The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   1st Gen I honestly think that Gen 1 is horrible (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=343269)

QueenNothing January 29th, 2015 8:50 PM

I honestly think that Gen 1 is horrible
 
The outdated battle mechanics make the games really unplayable in today's standards, and not to mention how horrendous the sprites from R/B are.
This is all my opinion though, so feel free to disagree.

BettyNewbie January 29th, 2015 9:18 PM

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I'm a fan of the games. RBY had glitchy, broken mechanics, and RB really did have some horrible (if sometimes charming) sprites. Even GSC were a huge graphical and mechanical upgrade over that, which is partially why they were so well-received.

This, of course, is why Gen 1 could really use a new, proper remake. If there's any Gen that could benefit the most from a full modern makeover, it's this one. I'll admit that I still enjoy playing classic Yellow, but unless you grew up with the games, it's hard to get around their age. (Plus, even I've always wanted a Gen 1 that had things like Day/Night, Berry trees, newer Pokémon, and graphics that didn't make me wince).

QueenNothing January 29th, 2015 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8599664)
Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I'm a fan of the games. RBY had glitchy, broken mechanics, and RB really did have some horrible (if sometimes charming) sprites. Even GSC were a huge graphical and mechanical upgrade over that, which is partially why they were so well-received.

This, of course, is why Gen 1 could really use a new, proper remake. If there's any Gen that could benefit the most from a full modern makeover, it's this one. I'll admit that I still enjoy playing classic Yellow, but unless you grew up with the games, it's hard to get around their age. (Plus, even I've always wanted a Gen 1 that had things like Day/Night, Berry trees, newer Pokémon, and graphics that didn't make me wince).


I agree and somewhat disagree.
I don't think Gen 1 needs another remake, because I was happy enough with Fire Red. However, I wouldn't mind remakes.

Mega_Kris January 29th, 2015 10:26 PM

I also agree. the Generation 1 sprites look horrendous. But whats worst is that they didn't need to look ugly, especially the back sprites. Nintendo has made amazing sprites before on game boy and the game boy also handle more detailed back sprites. I understand Gamefreak might've been new to it, but their backgrounds look great.

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.
http://hax.iimarck.us/topic/3399/
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af339/MrStewart950/Pokemon%20Red/bgb00005_zps9e910935.png
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af339/MrStewart950/Pokemon%20Red/bgb00005_zps22b94149.png
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af339/MrStewart950/Pokemon%20Red/bgb00006_zpsa45f9c92.png
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af339/MrStewart950/Pokemon%20Red/bgb00005_zps216854a7.png
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6748/greensand.png

Platina Berlitz January 29th, 2015 11:27 PM

You can't judge a 15+ year old game by today's standards...It's the series that started it all, and was good for its time

Mega_Kris January 30th, 2015 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platina Berlitz (Post 8599796)
You can't judge a 15+ year old game by today's standards...It's the series that started it all, and was good for its time

i hate it when people think its about "today's" standards...It has absolutely NOTHING to do with today's time....keep in mind, Gold/Silver/Crystal came out not too long after RGBY, and people still love those games.

yes, it started it all, it still deserves flak. I've seen better sprites from games that are 20 years older.

morrison January 30th, 2015 1:15 AM

Nostalgia makes everything good. and it is still addictive. Also Pokemon centers were great.

Mega_Kris January 30th, 2015 2:29 AM

Nostalgia is based within one's mind. Its all subjective.

Just like Mario Bros live action movie. We shouldn't ignore our better judgement and we shouldn't blame modern times for a game that could have definitely looked more impressive especially with the games weve been seeing release at the time.

BettyNewbie January 30th, 2015 9:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlasmaGruntMagus (Post 8599672)
I agree and somewhat disagree.
I don't think Gen 1 needs another remake, because I was happy enough with Fire Red. However, I wouldn't mind remakes.

I wasn't. FRLG didn't do anything but take the old games as they were and slap a fresh coat paint on them. We didn't even get the things Yellow added (like a following starter), let alone everything GSC and RS brought to the table, like Berries, Contests, newer Pokémon, and most of all, a CLOCK. And, their graphics and mechanics haven't exactly aged that well, either. I'd rather they just erase these rubbish enhanced ports (they didn't add enough to be true remakes) from memory and start fresh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8599740)
I also agree. the Generation 1 sprites look horrendous. But whats worst is that they didn't need to look ugly, especially the back sprites. Nintendo has made amazing sprites before on game boy and the game boy also handle more detailed back sprites. I understand Gamefreak might've been new to it, but their backgrounds look great.

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.
http://hax.iimarck.us/topic/3399/

I've heard of that hack, but sadly, I've never gotten it to run properly. The screen would always white out whenever I picked a starter. :(

I'd love to see a Yellow hack that did something similar. Yellow was already compatible with GBC pallets out of the box, so it theoretically, shouldn't take too much to make it resemble GSC (Yellow and GS even used the exact same kind of GBC-enhanced GB cartridge, called a "black cartridge"). Plus, Yellow has more features than RB and much nicer tilesets, IMO.

Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer January 30th, 2015 9:16 AM

I loved Gen one in the late 90's and early 00's when I played it, but in all honesty now I don't find it as engaging as I don't really like Kanto and find the graphics a bit poor and the limitation of 151 pokemon, lack of genders, ability, natures, Dark, Steel and Fairy to restrictive.

On the plus side Yellow is pretty unique with Pikachu and the anime connections.

Pendraflare January 30th, 2015 9:41 AM

I'm sure you're not the only person who feels this way about Generation I today, but to be brutally honest i'm not one of them. I mean, I would still rather play FRLG than them, but they're not quite my least favorites. Although I feel like I should try playing them again before I claim this...

BettyNewbie January 30th, 2015 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer (Post 8600249)
I loved Gen one in the late 90's and early 00's when I played it, but in all honesty now I don't find it as engaging as I don't really like Kanto and find the graphics a bit poor and the limitation of 151 pokemon, lack of genders, ability, natures, Dark, Steel and Fairy to restrictive.

On the plus side Yellow is pretty unique with Pikachu and the anime connections.

Well, a shiny new 3DS Yellow remake would fix all of those things. The Generation's story and setting isn't and shouldn't be wedded to 15-20 year old graphics and mechanics.

hananas59 January 30th, 2015 11:53 AM

To me the games are just as great as today's ones, judging by the gameplay and the storyline. It's the core of the game that counts, though color would be good on that game.

I dislike gen 1 for another reason, I didn't really like the pokémons, with a few exceptions of course. I just find the region not as appealing with it's characters, but that could be just me. And that's the first I look at really when dealing with this kind of things.
The story was best though and I really liked what they did on that.

Pollichops January 30th, 2015 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8599835)
i hate it when people think its about "today's" standards...It has absolutely NOTHING to do with today's time....keep in mind, Gold/Silver/Crystal came out not too long after RGBY, and people still love those games.

yes, it started it all, it still deserves flak. I've seen better sprites from games that are 20 years older.

Have to agree with the sprites thing, but really, even with running through it again, I still see a good game. I don't see how anyone can think the battle mechanics were bad. The GB had like 4 buttons. I think it worked.

boxingboy January 30th, 2015 5:46 PM

Hey I'm playimg firered atm, what would have been good was being able to travel to johto after defeating the elite four and getting 60 pokemon.
This is my first post :) Hey everyone.

BettyNewbie January 30th, 2015 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxingboy (Post 8600890)
Hey I'm playimg firered atm, what would have been good was being able to travel to johto after defeating the elite four and getting 60 pokemon.
This is my first post :) Hey everyone.

Welcome to the site! :)

To be honest, FRLG piss me off far more than RBY ever could because of how badly they failed to live up to potential in every single way. I think they're the only set of games that actually removed more things than added new ones, and what few new things they added were absolutely pitiful. (Hello, small useless islands!) These games actually felt less modern than even GSC, which is just sad.

