the result will probably show up.

 

[Mega_Kris]

"Modern" standards would mean having all of the graphical and mechanical enhancements that have been introduced since the original games were released.

your definiton of "modern standards" to me seems more like shallow standards.

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who believes the originals are enjoyable, and "TIMELESS" to a certain degree....to me, RB only needed redone graphics slight expansion on the story, more NPCs, some clues to Gold/Silver continuation (additional), and a post game story (additional) leading up to Gold/Silver. But everything i mentioned was only to enhance the original...not make it into a whole new game.

I think this is the problem, right there... You're equating Pokémon with completely different games like Zelda. What works for a more story-driven franchise like Zelda won't work for something like Pokémon, which places a heavy emphasis on new graphics, mechanics, and features with each new release.

The Ocarina of Time remake didn't need a ton of features from later Zelda games, because, new gameplay mechanics aren't what drive the franchise, to begin with. Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. Just re-releasing the exact same game with the exact same features and only new graphics won't work for Pokémon.

Zelda isn't an RPG....and its not too heavy on the story either even though it does.what zelda has in common with pokemon however is how many games they have and how much it expands the universe/lore. both gameplay and story are equally valued in the games....But i believe Zelda holds more heart than Pokemon in terms of fans. The reason why i say that is because Zelda games are enjoyable in their own way. The normal Pokemon fan, only thinks about one thing: Pokemon, new mechanics. Its not that Zelda cares more about story, its that Pokemon cares "less". Which is why at this point, there can be a game labeled "POkemon Red/Blue Remake", have a completely modified story, retcon, all the features of the current gen.
Previous Pokemon games can have the most

FRLG was the first remake....the very first. And not only that but it was a standard remake, and by no means did it ever need night/day feature. Could it have used expansion on dialogue and story? Perhaps. It could've been better...it just doesn't need modern standards to be good...

Zelda definitely had games that needed to be remade though. The first two are Legend of Zelda (NES) and ZElda II: Adventure of Link. Both games are heavily dated.

Those are still some pretty significant changes from Gold/Silver and even, Crystal. Far more changes than FRLG gave to Gen 1.

the beauty of it is that they all felt "additional". I'm not denying FRLG could've used some features. especially since it was perfectly capable of it. And there was definitely room to add companion feature from Yellow since its still a gen 1 game.

How? ORAS may be Gen 3 remakes, but they're still Gen 6 games, so why shouldn't they acknowledge things that were introduced in Gens 4-6? Do you really want people to suddenly forget, after two whole Generations, that male Ralts can become Gallade and that female Snorunt can become Froslass, just because of something as arbitrary as "nostalgia"? And, if that many people were upset over the removal of customization, imagine just how much worse it would've been if Mega Evolutions were removed as well. You know, for "nostalgia." :rolleyes2:

Gen 6 games doesn't mean it has to have the mechanics in Gen 6....or at least not all of them.

Its called retconning. It's more than just nostalgia.....if you could care less about it, don't bother expecting a "true" remake. removing customization was stupid if this is a game that's technically not a Remake.

It's still a noticeable change from RS' story, enough to make many people prefer it to RS (and even ORAS, in some cases).

But not enough to use it so strongly in an argument since its still in the same generation.

Um, they did exactly that in the Delta Episode. Gen 6 is not part of the same timeline as Gens 3-5.

I believe they shouldn't have named it anywhere near "ruby" or "sapphire" in the story. But to me....i still believe the story, and the ammount of game mechanics are "TIMELESS" to a certain degree. if something isn't timeless then it can get updated into a remake ( a REAL ONE, not a FAKE REMAKE) with ADDITIONAL features. ORAS was a game that depended on the new features. Its not a remake....its nowhere near it.

the originals never felt something missing or empty....just because a new features is in the latest game doesn't mean it has to have it. Otherwise, why not continue to play those games? if its just about the pokemon, even more reason to just keep them limited and make the games more compatible (trading between remake and current)


Sof rom now on, any future remake of Pokemon, i'll just call it a Halfmake.

 

[BettyNewbie]

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who believes the originals are enjoyable, and "TIMELESS" to a certain degree....to me, RB only needed redone graphics slight expansion on the story, more NPCs, some clues to Gold/Silver continuation (additional), and a post game story (additional) leading up to Gold/Silver. But everything i mentioned was only to enhance the original...not make it into a whole new game.

I love the originals, myself... Which is why I have no use for FRLG. They don't offer anything I can't already get in Red/Blue, and they arguably offer less than Yellow. It looks even worse when you start including Red/Blue hacks that use Gen 2 sprites or have a P/S split.

But i believe Zelda holds more heart than Pokemon in terms of fans. The reason why i say that is because Zelda games are enjoyable in their own way. The normal Pokemon fan, only thinks about one thing: Pokemon, new mechanics. Its not that Zelda cares more about story, its that Pokemon cares "less". Which is why at this point, there can be a game labeled "POkemon Red/Blue Remake", have a completely modified story, retcon, all the features of the current gen.

