3rd Gen What went wrong with FRLG?

[BettyNewbie]

Also, the timing of their release makes sense because they're remakes of Red and Green, which were released in Japan in 1996. FRLG were released in 2004, that's 8 years later, which is a lot of time.

Technically, even 8 years is still less than the gaps that separate HGSS (10 years) and ORAS (12 years) from their respective originals. To remake Red and Green in 2004 was literally akin to what Diamond and Pearl remakes would've felt like in 2014.

And, the 8 years only applies to Japan, mind you. The rest of us got RBY in 1998-99, only 5-6 years before FRLG (technically, slightly less than 5 years in the case of Yellow). For most of us, the originals were still as fresh then as HGSS and BW are to us now... You don't see many people calling for remakes of either of those games, do you?

Searching around YouTube, I found a very good review of FRLG. She does a good job of explaining everything that's wrong with these games... Namely, what few good things you can say about them also apply to the originals. She also had a very good point about GF using these games to try to replace Pokémon's original fanbase (as opposed to embracing them like GF did with HGSS and ORAS) with all of the excess handholding and tutorials.

 

[Mega_Kris]

Technically, even 8 years is still less than the gaps that separate HGSS (10 years) and ORAS (12 years) from their respective originals. To remake Red and Green in 2004 was literally akin to what Diamond and Pearl remakes would've felt like in 2014.

some remakes have 5 years depending on what generation of consoles they came out. But it doesn't matter. FRLG is the first" remake. i think thats plenty enough

And, the 8 years only applies to Japan, mind you. The rest of us got RBY in 1998-99, only 5-6 years before FRLG (technically, slightly less than 5 years in the case of Yellow). For most of us, the originals were still as fresh then as HGSS and BW are to us now... You don't see many people calling for remakes of either of those games, do you?

considering we saw 2 generations on the same video game console (DS), asking for remakes for those games isn't going to much. the difference is between two generation of consoles.

Searching around YouTube, I found a very good review of FRLG. She does a good job of explaining everything that's wrong with these games... Namely, what few good things you can say about them also apply to the originals. She also had a very good point about GF using these games to try to replace Pokémon's original fanbase (as opposed to embracing them like GF did with HGSS and ORAS) with all of the excess handholding and tutorials.

i agree with half of it. but there are some things just felt "wrong". The first minute although praises the game for being a remake, criticizes it as well for being one as well. i understand exactly that she wants to see something new, just not something "completely" new. now i do admit, FRLG definitely needed improvements, but one of the examples such as companion, she even justifies for possibly having too little room for it. Some features of yellow could've been welcomed...but considering i don't believe yellow is canon, it tells me a lot.
i agreed with her reasoning, but overall when she said there was no need for a remake, that was when it just clicked "then don't play it". or don't ask for one. Or at least: when a remake is made, don't hate on it for not having use or being a faithful, standard remake.

Honestly, Gamefreak makes so little games....they make as much as Zelda games....and if you think about it hard enough, Zelda games are practically made one per generatio of console. Pokemon just make the first game, the expanded version, and maybe a remake. the only one that didn't get a remake was Gen 5, which instead got a direct sequel in the same gen.

 

[Cerberus87]

Well, Capcom did remake Resident Evil for the Gamecube only 6 years after the original was released, although it was probably just a bone thrown to Nintendo because the N64 didn't have the first one.

Super Mario All-Stars, which remastered all the NES Mario games, was also released for the SNES not long after the originals. Star Fox 64 rebooted the Star Fox series only 4 years after the original Star Fox was released on the SNES.

 

[BettyNewbie]

considering we saw 2 generations on the same video game console (DS), asking for remakes for those games isn't going to much. the difference is between two generation of consoles.

RBY and GSC were also made for the same handheld, you know. (The GBC was an upgraded rerelease akin to the DSi and New 3DS, rather than a completely separate line like the GBA.) In fact, FRLG were made so soon after RBY that they're the only remakes that can be played on the same handheld as their original counterparts (albeit without trading compatibility).

i agree with half of it. but there are some things just felt "wrong". The first minute although praises the game for being a remake, criticizes it as well for being one as well. i understand exactly that she wants to see something new, just not something "completely" new. now i do admit, FRLG definitely needed improvements, but one of the examples such as companion, she even justifies for possibly having too little room for it. Some features of yellow could've been welcomed...but considering i don't believe yellow is canon, it tells me a lot.
i agreed with her reasoning, but overall when she said there was no need for a remake, that was when it just clicked "then don't play it". or don't ask for one. Or at least: when a remake is made, don't hate on it for not having use or being a faithful, standard remake.