CoffeeDrink January 31st, 2015 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlasmaGruntMagus (Post 8599620)
. . .and not to mention how horrendous the sprites from R/B are.

Don't worry, we'll visit you in your sleep. . .

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/2/23/Spr_1b_042.pnghttp://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/2/23/Spr_1b_042.png

I do believe that these games, while they may not be up to today's standards deserve a modicum of respect. If the games sucked as much as you say they do, then they would have fizzled out, no one would have played them and we'd all be on a different forum altogether. Besides, would it not have been best to have put this in the Gen 1 section? Or are you comparing the first generation games to the second generation games specifically. There are just as many people that dislike the second generation as much as the first generation, mind you. . . although they're wrong and it's the third generation that wonked things up but that's besides the point.

The point is those Golbats will find you for insulting them, and when they do I don't think they'll give you any mercy.

TheLegalSquare January 31st, 2015 2:13 AM

Played Yellow recently. While it's not bad, I laughed when I saw how bad Pikachu looked from the back. Just a hilarious mess of pixels. At least replace the back art of the main damn pokemon with a nice one lol.

BettyNewbie January 31st, 2015 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalSquare (Post 8601309)
Played Yellow recently. While it's not bad, I laughed when I saw how bad Pikachu looked from the back. Just a hilarious mess of pixels. At least replace the back art of the main damn pokemon with a nice one lol.

Sadly, all of the Gen 1 games, including Yellow, used the same terrible back sprites from the original Red/Green (which were based on those games' horribad front sprites). They really should've updated the back sprites in Yellow like they did the front sprites.

Just in this department, alone, GSC were a huge improvement. I love RBY hacks that use Gen 2 back sprites for this very reason.

Imperator161 January 31st, 2015 7:24 PM

Were the backsprites in RBY bad by today's standards? Yes.

Were they bad by the standards of the 1990s? As previously mentioned, they weren't great.

But does that make the games unplayable? Obviously, that's a very personal question, but I still enjoy RBY, even if they aren't my favorite games in the series. I guess I've never cared that much about graphics vs. everything else, so the backsprites don't really bother me. Give my blob of pixels a nickname, and I'll still quickly become attached to it. And with simpler graphics and animations, the original games play more quickly than some of the later generations (especially gen 4--battles were so slow in that generation), which makes it faster and easier to jump into the action and immerse oneself in the pixelated world of Pokemon.

As for the mechanics, which seem to be the more relevant part of this topic, they are reasonably simple compared with modern gameplay. I personally like returning to the days when I could battle anyone I wanted with my party and not worry about messing up a perfect EV spread, but when it comes to competitive play, gen I certainly gives players a more limited set of options than some of the later generations. It's kind of nice to get away from held items and natures and the physical/special split every once in a while, though, as the changes have made for a very different metagame than the one we see today. While I've never really played gen I competitively (aside from on Stadium, but there, I pretty much just brought my in-game team in or used the not-too-good rentals), it's fun to have a different set of viable options at my disposal than the ones I use today. Yes, gen I battling is probably less balanced than gen 6 battling, but it's fun in its own way, and I don't find it unplayable. I still enjoy firing up my N64 and playing some Stadium, or watching/playing the occasional gen I match on Showdown or another battle simulator of choice. Though I knew nothing of competitive battling when I first played through Red, I've read a lot of gen I related articles over the years, and it's actually quite an interesting game.

One of the elements I find most intriguing about gen I is actually the thing that scared me most about it when it was a kid: glitches. The games are obviously incredibly glitchy, to the point where I sometimes wonder how I initially managed to play them without making something go wrong. I remember first learning about the Missingno glitch, showing my friends, and then being terrified that they would trade me a glitch Pokemon and mess up my game. But as I've come to understand the various glitches in RBY more thoroughly, I've come to appreciate how relatively simple code could create a series that brought me hours of enjoyment in my childhood, and how easily something in that process could go wrong. As a relatively inexperienced programmer, the coding of the newer games is too complex for me to really get my head around without more effort, but RBY are simple enough that when I read an explanation of why each glitch occurs, it makes sense. Thus, I enjoy returning to RBY not only for the nostalgia and for the differences in gameplay and mechanics, but for the hopes of discovering why the game operates exactly as it does, and how GameFreak built (and sometimes messed up) this foundational chapter of my Pokemon experience.

That being said, while I still think that playing RBY has value, it does seem like high time for another remake (or perhaps a sequel set primarily in Kanto). I personally like Kanto (it's probably my second-favorite region, after Johto), and I feel like it could definitely be fleshed out a bit more with XY graphics and mechanics. A Yellow remake seems unlikely to ever happen, since it was so tied in with the anime, but given the recent game-per-year trend, an RB remake doesn't seem out of the question.

BettyNewbie February 1st, 2015 9:41 AM

I agree with most of what you said, Imperator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator161 (Post 8602278)
That being said, while I still think that playing RBY has value, it does seem like high time for another remake (or perhaps a sequel set primarily in Kanto). I personally like Kanto (it's probably my second-favorite region, after Johto), and I feel like it could definitely be fleshed out a bit more with XY graphics and mechanics. A Yellow remake seems unlikely to ever happen, since it was so tied in with the anime, but given the recent game-per-year trend, an RB remake doesn't seem out of the question.

The new timeline established by ORAS makes a sequel an impossibility, now. Neither RBY/GSC or FRLG/HGSS exist in that timeline, and you can't have a sequel without a prequel, first.

As for Yellow vs RB, I'd accept another paired game remake, but only if A) we get Blue instead of Green (which has zero nostalgia for anyone outside of Japan), and B) Yellow elements are mixed in (like HGSS included Crystal elements).

Megan February 1st, 2015 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8599835)
I've seen better sprites from games that are 20 years older.

Can you elaborate on this statemant? All I can think of in terms of other sprites are those from The Final Fantasy Legend and they look terrible xD

Tbh. I really like the simplistic design of the games, which also includes the sprites. There will never be a Pokemon game that's as close to the original concept of Pokemon and yet so simplistic, than the gen 1 games. No fancy movesets, no powercreep, no stupid timelines (sorry, but I really don't care about which games come before or after whatever game and what game is in which dimension, etc. pp.) and other mechanics that made the games more complicated.
Granted, the first games where coded and balanced terribly, which lead to a lot of problems, something that fortunately was fixed in later games. But they still have their own charme which makes me want to play them again once in a while.

Mega_Kris February 1st, 2015 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8603497)
Can you elaborate on this statemant? All I can think of in terms of other sprites are those from The Final Fantasy Legend and they look terrible xD

Tbh. I really like the simplistic design of the games, which also includes the sprites. There will never be a Pokemon game that's as close to the original concept of Pokemon and yet so simplistic, than the gen 1 games. No fancy movesets, no powercreep, no stupid timelines (sorry, but I really don't care about which games come before or after whatever game and what game is in which dimension, etc. pp.) and other mechanics that made the games more complicated.
Granted, the first games where coded and balanced terribly, which lead to a lot of problems, something that fortunately was fixed in later games. But they still have their own charme which makes me want to play them again once in a while.

Final fantasy Legend sprites indeed looked terrible, but a vast majority of older games such as mario, mega man and many more had better sprites. Also people knock off the gameboy as a very limited game but it never had to affect the sprites. Another great game is Link's awakening which did an amazing job for all the sprites.

Regardless people defend Gen 1 as if their talking to people who have no idea how it was like. For example, the argument of "simplistic" sprites. I really hate getting into this topic when it comes to gen 1 because people who defend always say why they think its the problem.

The problem isnt "simplistic", the sprites have always been simplistic even from Gen 2. In fact, a lot of the sprites in Gen 1 tried too hard.to be detailed. Rather than allowing the colors to contrast, they attempted to add in as many shades as possible. Unlike gen 2, which only added two colors not including black and white.