You can probably blame Pokémon's multiplayer features for that. Things like trading and competitive battling, for better or worse, are a big part of the franchise, so it's inevitable that there's more of an emphasis on things like graphics, mechanics, and new Pokémon.

Zelda, on the other hand, doesn't have a huge multiplayer contingency, so there's more of an emphasis on things like story and continuity.

A better comparison to Pokémon is probably Super Smash Bros (which, amusingly, includes characters from both Pokémon and Zelda), which also has a huge multiplayer/competitive element, and as a result, there's a large emphasis placed on things like graphics, mechanics, and the character roster. How do you think SSB fans would react to a remake of the original N64 game that updated the graphics, but removed all of the features, mechanics, and characters introduced in later games?

Gen 6 games doesn't mean it has to have the mechanics in Gen 6....or at least not all of them.

Then, what's the point of remaking them in Gen 6, then? What's the point of remaking them at all and not just putting RSE on the e-shop?

Sof rom now on, any future remake of Pokemon, i'll just call it a Halfmake.

If that's the case, then bring on the halfmakes! :P

 

[Mega_Kris]

I love the originals, myself... Which is why I have no use for FRLG. They don't offer anything I can't already get in Red/Blue, and they arguably offer less than Yellow. It looks even worse when you start including Red/Blue hacks that use Gen 2 sprites or have a P/S split.

i hate RB....FRLG servse the purpose of at least being aesthetically better than RB. So to me, it serves that purpose. ANd personally, the sprites in Gen 3 look like crud.....not all of them, but the pokemon introduced in gen 1.

Which is why, if we were ever to get Gen 1 in "modern standards" as you put it.....it would be the worst gen 1 remake in my eyes. because it really does rely on the aspects of "its gen 7, we it absolutely has to have the latest features. who cares if it vamps up the original story to the point that its not even considerable to be the original".

You can probably blame Pokémon's multiplayer features for that. Things like trading and competitive battling, for better or worse, are a big part of the franchise, so it's inevitable that there's more of an emphasis on things like graphics, mechanics, and new Pokémon.

Zelda, on the other hand, doesn't have a huge multiplayer contingency, so there's more of an emphasis on things like story and continuity.

emphasis on new Pokemon? yes.

emphasis on graphics? obviously. applies to every game.

Emphasis on mechanics? for the sake of compatibility, sure.

Zelda emphasizes on great gameplay and great story. each individual game doesn't emphasize continuity, they find away to continue just the same as Pokemon does. for the competitive element, it doesn't have. But Pokemon doesn't need all that much for compatibility.

A better comparison to Pokémon is probably Super Smash Bros (which, amusingly, includes characters from both Pokémon and Zelda), which also has a huge multiplayer/competitive element, and as a result, there's a large emphasis placed on things like graphics, mechanics, and the character roster. How do you think SSB fans would react to a remake of the original N64 game that updated the graphics, but removed all of the features, mechanics, and characters introduced in later games?

which if they ever made a super smash bros remake and take it the same way Pokemon does with their remakes, it would be pointless. It would be the same game as the current generation of Super Smash with probably the name only.

Then, what's the point of remaking them in Gen 6, then? What's the point of remaking them at all and not just putting RSE on the e-shop?

IF they remade them at any point, it would automatically be labeled into that generation, that's just how it is. Remakes to me are for the sake of experiencing the originals while having access to the Pokemon we didn't have access before.

If that's the case, then bring on the halfmakes! :P

So we should stop arguing about remakes....if you want a halfmake, go ahead..i want a true remake.

 

[BettyNewbie]

i hate RB....FRLG servse the purpose of at least being aesthetically better than RB. So to me, it serves that purpose.

So does Yellow. There's also this hack if you don't want to start with Pikachu.

ANd personally, the sprites in Gen 3 look like crud.....not all of them, but the pokemon introduced in gen 1.

Which includes FRLG, I hope you realize. ;)

Which is why, if we were ever to get Gen 1 in "modern standards" as you put it.....it would be the worst gen 1 remake in my eyes. because it really does rely on the aspects of "its gen 7, we it absolutely has to have the latest features. who cares if it vamps up the original story to the point that its not even considerable to be the original".

Then, maybe they'll also release RBY on the e-Shop for you people who hate modern graphics and mechanics and would rather Gen 1 be represented by 15-20 year old games.

Remakes to me are for the sake of experiencing the originals while having access to the Pokemon we didn't have access before.

Which is exactly what FRLG DIDN'T give you. Good luck trying to evolve your Golbat. :rolleyes2:

So we should stop arguing about remakes....if you want a halfmake, go ahead..i want a true remake.

What is a "true remake," anyways? A definition would be nice.

 

[Mega_Kris]

So does Yellow. There's also this hack if you don't want to start with Pikachu.

FRLG is what it is...a standard remake...and nothing more than that....could it have used more? yes...but i don't bleieve it needed "all" aspects of what the current gens to be enjoyable.