Her main point was that just about everything that FRLG could be praised for also applied to the original RB, so the games don't really have many merits of their own. And, she is 100% correct. What exactly did FRLG bring to the table? What makes them stand out from the other Pokémon games, including their original counterparts? (Aside from being a great base for ROM hacks, that is, LOL.)

 

[Cerberus87]

RBY and GSC were also made for the same handheld, you know. (The GBC was an upgraded rerelease akin to the DSi and New 3DS, rather than a completely separate line like the GBA.) In fact, FRLG were made so soon after RBY that they're the only remakes that can be played on the same handheld as their original counterparts (albeit without trading compatibility).

But the lack of trade was an important technological gap, IMO. If they, like, released Sinnoh remakes on the New 3DS in 2018, it would still make sense because you can't use the 4th gen games with Pokémon Bank despite the fact they're playable on the New 3DS. Besides, all the 4th gen games are out of print and the boxed copies you can find are too expensive.

 

[Mega_Kris]

RBY and GSC were also made for the same handheld, you know. (The GBC was an upgraded rerelease akin to the DSi and New 3DS, rather than a completely separate line like the GBA.) In fact, FRLG were made so soon after RBY that they're the only remakes that can be played on the same handheld as their original counterparts (albeit without trading compatibility).

one was released for the gameboy, the other for the gameboy color. despite having the same name, their still technically a different system with different capabilities. For example: Crystal is gameboy color exclusive game, it is not backwards compatible with the gameboy color. So i still consider it as the remakes having a gap of one generation apart.

Her main point was that just about everything that FRLG could be praised for also applied to the original RB, so the games don't really have many merits of their own. And, she is 100% correct.

Because they weren't trying to have any merit of their own, and no one should've expected such significant changes for the first remake EVER in Pokemon. If it was very faithful remake, why complain?

What exactly did FRLG bring to the table? What makes them stand out from the other Pokémon games, including their original counterparts? (Aside from being a great base for ROM hacks, that is, LOL.)

you're clearly missing the point, ro refuse to accept it.....FireRed, and LEafGreen weren't designed to expand all that much, it was a very traditional remake. ANd considering that the remake amp'd up the graphics, that is still a good feature.

Honestly....its not even funny how much you streamline this point. As if FRLG was designed specifically for you. It has its merits....introducing to a group of newcomers who had never had a gameboy color, and trust me when i say when the Gameboy advance came out, the Gameboy Color and Gameboy were starting to fade FAST. I remember when GBA came out, i could no longer play Crystal, not only that but certain cartridges made the color glitched (and several of my friends had this issue s there was no going back). My friend's original Gameboy screen had faded aswell.

Making a remake was a good choice, being fathiful isn't a problem. Especially if it was designed to make newcomers experience the original game with new updated graphics. Theres nothing wrong with that, theres nothing wrong with FRLG. it "Couldve" had more and it could've appealed to older fans who play the crap out of the original to thepoint that they would ruin any form of faithful remake.

 

[Cerberus87]

Personally not having the clock was a setback, but it made sense because the originals weren't designed with the clock in mind. It wouldn't feel like 1st gen if you started adding Hoothoots and other nocturnal 2nd gen Pokémon to the game just to take advantage of the clock. None of the remakes had completely new species of Pokémon in their regional Dexes. None. The only additions in HGSS and ORAS were the new evolutions. I could understand having Crobat/Espeon/Umbreon/Blissey but adding a clock just for one Pokémon (Eevee) would've been inefficient.

And the Berries aren't really that important. You can get most of the better Berries for battling in FRLG itself, and the stat Berries are exclusive to Colosseum/XD and events.

Breeding only in postgame is fine. Who has time for breeding during the main game?

I think starting with FRLG the GBA games had that nasty little thing called DMA (dynamic memory allocation) to prevent people from cheating, which required a special AR code to get rid of, otherwise you'd get Bad Eggs.

 

[BettyNewbie]

I'm really getting tired of arguing about this over and over with you, Shiny Unown. Look, if you want to spend money on the exact same game over and over again, go knock yourself out, but don't whine and argue when people have the nerve to expect more than that.

But the lack of trade was an important technological gap, IMO. If they, like, released Sinnoh remakes on the New 3DS in 2018, it would still make sense because you can't use the 4th gen games with Pokémon Bank despite the fact they're playable on the New 3DS. Besides, all the 4th gen games are out of print and the boxed copies you can find are too expensive.