I admit Gen 1 has some charm....and that is story, anything else is just nostalgia. I cant even help myself to even try to complete the pokedex. Every pokemon I saw, I was disgusted with it.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/216/1/9/blastoise__made_to_print_fit__by_dnzgames-d59n5ge.png

This is not simple....but ill say this, if they took more time figuring out their designs, proportions, and how much shading they should use, then yes simplicity wouldve saved the sprites.


Keep in mind pokemon itself is the driving force of the game. And keep in mind that pokemon gen 1 has some poorly designed pokemon.

Playing the gen 2 mod of pokemon red/blue enhances the game significantly.

Megan February 2nd, 2015 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8603785)
Final fantasy Legend sprites indeed looked terrible, but a vast majority of older games such as mario, mega man and many more had better sprites. Also people knock off the gameboy as a very limited game but it never had to affect the sprites. Another great game is Link's awakening which did an amazing job for all the sprites.

Let's not start comparing NES and GB as there are too many differences between those two, like screen resolution and color depth. But I'll give you that Links Awakening had some good artwork implemented into the game. Then again: there's a difference between Nintendo as a big games and consoles producing company and Gamefreak, who where relatively new to the market. Originally the games weren't even intended to be released outside of Japan.
Quote:

Regardless people defend Gen 1 as if their talking to people who have no idea how it was like. For example, the argument of "simplistic" sprites. I really hate getting into this topic when it comes to gen 1 because people who defend always say why they think its the problem.

The problem isnt "simplistic", the sprites have always been simplistic even from Gen 2. In fact, a lot of the sprites in Gen 1 tried too hard.to be detailed. Rather than allowing the colors to contrast, they attempted to add in as many shades as possible. Unlike gen 2, which only added two colors not including black and white.
Wait, what? I get that you're around since gen 1 was released, but are you implying that people who like the sprites and who actually try to find some arguments on why they like them, outside of the generic "nostalgia", are just a bunch of ignorant fools? You don't need to be an artist who fully understands how art works in order to be fascinated by a picture. The sprites work for me and that's all I need to get into the mood of playing the games.

giradialkia February 2nd, 2015 7:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlasmaGruntMagus (Post 8599620)
The outdated battle mechanics make the games really unplayable in today's standards, and not to mention how horrendous the sprites from R/B are.
This is all my opinion though, so feel free to disagree.

Well it's a given - Gen 1 games definitely have some kind of charm, but they're so very, very old that they really can't hold up by today's standards - but that's the point. I think if you just emulate them on your phone, or play through to pass some time, they can still be enjoyable, but you still gotta take certain things into account like the fact that there are only 160 attacks, and to a much more significant point, the fact that 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' or whatever you wanna call it. Unfortunately I can't think of any examples right now, but I know that in a recent playthrough of Red Version, I encountered something that flat out shouldn't have happened.

I love the retro Pokémon games though, so if someone was looking for an experience SOMEWHAT closer to a modern Pokémon game, I'd definitely recommend GSC. The colours are amazing, the music is outstanding, and the battle system is drastically improved in a number of ways.

atomtanned February 2nd, 2015 8:31 AM

They did not age well, no. There were lots of glitches and errors in the games, and as many other have said, graphically they were behind even when they first came out. I am pretty old (27 now) and I was 11 when the games first were released. I can tell you that in some regards they were frustrating to play even them, but it was the concept that was captivating to me.

I still have my old carts but I don't play them, sadly. Even my Game Boys didn't hold up (they both need speaker repairs, a pretty common problem). It's odd that people are justifying their poor aging by saying that these games are nearly 20 years old. I still play a LOT of games from my childhood. In fact, I have working NES, SNES, and N64 consoles, and I still play games on all 3 that are very enjoyable. Good graphics AREN'T a requirement to enjoy a game after the fact, but the glitchy, limited gameplay and honestly what looks like rushed sprite work does make them difficult to play now.

I really enjoyed FRLG for this reason, though I think complaints about them skipping over other enhancements are valid. For me, a fresh coat of paint and the repair of some of those glitches were all RB needed to be really awesome games again. That said, I would LOVE a remake of these games in Gen VI setting.

BettyNewbie February 2nd, 2015 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomtanned (Post 8604102)
I really enjoyed FRLG for this reason, though I think complaints about them skipping over other enhancements are valid. For me, a fresh coat of paint and the repair of some of those glitches were all RB needed to be really awesome games again.

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.)

Guess how many of those things FRLG had?

And, what did FRLG bring to the table, anyways? A bunch of boring, useless islands? A worthless, intrusive help system? A "Fame Checker" that had no reward other than wasted time? Yawn.

And, the graphics weren't even that great, not even for the time. (Admittedly, also true for RSE... The Gen 3 games had mediocre graphics, IMO.)

If you want to play a Gen 1 that has (slightly) better graphics and more bugfixes, Yellow will serve you just fine (while actually changing things up from Red/Blue, storywise). If all you want is to see the region of Kanto, itself, in full color, then either GSC or HGSS are the way to go; both actually offer new things and use their respective handhelds' capabilities to their fullest.

Gen 1 needs a new remake more than ever.

Cerberus87 February 2nd, 2015 2:42 PM

The things that were good about 1st gen that still hold up well today are the region, as weird as it sounds, and the Pokémon roster.

I used to think Kanto became outdated, but I really think it's a well designed region despite the limitations. It's one of the least linear regions in the series. What it lacks is natural wonders, but it's not such a big deal because it's supposed to be an industrial kind of region.

The Pokémon roster is one of the best in the series, too. The only thing it doesn't have is Dark type Pokémon to fight Psychics, but it's not needed anymore with so many Bugs to hack away at Psychic types, as well as Gengar. If a modern remake existed, you could probably do fine against Sabrina by catching a Scyther or a Pinsir in the Safari Zone.

Personally I don't care about a modern remake, and while I didn't like FRLG, I understood its point as a minimalistic remake. Sure it doesn't have a clock and you can't evolve Eevee into Espeon/Umbreon, but HGSS lacks the Moss/Icy Rocks and you can't evolve Eevee into Leafeon/Glaceon either, despite there being a perfect possibility of adding the Moss/Icy Rocks to Ilex Forest/Ice Path respectively. You can't evolve Magneton into Magnezone in the game either.

I also don't care about Berries in my gameplay, and back when FRLG were released they even had limited use because we didn't have a lot of the currently used Berries in the metagame like the type-resistant Berries. The most important Berries in the 3rd gen metagame could be obtained either in FRLG itself (hidden tiles or Berry Forest) or in Colosseum/XD, so it's not like FRLG needed Berry Trees. The other Berries are irrelevant since FRLG doesn't have contests. Finally, it's been established in the games canon that Kanto doesn't have the kind of soil that allows Berries to grow (unlike Hoenn and Sinnoh). Even in GSC, you'd find very few Berry Trees in Kanto. In HGSS, Johto is retconned as a region where Berries don't easily grow either, because you need the Berry Pots to grow Berries and all the Berry trees from GSC have been replaced with Apricorn trees.

Furthermore, if they remade 1st gen again, I wish they forgot about Yellow. The level curve in Yellow is atrocious, most of the gyms have boring rosters because of the anime imitation (so Koga has a zillion Venonats and a Venomoth for example), and the Pikachu is unnecessary. The reason why FRLG didn't have anything from Yellow, besides staying true to the originals, is that there wasn't anything interesting to salvage from that game. Maybe we could've had following Pokémon, but that isn't a must have feature. Pikachu wasn't the star of the game, so its friendship system wasn't necessary. The only story additions, Jessie/James/Meowth, were boring and easy fights. Starters giveaway wasn't needed/wanted, because the point of the game is to choose only one, and so on.

BettyNewbie February 2nd, 2015 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604465)
The Pokémon roster is one of the best in the series, too. The only thing it doesn't have is Dark type Pokémon to fight Psychics, but it's not needed anymore with so many Bugs to hack away at Psychic types, as well as Gengar. If a modern remake existed, you could probably do fine against Sabrina by catching a Scyther or a Pinsir in the Safari Zone.

