![]() |
Why do you think Black and White has recieved so many bad remarks?
Why do you think Black and White has recieved so many bad remarks as oppose to the other main series games?
Is it because the pokemon seem much more fake than the others? Is it because the of lack of post-game? Personally, even though i stayed with Pokemon since the original 151, I think there is room for change, technology is changing drastically around us. Black and White in my mind are some the best pokemon games i've played. Everyone and anyone, put your opinions here. |
I don't know too many people that hated it outside of people who cannot look beyond their "childhood" (which I find very sad) and refuse to play anything new, even though it is far better with content and story.
It's true that not everyone will be pleased, but I feel those who hated it just never gave it a real chance. Or just wanted all old Pokemon and didn't want to accept new things. B2/W2 will change that for them, but if they still think that's a bad game, they are just fooling themselves. |
The only reason I can think of is the Pokemon. People are always hating on the names and designs, for whatever reason I don't know. I definitely don't agree. Overall I feel like the games get better with every generation. Nostalgia is nostalgia, but I love new opportunities.
|
There's effectively no postgame, many of the new designs were lackluster, there were yet again too many legendaries, the region was boring, the Pokemon themselves were overly detailed with tons of spikes, armor, and markings, there was no good battle facility (I.E. Battle Tower, Battle Frontier), no Safari Zone, no good rivals, the starters were boring, and the game was too bloody easy.
Even the Online Random Matchup mode isn't any good because everyone uses a hacked team of max-stat WonderTombs and the like. And I'm not saying this because of nostalgia. I started out with Sapphire Version, and I still don't like Black and White too much. Especially after HeartGold and SoulSilver. With HG/SS, Game Freak set a new standard for Pokemon games. You had conveniences like the running shoes toggle, series mainstays like the Safari zone, fun options such as the Pokemon-following-you feature, great challenges such as Red, and a great roster of Pokemon. |
I personally think Black and White were just okay. Going solely on their own merits, they were fine, but compared to HeartGold and SoulSilver, they felt like a step backward. That could just be the nostalgia talking though, since the Johto games were always my favorites.
As for the Pokemon themselves, I disliked most of them at first, but they've really grown on me. In fact, I'd say that design-wise, Gen V is my favorite so far. |
Quote:
Quote:
Trainers like Cynthia, Morimoto are available to battle. Quote:
Quote:
Gen 5 introduced 156 Pokemon, with 8.3% being Legendary, so going by percentage, there were less Legends introduced compared to standard normal Pokemon. And since each of these Pokemon are limited to only 1 per game, there cannot be too many Legendary Pokemon unless you are hacking them all because 3 are automatically unavailable being Event Pokemon, and 2 of them are version exclusive, with the Kami trio needing both of them to gain access to the other. In-game, you can only catch 7 of the Legendary Pokemon without outside assitance, as compared to the 4 in Red/Green/Blue/Yellow. 3 is hardly a major increase out of 649 Pokemon. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Pokemon following was nice, but I feel extremely overrated. It's cool to see your Pokemon following you, but is it really THAT big of a deal that people deem it absolutely horrible that Gen 5 didn't have it too? Besides, the Pokemon following you rarely served a purpose other than just being there. As said earlier, B/W has Morimoto and Cynthia, not to mention rematches with Cheren and Bianca. This was also the first time becoming Champion was saved for postgame, so there was plenty to do postgame, as well as plenty of powerful trainers to face. "Great roster of Pokemon" seems like an opinion, considering there were plenty of interesting Pokemon introduced in B/W, while B2W2 focused on the return of the older ones. |
Quote:
Cyclone |
I played Black and White and like it and all but the reason why I hate it is because all of the Gen 5 Pokemon suck. They don't look anything like real Pokemon it seems like GameFreak didn't even try on this one. The game had a good story and all just like all the other's but the pokemon look ridiculous.
|
Quote:
---- For me, I loved this generation and I honestly don't see why people think so negatively of it. The only reasons I could think of were the fact that people are so nostalgic and the minimal postgame material. Another factor, I suppose, could be the fact that some people aren't used to the new EXP system? |
Quote:
|
Why do these threads always get my attention?