And, it was a technological gap that could've been handled better. Why didn't Ruby and Sapphire have a second postgame region for all of the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex? Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.

 

[Mega_Kris]

I'm really getting tired of arguing about this over and over with you, Shiny Unown. Look, if you want to spend money on the exact same game over and over again, go knock yourself out, but don't whine and argue when people have the nerve to expect more than that.

I'm getting tired that you feel so entitled that every pokemon game has to be made for you in specifically, and if it doesn't meet your standards, its no good (and your standards is that it automatically has to have the latest features, which shows me you don't know the benefits of remakes)....

i stopped at Gen 4 keep in mind, and i don't regret it. i don't hate gen 5, or gen 6. do i feel like they lost their way? sure...but i personally don't "HATE" them... I don't play Mystery dungeon despite being a huge fan of Roguelike RPGs, and Pokemon Conquest for sure doesn't entice me in the least, but i don't HATE these games aswell.

Seriously....its remake...a standard, traditional, and overall "FAITHFUL" remake....it meets the expectation of what a remake is....and honestly....buying the same game, with updated graphics, fixed glitches, and slight story expansion isn't that bad of a deal. is it the same game in its core? yes....is that bad? NO!!!

I've purchased Final Fantasy I on NES, PS1, and GBA. all with tiny, yet significant features of their own. Graphical updates,, updated dialogue, difficulty variation, and additional story is what makes me value each one.

And, it was a technological gap that could've been handled better. Why didn't Ruby and Sapphire have a second postgame region for all of the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex? Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.

First things first, software capabilities could be the biggest reason why. For example: When FF1, 2, and 4 were remade onto Wonderswan (and later ported to GBA), FF3 was too big to be remade. took too much time to code, and overall were understaffed (similar to Gamefreak's situation) that was because when it was on NES, the game already packed so much. FF 1 and 2 could fit in one NES cartridge combined, but FF3 took up all of it. The game wasn't properly remade until the DS.

i'm willing to bet RSE had the same issue....

Second:again...a standard remake....not a mediocre one. "below average" at best. but overall, still an enjoyable game. if you still own REd/Blue...you still play the crap out of it. and you enjoy every little bit...then go right ahead and not play FRLG....but for those who hate the sprites on them, found the original very Jarring to play with its color limitations. then FRLG is perfect for them......

if you knew anything about remakes, you would've hated FRLG the moment it was announced.

 

[Unown Seer]

I personally didn't even know what to expect when FRLG were announced. Just the existence of the Sevii Islands was a surprise for many, and even though they could have been fleshed out, I give FRLG credit for being the only remakes with a decent number of new areas. After I had played the games I wanted Game Freak to develop a 10th anniversary title focusing on Mew and Mewtwo, which is what FRLG were truly missing. But that didn't happen, nor has anything in that vein happened ever since. That doesn't make me want another set of remakes, though.

HGSS disappointed me a lot more than FRLG did. Granted, I had much higher expectations, but HGSS made me realize that remakes are not what I'm looking for. They don't allow for a notable story expansion, and the changes aren't always for the better.

Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.

That's ironic coming from someone who has been saying that they should re-remake the games rather than give sequels a try.

 

[Cerberus87]

And, it was a technological gap that could've been handled better. Why didn't Ruby and Sapphire have a second postgame region for all of the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex? Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.

Hoenn is quite large compared to Johto. Of course, half of it is water, but large patches of aquatic nothingness take space, too, and there are the Dive areas to take into account. Another region may have required a bigger cart.

Sinnoh is as large as Hoenn and all they could fit in as a post game area were those small islands east of it.

All the GBA Pokémon games are on 16MB carts. The GBA accepts up to 32MB carts. However, that space doesn't come for free... Bigger carts are more expensive.

You'd have to direct this question to a romhacker, I'm afraid. But I'm pretty sure it's because of Hoenn's size. Heck, the Kanto in GSC was largely castrated to fit into the GB's tiny carts. We got two regions, yes, but at the expense of several maps being cut from the game.

I think the thread title isn't adequate, because, for better or worse, FRLG were a commercial success and critically acclaimed at the time. So, from that point of view, "nothing" went wrong with them. The fact FRLG were a success was what enabled us to have further remakes.

 

[Unown Seer]

All the GBA Pokémon games are on 16MB carts.