Remember that Gengar is WEAK to Psychic, and neither Scyther or Pinsir resist the type. (Now, Scyther's Evo does, but based on what you're saying, we shouldn't be "allowed" to use it in Gen 1 Kanto.) Plus, all of these Pokémon can only be obtained via either trade or the Safari Zone, which is a hassle for many people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604465)
Personally I don't care about a modern remake, and while I didn't like FRLG, I understood its point as a minimalistic remake. Sure it doesn't have a clock and you can't evolve Eevee into Espeon/Umbreon, but HGSS lacks the Moss/Icy Rocks and you can't evolve Eevee into Leafeon/Glaceon either, despite there being a perfect possibility of adding the Moss/Icy Rocks to Ilex Forest/Ice Path respectively. You can't evolve Magneton into Magnezone in the game either.

But, what's the point of even having a remake if you have all of the same limitations of the original? If you wanted to play a game where Eevee could only evolve into three Pokémon, RBY already exist. What's the point of even playing FRLG if it's just the exact same thing with different graphics?

A lot of us really wanted to experience Gen 1's story with things like Day/Night, newer Pokémon, and the other advancements GSC and RS brought to the table. FRLG robbed us of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604465)
The other Berries are irrelevant since FRLG doesn't have contests.

Which was a problem in and of itself. I'm no fan of contests, myself, but that was yet, another thing that was unnecessarily cut for the sake of "authenticity."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604465)
Finally, it's been established in the games canon that Kanto doesn't have the kind of soil that allows Berries to grow (unlike Hoenn and Sinnoh). Even in GSC, you'd find very few Berry Trees in Kanto. In HGSS, Johto is retconned as a region where Berries don't easily grow either, because you need the Berry Pots to grow Berries and all the Berry trees from GSC have been replaced with Apricorn trees.

Which was a stupid retcon, as Kanto and Johto were the very first regions to even HAVE Berries to begin with. Future remakes should fix this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604465)
Furthermore, if they remade 1st gen again, I wish they forgot about Yellow. The level curve in Yellow is atrocious, most of the gyms have boring rosters because of the anime imitation (so Koga has a zillion Venonats and a Venomoth for example), and the Pikachu is unnecessary. The reason why FRLG didn't have anything from Yellow, besides staying true to the originals, is that there wasn't anything interesting to salvage from that game. Maybe we could've had following Pokémon, but that isn't a must have feature. Pikachu wasn't the star of the game, so its friendship system wasn't necessary. The only story additions, Jessie/James/Meowth, were boring and easy fights. Starters giveaway wasn't needed/wanted, because the point of the game is to choose only one, and so on.

Because, Sabrina having a Venomoth, and Blaine and Giovanni being massively underleveled was sooooo much better. :rolleyes2:

Yellow may not mean much to you, but it was a very important game for a lot of us, and to ignore it is to ignore everyone who bought Yellow and saw it as the "definitive" version of Gen 1. Yellow was just as much a part of Gen 1 as Red/Blue, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

Guest123123 February 2nd, 2015 4:08 PM

Once something new comes out with improved features and mechanics, it makes me look at the old and say "How did I ever get through this?" It's not just like that for Pokemon, but things in general.

When I first had a computer, I used Internet Explorer because it was already there and I was scared to download things because of possible viruses. I didn't think Internet Explorer was slow because it was all I knew so I didn't have a faster browser to compare it to, and I was happy just being able to use the Internet. When I became more knowledgeable about computer stuff and learned not all downloads risk viruses, I downloaded Firefox and then Chrome, and now that I have Chrome I can't go back to the other two because of how much better it is for me. That's basically everything for me.

Cerberus87 February 2nd, 2015 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
Remember that Gengar is WEAK to Psychic, and neither Scyther or Pinsir resist the type. (Now, Scyther's Evo does, but based on what you're saying, we shouldn't be "allowed" to use it in Gen 1 Kanto.) Plus, all of these Pokémon can only be obtained via either trade or the Safari Zone, which is a hassle for many people.

Well considering the enemy doesn't have EVs, I think even Haunter could probably outspeed and KO Alakazam. I mentioned Scyther because for story purposes Scyther is every bit as good as Scizor, and Metal Coats are rare.

Besides, nowadays we have online trading and people can help you get a Gengar/Scizor much easier. I hate trade evos, but it's a valid possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
But, what's the point of even having a remake if you have all of the same limitations of the original? If you wanted to play a game where Eevee could only evolve into three Pokémon, RBY already exist. What's the point of even playing FRLG if it's just the exact same thing with different graphics?

A lot of us really wanted to experience Gen 1's story with things like Day/Night, newer Pokémon, and the other advancements GSC and RS brought to the table. FRLG robbed us of that.

FRLG isn't exactly the same. You have the new mechanics, for example. Charmander got a Steel type move to get past Brock. I think FRLG is the only game in the series where Charmander learns Metal Claw.

Would it have been nice if FRLG had a clock? Yes it would. But I didn't miss day/night cycle when playing through it. And really, it's not a FRLG fault but 3rd gen fault. The sorry excuse for a clock RSE has isn't very nice either.

I think GSC's implementation of the clock wasn't the best. If I wanted a Pidgey on my team, I'd be forced to play the game during the day, otherwise all I'd find would be Hoothoot. It was immersive, but an annoyance all the same. Daily events, waiting one day to get custom Poké Balls, haircuts, etc., certain events being only available on certain days, it's surely immersive but also very limiting. By skipping the clock, FRLG didn't have such hindrance. Notice how there are fewer events dependant on the day of the week in later games, also the lack of Pokémon exclusive to certain times of the day. HGSS is the only game where these were brought back, because it was a GSC remake. BW had seasonal differences, but they didn't prevent you from catching all Pokémon available, and XY has none of that nonsense. ORAS has day/night cycle but it seems to be purely cosmetic.

As for the extra eeveelutions, I fail to see why they're so important. FRLG are perfectly playable with Vaporeon/Jolteon/Flareon only. The game offers you superior alternatives to Espeon (Starmie for example), and Umbreon is a defensive Pokémon that's not very easy to use in the story. Besides, you only get Eevee in Celadon and you'd need to build its friendship to evolve it into Espeon/Umbreon. You'd most probably need to level Eevee somewhat, skipping important moves in the process before evolving. For the story, it's certainly much easier to just stuff Eevee with a stone instead of trying to raise a weak Pokémon for a good chunk of the game.

The only Pokémon that's really missed is Crobat. Not being able to evolve Golbat was a little stupid. But that's really the only one. The rest are trade evos and/or impractical to get (eeveelutions). Even HGSS had very few new evos you could reliably use, despite featuring them in the Johto Dex. I used Mamoswine in my only run, but to evolve Piloswine you need to make it relearn Ancientpower and there's only one easily obtainable Heart Scale before the E4. You can also evolve maybe Tangela, and Yanma is impractical unless you're lucky with a swarm. The others, only with items found in the Kanto part of the game, so post-League. I'm also pretty sure you can only get the Razor Claw and Razor Fang in the Battle Frontier. That's not to mention that you cannot evolve Magneton into Magnezone in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
Which was a problem in and of itself. I'm no fan of contests, myself, but that was yet, another thing that was unnecessarily cut for the sake of "authenticity."

But no one cares about Contests! :P Sure, they could've had something else like the Pokéathlon in HGSS. But I believe no one missed the Contests in FRLG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
Which was a stupid retcon, as Kanto and Johto were the very first regions to even HAVE Berries to begin with. Future remakes should fix this.

Stupid? The Berry Pots in HGSS were a godsend! The worst part of Berry growing in RSE and DPPt was keeping track of where you planted your Berries, and getting to the places themselves. In HGSS the Berries were always with you wherever you went. It was infinitely better. Even ORAS has a Berry farm like the one in XY.

I personally don't use Berries during my runs of the games, so I don't mind not being able to get them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
Because, Sabrina having a Venomoth, and Blaine and Giovanni being massively underleveled was sooooo much better. :rolleyes2:

Venomoth makes sense somewhat because it can use Psychic attacks. It's better than Abra, at least.