I've mentioned it in the other thread that the flaws this gen had that are far more noticeable than other. Being someone who liked all gens (especially 3 and 4, so if anything I'm a "newbie".) save for this one, I hope people don't blindly accuse my opinions to be biased and nostalgia-filled. Anyway, I'll make my points smaller and more straight to the point this time than the other thread. I'll also list them in bullet points.
That is not to say B/W is a bad game by any standards, as for what it has, it is still a fun, full-fledged Pokemon game, but it doesn't have anything to make it the best, let alone NOT the worst. It is marketed towards newer and more casual audience, what with it being short, easy and simple, and as such the points I have made above are kind of moot to the bigger % of those who have bought the games. Fortunately, B/W2 fixed most of these "flaws". |
Quote:
Would you like to compare? I can find you several Pokemon that look odd in every generation. http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/19/Spr_5b_103.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/0e/Spr_5b_124.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/9c/Spr_5b_122.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/cb/Spr_5b_097_m.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4a/Spr_5b_235.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/65/Spr_5b_272_m.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/73/476.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/07/Spr_5b_400_m.png So, how are these any better than the ones in Gen 5? They aren't. They're all Pokemon. Just because they look different doesn't mean they don't look like a Pokemon. And "didn't even try"? How about these? http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/8a/Spr_5b_100.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/b5/101.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/68/050.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/81/051.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/78/088.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/77/089.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/bc/081.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/63/082.png These Pokemon were very simple, but the only reason people don't complain about them is because they came first. How is this: http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/68/Spr_5b_003_m.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e1/Spr_5b_006.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/3d/Spr_5b_009.png any more or less creative than this?: http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/99/497.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/be/500.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/5/53/Spr_5b_503.png Answer: they're not. Game Freak has to find ways to make new Pokemon stand out from older Pokemon, which is why the don't all look alike. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with the first Gen, but those are some of the most basic designs of them all. There is nothing wrong with any Gen 5 Pokemon. The Taoism theme with the Unova dragons was a great idea, so I don't know how anyone can say they "didn't try" with such a great concept. http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/3c/643.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/f3/Spr_5b_644.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/d/d9/646.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/3b/646B.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/40/646W.png And no, they didn't go overboard. They introduced 13 Legendary Pokemon with 143 regular Pokemon. In all, 47 Pokemon are Legendary while 602 are not. That is only 7.2% of all Pokemon. |
^
1. Don't try to argue with me cuz I know im gonna win 2. Blastoise is a turtle, Charizard is a dragon and idk exactly what Venasuar is. Idk wth the 5th Gen are? I also stated that all gen's have some pokemon that make you think wtf. I never said they weren't pokemon, they just don't look like "Pokemon" compared to the other Pokemon. They look like they were half assed. Pokemon used to look like a lot of animals to an extent and a lot of the Pokemon were just monsters but when you get Pokemon like Ice Cream cones and chandlers then you know they ain't "true" Pokemon. |
Quote:
The above poster made a very good point, while your argument is pretty baseless and just makes you seem biased. ELABORATE on your points about them not looking like Pokemon, instead of making this tiring statement. Also, simplicity does NOT equal to creativity. EDIT: Although I do think Zekyurem/Kyureshiram or whatever they're actually called to be bad designs. It's not that they're too digimon-like (I actually like Digimon), they're just flat out ugly and messy. |
Quote:
Quote:
Emboar - boar/pig. Again, rather obvious. Samurott - otter/sea lion. Really, just looking at their names will tell you what they are. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And why can't a Pokemon be based off ice cream? We had one based on eggs and a pineapple, which oddly enough are part of the same evolutionary line. And chandeliers either? What about a living Pokeball, or living magnet? What's the difference? Again, what is the definition of a "true Pokemon"? |
Quote:
Serperior is a combination of both a serpent and a vine, while having the characteristic and design of a royal figure. Emboar is a flaming, gruesome boar that has the looks of a bulky wrestler. Samurott is a sea lion that takes inspiration from a Samurai. To add to that, they also seem to resemble figures from various chinese and japanese mythology. It's things like these that makes you appreciate the design of these Pokemon. While Venusaur and Blastoise took inspiration from a wild flower and a tank respectively, they just added a huge flower on the back of a frog/saurian hybrid and two cannons on a bipedal tortoise. BW starters have much more creative designs, while gen 1's are simple. |
IMO Pokemon are suppose to look something like oversized animals or "living" creatures; it it be flowers, trees, vines, bugs, etc. like they did in the early gen's. This is gonna be long but I"m gonna show you exactly what I mean.