The Japanese versions of Ruby and Sapphire used 8MB cartridges. I doubt that Emerald's data took up the entire 16MB allotted to it.

 

[BettyNewbie]

I'm getting tired that you feel so entitled that every pokemon game has to be made for you in specifically, and if it doesn't meet your standards, its no good (and your standards is that it automatically has to have the latest features, which shows me you don't know the benefits of remakes)....

Says the person who keeps on insisting that every remake should be a direct copy/paste because that's what they enjoy the most.

if you still own REd/Blue...you still play the crap out of it. and you enjoy every little bit...then go right ahead and not play FRLG....but for those who hate the sprites on them, found the original very Jarring to play with its color limitations. then FRLG is perfect for them......

If ugly sprites are the biggest problem for you, then this patch should be enough.

Hoenn is quite large compared to Johto. Of course, half of it is water, but large patches of aquatic nothingness take space, too, and there are the Dive areas to take into account. Another region may have required a bigger cart.

Sinnoh is as large as Hoenn and all they could fit in as a post game area were those small islands east of it.

All the GBA Pokémon games are on 16MB carts. The GBA accepts up to 32MB carts. However, that space doesn't come for free... Bigger carts are more expensive.

You'd have to direct this question to a romhacker, I'm afraid. But I'm pretty sure it's because of Hoenn's size. Heck, the Kanto in GSC was largely castrated to fit into the GB's tiny carts. We got two regions, yes, but at the expense of several maps being cut from the game.

Then, maybe GF shouldn't have made Hoenn 50% water, then? That's just poor region design, which was the last thing the games needed at the time. (How could Hoenn be so large, yet have such a non-existent postgame?)

I personally didn't even know what to expect when FRLG were announced. Just the existence of the Sevii Islands was a surprise for many, and even though they could have been fleshed out, I give FRLG credit for being the only remakes with a decent number of new areas. After I had played the games I wanted Game Freak to develop a 10th anniversary title focusing on Mew and Mewtwo, which is what FRLG were truly missing. But that didn't happen, nor has anything in that vein happened ever since. That doesn't make me want another set of remakes, though.

HGSS disappointed me a lot more than FRLG did. Granted, I had much higher expectations, but HGSS made me realize that remakes are not what I'm looking for. They don't allow for a notable story expansion, and the changes aren't always for the better.

What are your thoughts on ORAS? Unlike FRLG and even HGSS, ORAS was treated more like a reboot instead of a remake, so it expanded on its original games' story by a lot. (Granted, it's a story and setting that I've never been a huge fan of, but I can respect what ORAS did with it.)

To me, that's the kind of remake that I want to see more of, especially now that ORAS has officially established the existence of a new timeline. Give me more reboots!

That's ironic coming from someone who has been saying that they should re-remake the games rather than give sequels a try.

You need a prequel before you can have a sequel. Neither GSC or HGSS (Gen 1's actual sequels, BTW) exist in the current timeline, so sequels are pretty much out of the question. Plus, Gen 1 still hasn't really been done "right," IMO, and I'd love to see it get its own ORAS-style reboot.

 

[Unown Seer]

What are your thoughts on ORAS? Unlike FRLG and even HGSS, ORAS was treated more like a reboot instead of a remake, so it expanded on its original games' story by a lot. (Granted, it's a story and setting that I've never been a huge fan of, but I can respect what ORAS did with it.)

The Hoenn story is still lackluster, which is not to say silly. I appreciated the Delta Episode, but it was too short and it had more to do with Mega Evolution than anything else. The Mega Evolution gameplay clearly took priority over anything else when it comes to ORAS, and the fact that the story was altered accordingly is hardly worth praise. I will admit that the characters are more fleshed out, but I only care for Zinnia, who felt rather out of place.

that ORAS has officially established the existence of a new timeline. Give me more reboots!

Knock yourself out.

You need a prequel before you can have a sequel. Neither GSC or HGSS (Gen 1's actual sequels, BTW) exist in the current timeline, so sequels are pretty much out of the question.

The distinction between the timelines is only important if Game Freak choose to make Mega Evolution prominent in Kanto's story, which they shouldn't (if only for the fact that they've already done with it Hoenn). Origins has already shown us that the Kanto story isn't supposed to be much different even with Mega Evolution involved. Sure, you can argue that Game Freak would do it differently, but nothing says that they will or should. It baffles me that you're using Mega Evolution as an excuse for not actually doing something new and unique with Kanto.