I didn't find Blaine and Giovanni to be underleveled. Usually I'm around their level when I reach them, which is just right. I tackle the E4 underleveled, too. FRLG's mistake was giving Giovanni a Rhyhorn instead of his Rhydon, I believe it's a mistake in the game, although one that doesn't matter a lot since both of them go down very easily with a Grass or a Water move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604538)
Yellow may not mean much to you, but it was a very important game for a lot of us, and to ignore it is to ignore everyone who bought Yellow and saw it as the "definitive" version of Gen 1. Yellow was just as much a part of Gen 1 as Red/Blue, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

It did receive some acknowledgement because Red's team is basically the gift Pokémon he gets in Yellow, although that unfortunately made him the weakest Chamipon since Pikachu is so weak even with the Light Ball.

Mega_Kris February 2nd, 2015 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8603939)
Let's not start comparing NES and GB as there are too many differences between those two, like screen resolution and color depth. But I'll give you that Links Awakening had some good artwork implemented into the game. Then again: there's a difference between Nintendo as a big games and consoles producing company and Gamefreak, who where relatively new to the market. Originally the games weren't even intended to be released outside of Japan.

all the games i mentioned are in Gameboy as well. Mega man, Mega Man X, not only that but Wario land, and Link's Awakening were ALL game boy games. And also, Pokemon Gold/Silver were also compatible with the original Gameboy, so resolution has absolutely nothing to do with it. the only one that the gameboy couldn't play was Pokemon Crystal which was very packed and had animations.

Quote:

Wait, what? I get that you're around since gen 1 was released, but are you implying that people who like the sprites and who actually try to find some arguments on why they like them, outside of the generic "nostalgia", are just a bunch of ignorant fools? You don't need to be an artist who fully understands how art works in order to be fascinated by a picture. The sprites work for me and that's all I need to get into the mood of playing the games.
If it works for "you" that's perfectly fine. And if you like them, i could care less. HOWEVER, I don't a particular reason to defend the artwork compared to the current sprites we see. For example: you mentioned you like them due to the "simplicity" when it doesn't hold much ground. In fact, Gen 1 really tries hard to be "detailed" when it came to the sprites.

Hardware/software is also a bad excuse....the game boy is perfectly capable of handling well-designed, not-too intricate, 4 shade sprites. In fact what Gen 2 does is aim for "MORE" simplicity. In fact, some of the designs (such as Butterfree) were re-designed in Pokemon Yellow carried over to Gen 2.

The one and "ONLY" excuse that is viable is the experience that Gamefreak had at the time. And that is it. The gameboy is perfectly capable of handling nice sprites that we see in Gen 2, also capable of handling nice-designed backsprites as well.

Callows February 2nd, 2015 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlasmaGruntMagus (Post 8599620)
The outdated battle mechanics make the games really unplayable in today's standards, and not to mention how horrendous the sprites from R/B are.
This is all my opinion though, so feel free to disagree.

They are the classic games! think how limited the technology was back then!

QueenNothing February 2nd, 2015 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callows (Post 8604677)
They are the classic games! think how limited the technology was back then!

That doesn't stop me from disliking them.

BettyNewbie February 2nd, 2015 7:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Well considering the enemy doesn't have EVs, I think even Haunter could probably outspeed and KO Alakazam.

Only if it's very overleveled, which is hard to do in Kanto. Otherwise, Haunter's dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Besides, nowadays we have online trading and people can help you get a Gengar/Scizor much easier. I hate trade evos, but it's a valid possibility.

... Which doesn't exist in FRLG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
FRLG isn't exactly the same. You have the new mechanics, for example. Charmander got a Steel type move to get past Brock. I think FRLG is the only game in the series where Charmander learns Metal Claw.

Yes, the bad/annoying parts of Gen 3 mechanics--EVs and Natures. And, still no P/S Split or pretty graphics to make up for it. Yeah, I'll just stick with Yellow.

Charmander never had that much difficulty getting past Brock in RB. Geodude and Onix didn't know any Rock attacks, and their Specials were horrifically low, so even a resisted Ember did a lot.

(Now, Pikachu, on the other hand, had major problems, which is why Yellow gave you Mankey, made the Nidos learn Double Kick earlier, and made Butterfree learn Confusion earlier.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Would it have been nice if FRLG had a clock? Yes it would. But I didn't miss day/night cycle when playing through it. And really, it's not a FRLG fault but 3rd gen fault. The sorry excuse for a clock RSE has isn't very nice either.

A crappy clock is better than no clock. These are remakes, so they were supposed to be modern, and modern Pokémon games have clocks. Otherwise, I'd just go play Yellow again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
I think GSC's implementation of the clock wasn't the best. If I wanted a Pidgey on my team, I'd be forced to play the game during the day, otherwise all I'd find would be Hoothoot. It was immersive, but an annoyance all the same. Daily events, waiting one day to get custom Poké Balls, haircuts, etc., certain events being only available on certain days, it's surely immersive but also very limiting. By skipping the clock, FRLG didn't have such hindrance. Notice how there are fewer events dependant on the day of the week in later games, also the lack of Pokémon exclusive to certain times of the day. HGSS is the only game where these were brought back, because it was a GSC remake. BW had seasonal differences, but they didn't prevent you from catching all Pokémon available, and XY has none of that nonsense. ORAS has day/night cycle but it seems to be purely cosmetic.

That's called realism. Owls usually don't appear during the day, and pigeons usually don't come out at night, so Hoothoot only being available at night, and Pidgey only being available during the day makes perfect sense. I love seeing a different mix of Pokémon on the same route on different times of the day, as well as having certain little things play out differently depending on the time of the day. It makes the game less boring, less predictable, and more realistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
As for the extra eeveelutions, I fail to see why they're so important. FRLG are perfectly playable with Vaporeon/Jolteon/Flareon only. The game offers you superior alternatives to Espeon (Starmie for example), and Umbreon is a defensive Pokémon that's not very easy to use in the story. Besides, you only get Eevee in Celadon and you'd need to build its friendship to evolve it into Espeon/Umbreon. You'd most probably need to level Eevee somewhat, skipping important moves in the process before evolving. For the story, it's certainly much easier to just stuff Eevee with a stone instead of trying to raise a weak Pokémon for a good chunk of the game.

Because, people would've liked that option? Lots of things outclass the original trio, too, so why only cut Espeon and Umbreon? They evolved from a Gen 1 Pokémon and they very much existed at the time, so why suddenly pretend like they didn't exist? (And, act like GSC, in general, never happened?) Again, if I wanted to be strictly limited to just the first 151, I'd just play Yellow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Even HGSS had very few new evos you could reliably use, despite featuring them in the Johto Dex. I used Mamoswine in my only run, but to evolve Piloswine you need to make it relearn Ancientpower and there's only one easily obtainable Heart Scale before the E4. You can also evolve maybe Tangela, and Yanma is impractical unless you're lucky with a swarm. The others, only with items found in the Kanto part of the game, so post-League. I'm also pretty sure you can only get the Razor Claw and Razor Fang in the Battle Frontier. That's not to mention that you cannot evolve Magneton into Magnezone in the game.

Which was a flaw of those games. ORAS finally got it right by including all of the later pre/evolutions of Hoenn Dex Pokémon, as well as retconning certain NPCs to have these later evos (like Wally, Phoebe, and Glacia).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
But no one cares about Contests! :P Sure, they could've had something else like the Pokéathlon in HGSS. But I believe no one missed the Contests in FRLG.

Kanto badly needs some sort of extra side activity like all the other regions have. I can see why certain fans find Kanto "boring."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Stupid? The Berry Pots in HGSS were a godsend! The worst part of Berry growing in RSE and DPPt was keeping track of where you planted your Berries, and getting to the places themselves. In HGSS the Berries were always with you wherever you went. It was infinitely better. Even ORAS has a Berry farm like the one in XY.