Which includes FRLG, I hope you realize. ;)

I didn't hate FRLG "exclusively" for it though. the sprites were what they were at the time. Its not like we had a clear vision of what good sprites were. i personally believe they were stiff. So i can't hate FRLG so strongly just because of that.

Then, maybe they'll also release RBY on the e-Shop for you people who hate modern graphics and mechanics and would rather Gen 1 be represented by 15-20 year old games.

See...you're going from one extreme to the other. my main point there is moderation when it comes to remake. For you its originals, or something completely new labeled as a remake.

Which is exactly what FRLG DIDN'T give you. Good luck trying to evolve your Golbat. :rolleyes2:

FRLG gave you access to the original Pokemon so that you can trade with RBE. Its not

What is a "true remake," anyways? A definition would be nice.

literally "remaking" a game for the new fans to experience.

 

[Astinus]

I love the originals, myself... Which is why I have no use for FRLG. They don't offer anything I can't already get in Red/Blue, and they arguably offer less than Yellow. It looks even worse when you start including Red/Blue hacks that use Gen 2 sprites or have a P/S split.

I'd much rather have improved mechanics and better general usage on top of better graphics than the nearly-unplayable mess that is R/B/Y. Recently, I tried replaying Yellow but found the battle mechanics to be so aggravating that I gave my game cartridge away. Graphics are not the only component to deciding if a game is better.

At least FR/LG aren't a mess of glitches that could potentially destroy your save file.

Though I say this as someone who says that FR/LG are their second favorite Pokemon mainline games.

 

[Cerberus87]

I'd much rather have improved mechanics and better general usage on top of better graphics than the nearly-unplayable mess that is R/B/Y. Recently, I tried replaying Yellow but found the battle mechanics to be so aggravating that I gave my game cartridge away. Graphics are not the only component to deciding if a game is better.

At least FR/LG aren't a mess of glitches that could potentially destroy your save file.

Though I say this as someone who says that FR/LG are their second favorite Pokemon mainline games.

The only thing Yellow is arguably superior to FRLG is the Stat.Exp. system, but everything else FRLG beats Yellow: type chart, Special split, level up movepools.

I don't understand the Crobat complaint because it's ONE Pokémon. It's stupid to not be able to evolve Golbat, but the intention of the game was to preserve the RBY gameplay. This means the same Pokémon roster as RBY, basically the same "weapons" you had to beat the game in 1st gen. Only all of them are much improved. Charizard is supposed to be hard mode in 1st gen but the boosts it got post RBY make it very powerful for the game. You should only really have problems with Misty if you choose Charmander.

Sabrina isn't even a big deal anyway. Alakazam is made of paper in 3rd gen and dies to any strong physical move. I think I even killed Sabrina's Alakazam with my Pidgeot's Return, and Pidgeot isn't the strongest Pokémon out there, but it's Adamant and Return is a 152 BP move at full happiness (which Pidgeot was since I caught it very early), so I'd be surprised if it didn't do great damage to Alakazam. Besides, the enemies don't have EVs in the games so they're at a disadvantage.

FRLG don't exactly NEED the 2nd gen Pokémon to be a good game. They already have one of the best Pokémon rosters in the series. DP has 150 too and the roster there is much worse. If you started adding Sentrets and Hoppips and Hoothoots to Kanto it wouldn't be the "pure" 1st gen experience anymore. HGSS has the exact same encounter rates as GS in all routes, with the exact same Pokémon, except for Donphan and Ursaring which are reversed in the remakes, and naturally the Safari Zone routes. I'm pretty sure the rates in ORAS are the same as in RS, too. The only difference is that you can get some of the new evolutions in HGSS, even though only Mamoswine and Tangrowth are really viable (Yanma is nearly impossible to find without a swarm). And it's arguable that being able to use a Mamoswine against Lance completely eliminates the challenge of the last battle itself, since all of the rosters in HGSS are the same as in GSC with very few changes (Clair has a Gyarados for example) and the original roster didn't take Mamoswine into account.

Espeon and Umbreon aren't exactly viable in FRLG, too. They take too long to evolve (being stuck with shitty Eevee for a while is NEVER a good thing) and may skip important moves. The Move Reminder is only accessible after you beat the Cinnabar Gym.

The other GSC evolutions require trade and therefore impractical to use. The items are also only accessible in the postgame.

Personally, GS suffers from an even worse problem than FRLG. In those games, there's only ONE of each evolutionary stone, except for the Sun Stone, which you get in the Bug Catching Contest, and the Moon Stone, which you can get infinite of by using Rock Smash on the rock around which the Clefairy dance in Mt. Moon. Moreover, the stones (Fire/Leaf/Thunder/Water) are only available in the postgame. During my first (and only) Gold playthrough, I used a Weepinbell against the E4, because there's NO way to evolve it before the League. This was horrible and prevented me from using several Pokémon which evolve by stone with egg moves that didn't exist in RBY, such as Arcanine's Crunch. Crystal patched this, but the PokéGear is still too random, so it isn't an ideal mechanic.