Bulbasaur is a creature with a root on its back, then evolves into Ivysaur which has leaves coming out of the roots meaning its "GROWING" then finally into its final evolution venasaur which is a tree with leaves and a mushroom/flower. Now Blastoises whole evolutionary form is "turtles", Charizard is a dragon, Butterfee and Beedrills evolutionary chain is a Caterpillar, into a cacoon, into a Butterfly/Bee, Pidgeots is "birds", Raticates "rats", Fearow "birds", Arbok "snakes", Pikachu "mouse", Ninetales "fox", Crobats "bats", Vileplumes "creatues with flowers" same with Bellossom, Parasects "mushrooms", Persians "Cats", Primeape "monkey/pig lol", Arcanines "dogs", Machamps "roided up human beings", Victrebell "flowers, kinda", Rapidash's "horses", Farfetch'd and Dodrio's "birds", Dewgong's "sea lions", Kinglers "crabs", Kangaskhan "kangaroo", Seaking "fish", Tauros "bull", Magikarp "fish", Aerodactyl "dinasaur/bird", Zapdos, Molters, Articuno "birds", Dragonite "dragons". The rest are made up creatures but could easily pass for an animal or living creature if they wanted to. Now 5th gen. up to Stoulands evolutions forms is nothing, Stoulands "dogs", Liepard "cats", Unfenzant "birds", Zebstrika "zebras", Basculin "pirahanna", Swanna "ducks", Sawbuck "deer", Buffoulant "buffalo", Mandibuzz "vulture" and that's all, the rest look nothing like they could be living creatures. Did I make a point this time? I know they're all Pokemon I never said they weren't quit jumping to conclusion! I still play the game so STFU about then not looking like Pokemon cuz they don't. |
Quote:
Haxorus is also more realistic of a living creature than Charizard because of it being based on a herbivorous dinosaur, whereas the latter is a Dragon, a mythical creature. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Besides, you purposely left out many animal Pokemon in Gen 5 and included some from Gen 1 that would never pass as "real", like Blastoise with its cannons, and a Venusaur with the tree on its back. That's not realistic. Your attempts to make Gen 1 seem far better or more creative are only proving how simple those designs were compared to now. |
That's because gen I-IV are better creations.
|
Quote:
How is the fire breathing dragon Charizard more of a Pokemon than ANYTHING in Gen 5? Yes, it is a cool Pokemon, but...it's just a fire breathing dragon. |
They put too much creations in Gen 5, I'm not trying to say they aren't Pokemon they just eh, don't seem like Pokemon anymore. Maybe it's cuz I grew up with the 1st gen, idk. The gen 5 Pokemon look like digimon more than Pokemon.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the game had the Battle Subway, which is the same thing as the Battle Tower. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure you'll never respond to this, but if you do it'll be something like, "Hurr huur B/W has Ice Cream Pokemanz!!!!" |
I've despised Gen V all up to maybe about a week ago. xD
I thought the Pokemon were incredibly stupid. (Trubbish, the ice cream cone, Timburr..) But now I realize there are some good ones like Snivy and Galvantula, imo. |
Quote:
Just keep in mind this isn't for your own personal opinion, rather it's for why you think others dislike them. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:50 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.