True, but FRLG didn't even give you that much. Instead you had to either carry an unevolved Meowth around at all times or go to some stupid forest on those worthless postgame islands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
I personally don't use Berries during my runs of the games, so I don't mind not being able to get them.

Again, people would like the option. Modern Pokémon games should have modern features, such as Berries. Otherwise, they'd just continue to play the originals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
Venomoth makes sense somewhat because it can use Psychic attacks. It's better than Abra, at least.

Espeon is better than both, but oh, wait... :rolleyes2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
I didn't find Blaine and Giovanni to be underleveled. Usually I'm around their level when I reach them, which is just right. I tackle the E4 underleveled, too.

Just because you like to fight the E4 underleveled doesn't mean that everybody else should do the same. I absolutely hate being underleveled, myself, and the grinding is far worse in Red/Blue than it is in Yellow (which isn't exactly known for great grinding, itself).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
FRLG's mistake was giving Giovanni a Rhyhorn instead of his Rhydon, I believe it's a mistake in the game, although one that doesn't matter a lot since both of them go down very easily with a Grass or a Water move.

But, Rhydon gives more EXP and is far less of an insult to your skill level. FRLG completely dumbed down the original games' difficulty level, as if they were made for preschoolers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604668)
It did receive some acknowledgement because Red's team is basically the gift Pokémon he gets in Yellow, although that unfortunately made him the weakest Chamipon since Pikachu is so weak even with the Light Ball.

That also broke the continuity of the Gen 3-5 timeline, as Red's team made zero sense in the context of FRLG (which didn't include any of the Yellow gifts).

Cerberus87 February 2nd, 2015 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Only if it's very overleveled, which is hard to do in Kanto. Otherwise, Haunter's dead.

Well, if you give Sabrina a L50 Alakazam like she has in Yellow, she'll kill anything you throw at her. L43 as in FRLG is more manageable. Still, Sabrina was supposed to be That One Boss but the changes in stats after RBY made Alakazam much easier to take down. Anything fast with strong physical moves would kill it fast. Ok, maybe Haunter wouldn't be the ideal way to take her down, but the fact Kanto lacks Dark types isn't much of a deterrent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
... Which doesn't exist in FRLG.

Weren't we both talking about a hypothetical 1st gen modern game? It would have online trading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Yes, the bad/annoying parts of Gen 3 mechanics--EVs and Natures. And, still no P/S Split or pretty graphics to make up for it. Yeah, I'll just stick with Yellow.

I'd much rather use Charizard in FRLG than Yellow. In FRLG it has its great Sp.Atk. :P Early Flamethrower compared to RBY also makes the game a cakewalk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Charmander never had that much difficulty getting past Brock in RB. Geodude and Onix didn't know any Rock attacks, and their Specials were horrifically low, so even a resisted Ember did a lot.

(Now, Pikachu, on the other hand, had major problems, which is why Yellow gave you Mankey, made the Nidos learn Double Kick earlier, and made Butterfree learn Confusion earlier.)

You're right. Misty was the real problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
A crappy clock is better than no clock. These are remakes, so they were supposed to be modern, and modern Pokémon games have clocks. Otherwise, I'd just go play Yellow again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Again, if I wanted to be strictly limited to just the first 151, I'd just play Yellow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Otherwise, they'd just continue to play the originals.

The problem is that the Pokémon series has a bit of planned obsolescence going on. The old games are left behind because they can't trade with the new ones, which isn't even a case with only RBY but also most of the later games. B2W2 for example had the servers shut down only a year after release because Nintendo wouldn't support the DS anymore. Today, since both RBY and FRLG are obsolete, you can choose which one you prefer, but back then it was a great thing to have a remake of the classic which was compatible with the latest games.

Personally GSC could've benefitted from being "incompatible" with RBY but the time machine was a great idea and only way to complete the Pokédex in GSC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
That's called realism. Owls usually don't appear during the day, and pigeons usually don't come out at night, so Hoothoot only being available at night, and Pidgey only being available during the day makes perfect sense. I love seeing a different mix of Pokémon on the same route on different times of the day, as well as having certain little things play out differently depending on the time of the day. It makes the game less boring, less predictable, and more realistic.

I know that, but from a gameplay perspective it wasn't so hot. Future games with day/night system had few Pokémon exclusive to a time of the day. BW introduced the seasonal system but it doesn't prevent you from getting all Pokémon. Stuff like Cubchoo and Cryogonal is more common during the winter but doesn't disappear during other seasons.

Also, me and my friends with Silver version had problems catching Ledyba because Ledyba was only available during the morning in Silver version. Of course, it wasn't such a big deal because Ledyba is one of the worst Pokémon in existence, even among the early bugs! But morning didn't last long and it was only available in the morning, which is a waste considering how forgettable it was. When I was a preteen, I studied during the morning and rarely played Pokémon in the weekends during the morning, so I didn't get many morning-exclusive things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Because, people would've liked that option? Lots of things outclass the original trio, too, so why only cut Espeon and Umbreon? They evolved from a Gen 1 Pokémon and they very much existed at the time, so why suddenly pretend like they didn't exist? (And, act like GSC, in general, never happened?) Again, if I wanted to be strictly limited to just the first 151, I'd just play Yellow.

Well, Flareon was outclassed even in RBY, IMO. :P Vaporeon and Jolteon were very effective, though. I used a Jolteon in my last FireRed run and it was great. It's one of the best 1st gen Electric Pokémon.

The problem with Espeon/Umbreon, like I said, is that in the Kanto games you get Eevee at L25 already. These forms evolve by friendship, so they take leveling and endless walking around. You'd be stuck with an Eevee for quite a bit of the game and Eevee would skip certain moves. Not to mention Eevee itself is quite weak. That's what I meant with there being better options. If you choose the stone evos you instantly get a strong Pokémon.

Eevee had a problem in FRLG because it came at L25 so it skipped the first elemental moves. Flareon suffered the most, because there was no weak Fire TM to teach it and, without Ember, you'd be stuck with Fire Spin until high levels. They should've lowered the level you obtain Eevee in the game to 15.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Which was a flaw of those games. ORAS finally got it right by including all of the later pre/evolutions of Hoenn Dex Pokémon, as well as retconning certain NPCs to have these later evos (like Wally, Phoebe, and Glacia).

I pointed that out because you told me you liked HGSS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Kanto badly needs some sort of extra side activity like all the other regions have. I can see why certain fans find Kanto "boring."

Well, it needs something useful, like the Pokéathlon, where you could get great prizes. Contests suck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
True, but FRLG didn't even give you that much. Instead you had to either carry an unevolved Meowth around at all times or go to some stupid forest on those worthless postgame islands.

Again, people would like the option. Modern Pokémon games should have modern features, such as Berries. Otherwise, they'd just continue to play the originals.

But they had Berries, there were a few hidden ones throughout the region. However, Berries are consumable so people usually save them for competitive. I'd have liked the Berry Pots to appear in FRLG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Espeon is better than both, but oh, wait... :rolleyes2:

Espeon wouldn't be there, doesn't fit the muh-nostalgia-everything-must-be-the-same mindset of GF when doing remakes. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
Just because you like to fight the E4 underleveled doesn't mean that everybody else should do the same. I absolutely hate being underleveled, myself, and the grinding is far worse in Red/Blue than it is in Yellow (which isn't exactly known for great grinding, itself).

At which level do you reach the E4? Slowflake, who has a policy of killing everything that moves and doesn't run from any fights, reached the E4 with a L57 Venusaur in his LP. But he had only three Pokémon for most of the game (Venusaur, Alakazam and Gengar) and the others were the bird trio which he used some Rare Candies on. I always reach Lorelei with a team of six in the low 50s, which is more than enough. Ideally you'd want to grind to 60 for Blue but there isn't any need, the RBY E4 is really not that difficult even with a team in the low 50s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
But, Rhydon gives more EXP and is far less of an insult to your skill level. FRLG completely dumbed down the original games' difficulty level, as if they were made for preschoolers.