I'm Silktree, by the way. We've been through this song and dance before; I'm more interested in other people's opinions than yours.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

The Cerberus and The Shiny Unknown both have my full support when it comes to these responses.

I feel that most of these items are tiny nit-picks. Wanting a completely different game would be ludicrous when it's supposed to be a remake of a classic. Trying to cram a bunch of new stuff into the game could have potentially caused underlying issues with long time fans, so GF decided to play it safe and not include certain features: "What! This shouldn't be in the game! This is an outrage! Graah! 4/10!" - Nerd Fan #1

This is what GF wanted to avoid. And keep in mind that these games are the first of their kind and there wasn't a template for them to follow when making them; they took a huge risk financially and didn't feel like risking more with placing features that weren't in the originals that could detract from playing the game. It's supposed to feel like Kanto, so they kept it Kanto. It's especially difficult when you already have certain changes like Dark and Steel type moves; just because a Pokémon doesn't receive STAB doesn't make it less effective than Super Effective. And the split between Special and the change from Poison being Super Effective against Bug types is enough to actually say with certainty that "This isn't exactly the same".

 

[Unown Seer]

And the split between Special and the change from Poison being Super Effective against Bug types is enough to actually say with certainty that "This isn't exactly the same".

Not to mention having decent Dragon and Ghost-type moves to choose from (notably Dragon Claw and Shadow Ball, which were available via TMs). With Shadow Ball being so widespread, there is little reason why Sabrina should have been a problem, even without STAB.

Abilities were a big deal, too.

 

[Chronosplit]

The Japanese versions of Ruby and Sapphire used 8MB cartridges. I doubt that Emerald's data took up the entire 16MB allotted to it.

None of the GBA Pokemon games did. There's plenty of free space in there if you take a look. Emerald is a bit of an exception here, however it's mostly due to the odd way they stored the sound (in an unaltered version anyway).

While I have no idea why they switched to 16MB carts for R/S outside of Japan exclusively (maybe to store localized scripts easier what with how badly compiled they were), FR/LG at least could've done the same I think... though I'm not completely sure.

 

[BettyNewbie]

Well, surprise, surprise. Guess who it is? :rolleyes2:

The distinction between the timelines is only important if Game Freak choose to make Mega Evolution prominent in Kanto's story, which they shouldn't (if only for the fact that they've already done with it Hoenn).

It's not about Megas being prominent, it's about them existing, period. Same goes for Fairies. That's why they reset the timeline with ORAS, to explain why Megas and Fairies existed in Hoenn, but not Kanto, Johto, Sinnoh, and Unova.

Origins has already shown us that the Kanto story isn't supposed to be much different even with Mega Evolution involved.

Origins is not canon.

 

[Unown Seer]

Well, surprise, surprise. Guess who it is?

I was really pleased to find you here, too.

That's why they reset the timeline with ORAS, to explain why Megas and Fairies existed in Hoenn, but not Kanto, Johto, Sinnoh, and Unova.

To conclude from this that every single generation needs to be remade to account for Mega Evolution is nothing short of grasping at straws.

Origins is not canon.

It demonstrates that the existence of Mega Evolution in an old region isn't something that requires heavy plot changes. It's ridiculous to discount the previous games just because they lack Mega Evolution.

 

[BettyNewbie]

It's ridiculous to discount the previous games just because they lack Mega Evolution.

You don't get it, the previous timelines aren't GF's concern anymore. Yes, they still exist, but they're old, closed timelines. Just like Paramount isn't rushing to make a new spinoff of Star Trek: TNG, GF isn't rushing to make a new sequel to GSC or HGSS. It's a dead timeline that they've moved on from.

Besides, reboots have much more freedom than sequels. Sequels will always be saddled with all of the continuity of the previous games, both good and bad. You, yourself, have expressed the desire to segregate Kanto and Johto into separate, isolated regions like Hoenn and Sinnoh. Well, you can't so easily do that with a sequel, because both GSC and HGSS already established that the two regions were closely connected and shared a League. A reboot, on the other hand, can easily do that, as it would be existing in a completely separate universe and timeline from the originals.

Same goes for people who want Team Rocket fleshed out, Lorelei and Agatha to not get discarded like trash, or for the likes of Kris and Green/Leaf to simply exist. The older games went down in a way that prevents all of these from happening, so a sequel wouldn't fix these problems at all without completely violating previously established continuity. A reboot, on the other hand, is a different story.