I disagree, because all the trainers except Giovanni in Viridian use the exact same Pokémon. It had a bunch of endless tutorials but was probably easier because of improved movepools, stat spreads and type matchups, despite the movesets being far improved over the original RB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604745)
That also broke the continuity of the Gen 3-5 timeline, as Red's team made zero sense in the context of FRLG (which didn't include any of the Yellow gifts).

Pokémon games have that rule that you won't be able to get the other starters in the same file (broken somewhat in XY). Allowing you to get all three starters in FRLG would break that rule.

Mega_Kris February 2nd, 2015 8:58 PM

i honestly don't want a remake that adds so many changes that it makes us forget what the original was like. keep in mind, an original isn't just to add updated features for the old nostalgic people who want something new. its also for those who want to re-experience the original or et a slightly more enjoyable.

FRLG isn't that bad....it could've used a little more...berries would've been nice. Day/night feature could've also been something nice as well. It did add a little bit more story, but could've added just a few more features. Surfing Pikachu minigame would've been very beneficial. Perhaps even a "flying" pikachu minigame as well. Even the option to get a pikachu and not choose a starter is definitely a strong possibility.


REGARDLESS....i would like a 3D remake...but i dont want the game to be updated and add in more features to the point that its not honoring Red/Blue.

BettyNewbie February 2nd, 2015 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Well, if you give Sabrina a L50 Alakazam like she has in Yellow, she'll kill anything you throw at her. L43 as in FRLG is more manageable. Still, Sabrina was supposed to be That One Boss but the changes in stats after RBY made Alakazam much easier to take down. Anything fast with strong physical moves would kill it fast. Ok, maybe Haunter wouldn't be the ideal way to take her down, but the fact Kanto lacks Dark types isn't much of a deterrent.

But, Dark types were created for this exact purpose, and yet, FRLG's stupid "nostalgia Dex" prevents us from taking advantage of that important innovation. Again, how is this even remotely an improvement over the originals? Aren't remakes supposed to fix the flaws of the original games?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Weren't we both talking about a hypothetical 1st gen modern game? It would have online trading.

I thought we were talking about FRLG's merits as games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
I'd much rather use Charizard in FRLG than Yellow. In FRLG it has its great Sp.Atk. :P Early Flamethrower compared to RBY also makes the game a cakewalk.

Bleh, XY beats both. It has a P/S split, two powerful Megas, and most importantly, isn't your sole Starter (so it isn't left completely to the mercy of early Gyms that hate it and its frail Defenses).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Today, since both RBY and FRLG are obsolete, you can choose which one you prefer, but back then it was a great thing to have a remake of the classic which was compatible with the latest games.

Unfortunately, that was pretty much the only reason for FRLG's existence. Ruby and Sapphire cut the cord, and GF was too lazy to find some other way to fill the Pokédex gaps (like a 2nd postgame region), so they decided to redo Gen 1 to be compatible with Ruby and Sapphire. FRLG was really an enhanced port, not a true remake (unlike HGSS and ORAS).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Personally GSC could've benefitted from being "incompatible" with RBY but the time machine was a great idea and only way to complete the Pokédex in GSC.

Why do you say that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
I know that, but from a gameplay perspective it wasn't so hot. Future games with day/night system had few Pokémon exclusive to a time of the day. BW introduced the seasonal system but it doesn't prevent you from getting all Pokémon. Stuff like Cubchoo and Cryogonal is more common during the winter but doesn't disappear during other seasons.

Also, me and my friends with Silver version had problems catching Ledyba because Ledyba was only available during the morning in Silver version. Of course, it wasn't such a big deal because Ledyba is one of the worst Pokémon in existence, even among the early bugs! But morning didn't last long and it was only available in the morning, which is a waste considering how forgettable it was. When I was a preteen, I studied during the morning and rarely played Pokémon in the weekends during the morning, so I didn't get many morning-exclusive things.

I'll admit that I never got many morning-only things, myself, but it still never bothered me that much. If anything, I saw it as a reward for getting up early. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
The problem with Espeon/Umbreon, like I said, is that in the Kanto games you get Eevee at L25 already. These forms evolve by friendship, so they take leveling and endless walking around. You'd be stuck with an Eevee for quite a bit of the game and Eevee would skip certain moves. Not to mention Eevee itself is quite weak. That's what I meant with there being better options. If you choose the stone evos you instantly get a strong Pokémon.

Eevee had a problem in FRLG because it came at L25 so it skipped the first elemental moves. Flareon suffered the most, because there was no weak Fire TM to teach it and, without Ember, you'd be stuck with Fire Spin until high levels. They should've lowered the level you obtain Eevee in the game to 15.

Well, that could've been solved by, get this, breeding. Why wasn't the Route 5 Day Care made into a proper, modern Day Care? Screw "nostalgia," this is about practicality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
I pointed that out because you told me you liked HGSS.

Yes, they have a few flaws, so what? At least, they brought a ton of new content to the table. What did FRLG add that was worth as much as the Pokéathlon, the new Routes/Safari Zone, and following Pokémon? Or, ORAS' additions like Soaring, New Mauville, and the Delta Episode?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Espeon wouldn't be there, doesn't fit the muh-nostalgia-everything-must-be-the-same mindset of GF when doing remakes. :P

I didn't see a whole lot of that mentality in HGSS and ORAS. It's only FRLG that was an upgraded clone of its originals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
At which level do you reach the E4? Slowflake, who has a policy of killing everything that moves and doesn't run from any fights, reached the E4 with a L57 Venusaur in his LP. But he had only three Pokémon for most of the game (Venusaur, Alakazam and Gengar) and the others were the bird trio which he used some Rare Candies on. I always reach Lorelei with a team of six in the low 50s, which is more than enough. Ideally you'd want to grind to 60 for Blue but there isn't any need, the RBY E4 is really not that difficult even with a team in the low 50s.

Just because you can fight the E4 with a L50 team doesn't mean I will. It's L60 or nothing. In Yellow, this usually isn't as much of an issue, as thanks to Blaine and Giovanni being stronger, I'm usually L55-58 by the time I reach Victory Road, and the wild Pokémon there are fairly high level. But, in RB, I'm rarely at or above L55, and Victory Road is full of L20 Zubat/Geodude/Machop that give next-to-no EXP. That is what Hell looks like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
I disagree, because all the trainers except Giovanni in Viridian use the exact same Pokémon. It had a bunch of endless tutorials but was probably easier because of improved movepools, stat spreads and type matchups, despite the movesets being far improved over the original RB.

Giovanni's and the E4's teams were dropped by two levels. Why was this? To make it stupidly easy, of course! :rolleyes2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8604790)
Pokémon games have that rule that you won't be able to get the other starters in the same file (broken somewhat in XY). Allowing you to get all three starters in FRLG would break that rule.

Which, is why Red's team should've gotten a complete overhaul in HGSS. Hell, even Red, himself. (What, you mean, Red wasn't the only PC in FRLG?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8604798)
i honestly don't want a remake that adds so many changes that it makes us forget what the original was like. keep in mind, an original isn't just to add updated features for the old nostalgic people who want something new. its also for those who want to re-experience the original or et a slightly more enjoyable.

FRLG isn't that bad....it could've used a little more...berries would've been nice. Day/night feature could've also been something nice as well. It did add a little bit more story, but could've added just a few more features. Surfing Pikachu minigame would've been very beneficial. Perhaps even a "flying" pikachu minigame as well. Even the option to get a pikachu and not choose a starter is definitely a strong possibility.

REGARDLESS....i would like a 3D remake...but i dont want the game to be updated and add in more features to the point that its not honoring Red/Blue.

But, a remake that's the exact same as the original in everything except graphics and a few mechanics isn't a remake, it's an enhanced port. If one wants to "re-experience the original," then they should just go play the originals. I, for one, would rather see the originals reimagined and redeveloped into fresh, modern games.

Mega_Kris February 2nd, 2015 11:07 PM

Not true...frlg is a remake. Everything was redone. Hence remake. Enhanced port would be using the same mechanics, same engine and just updating it graphically. A 3d renake is still a remake....you clearly dont know what a remake is if you think it means it needs changes or aditions for game mechanics.

BettyNewbie February 3rd, 2015 9:38 AM

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.

Mega_Kris February 3rd, 2015 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605273)
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 February 3rd, 2015 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605700)
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?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605700)
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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605700)
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 February 3rd, 2015 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605719)
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.

Quote:

(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.

Quote:

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


Quote:

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 February 3rd, 2015 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605750)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605750)
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"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605750)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605750)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605750)
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 February 3rd, 2015 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605897)
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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....

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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 February 4th, 2015 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8599740)
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.
http://hax.iimarck.us/topic/3399/

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8604037)
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 February 4th, 2015 7:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny-E 33 (Post 8606269)
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 February 4th, 2015 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605954)
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 February 4th, 2015 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8604257)
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 February 4th, 2015 11:37 AM

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 February 4th, 2015 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomtanned (Post 8606551)
(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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomtanned (Post 8606551)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arylett Charnoa (Post 8606560)
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 February 4th, 2015 12:20 PM

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 February 4th, 2015 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606584)
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 February 4th, 2015 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606525)
"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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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 February 4th, 2015 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607161)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607161)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607161)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607161)
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 February 4th, 2015 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607206)
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".


Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 February 5th, 2015 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607217)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607217)
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. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607217)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607217)
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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8607217)
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 February 5th, 2015 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607817)
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.

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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.


Quote:

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


Quote:

What is a "true remake," anyways? A definition would be nice.
literally "remaking" a game for the new fans to experience.

Astinus February 5th, 2015 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607206)
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 February 5th, 2015 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astinus (Post 8608401)
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.

BettyNewbie February 5th, 2015 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8608250)
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.

True... It's a Gen 3 problem, not a FRLG problem, specifically. I never thought any of the Gen 3 games took good advantage of the GBA's capabilities. (It's both sad and hilarious how Crystal has better animated sprites than Emerald, or how RS and FRLG didn't have animated sprites, period, despite coming out after Crystal.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8608250)
FRLG gave you access to the original Pokemon so that you can trade with RBE..

Which made the games pointless if you didn't own or care about RSE. Now, that RSE, themselves, are outdated and obsolete (enough to warrant remakes), they're even more pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astinus (Post 8608401)
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.

If that "improvement" is yucky Gen 3 graphics and battling mechanics, no thanks. FRLG don't even have a P/S Split! Or, animated sprites. Or, at least, partially 3D graphics. (Gen 3 was a pretty big zone of suck for the franchise, IMO. Thank goodness we've got ORAS to salvage the Hoenn games from that... Now all that's left is a new Gen 1 remake.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

If that's your criteria, then I'd look into this hack. It'll have all of those things (plus Fairies and a P/S Split), sans the split Special Stat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

Did you know that Crobat was one of 60 Gen 2 Pokémon that were originally planned for Gen 1? Or, that its cry even existed in Red/Blue's data? The Pokémon was clearly supposed to be in Gen 1 in the first place, so why couldn't we have it in the remakes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

Not if your favorite Pokémon is Persian (crithax Slash), Gyarados (Base 100 Special), or Victreebel (crithax Razor Leaf, broken Wrap, Base 100 Special). Charizard isn't the only Pokémon that matters. (And, it still wasn't that good in FRLG, anyways... XY was where it really shone.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

That's not the point. Dark and Steel were created so we wouldn't have to rely on neutral attacks from Pokémon that didn't resist Psychic to beat Sabrina, and FRLG's awful Dex prevented us from taking advantage of that important innovation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

That's your opinion, not fact. Personally, I much preferred GSC's roster, and XY has them all beat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608452)
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.

That was a legit issue with the Gen 2 games, but I don't find it a complete deal killer. The games had more than enough to make up for that.

Cerberus87 February 6th, 2015 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
If that's your criteria, then I'd look into this hack. It'll have all of those things (plus Fairies and a P/S Split), sans the split Special Stat.

It's a shame it's a Red hack, though. 1st gen doesn't have Dark types and the mixed Special stat still makes certain Pokémon overpowered (those which learn Amnesia, for example).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
Did you know that Crobat was one of 60 Gen 2 Pokémon that were originally planned for Gen 1? Or, that its cry even existed in Red/Blue's data? The Pokémon was clearly supposed to be in Gen 1 in the first place, so why couldn't we have it in the remakes?

Because it wasn't in the original games...? Having Crobat would detract from the "pure" 1st gen experience which they wanted to achieve.

Also, Shellos and Gastrodon were intended for RSE and ended up being 4th gen Pokémon. They're not in the Hoenn Dex in ORAS and you can only catch them with the DexNav after you beat Groudon/Kyogre, so very late in the game. It's the same thing as using the PokéGear radio to catch Hoenn and Sinnoh Pokémon in the HGSS postgame, basically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
Not if your favorite Pokémon is Persian (crithax Slash), Gyarados (Base 100 Special), or Victreebel (crithax Razor Leaf, broken Wrap, Base 100 Special). Charizard isn't the only Pokémon that matters. (And, it still wasn't that good in FRLG, anyways... XY was where it really shone.)

Only Persian, and that's because Slash was the only thing it had going for it. Gyarados has Dragon Dance and Earthquake in FRLG. It's less versatile but arguably more powerful. Victreebel has a shit movepool in FRLG either way, but it compensates for lack of critting Razor Leaf with the ability to learn Giga Drain (a better Grass move than Razor Leaf) and Sludge Bomb via TM.

The old crit system was bad anyway because it gave even more of an advantage to fast Pokémon. They can already move before the opponent, and they also have high crit rate...

I speak of Charizard with experience. It's much better in FRLG than in RBY. I'm not speaking of competitive here. And actually, even in competitive it's better, since Fire was a shit type in RBY (not even resistant to Ice) and Charizard had low Special.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
That's not the point. Dark and Steel were created so we wouldn't have to rely on neutral attacks from Pokémon that didn't resist Psychic to beat Sabrina, and FRLG's awful Dex prevented us from taking advantage of that important innovation.

I certainly didn't feel Kanto Dex was awful when I played Blue version even, let alone FRLG where most of the Pokémon are much improved, with the odd exception like Articuno (which really isn't that much worse than in RBY for ingame duty).

You're overestimating Sabrina... She's only really hard in Yellow, and only because her Alakazam is grossly overleveled.

If you were to add Dark types to FRLG, you could add the Johto ones, because the Hoenn ones are native to Hoenn and wouldn't fit. But seriously, it wouldn't be a 1st gen game anymore. People play remakes because of nostalgia, too, and having things like Houndoom and Sneasel in the Kanto Dex would be a definite nostalgia killer. Tyranitar would be impractical as it evolves too late. Umbreon is really the only one that would make sense, but having a Dark type isn't a requirement to beat Sabrina at all.

I can already guess you'd suggest Sabrina to have an Espeon instead of Venomoth. I'd say she can have a Hypno, too. Or an Exeggutor. Clair has a Gyarados in HGSS instead of Dragonair but that arguably made her easier since her Gyarados has a shitty moveset and Gyarados dies easily to Electric moves.

As much as you keep praising HGSS and ORAS over FRLG, you're forgetting that the only "new" Pokémon in the Johto and Hoenn Dexes in those games are the (pre)evolutions of Pokémon that were already in the Dexes. Even then, in ORAS only Roserade is viable, because there's a Shiny Stone in the overworld. Dawn Stones (required for Gallade and Froslass) are only obtainable either via Super Training or the very unreliable Inverse Battle Stop; the Reaper Cloth (required for Dusknoir) is only obtainable in the postgame; and the Protector (required for Rhyperior) is only available in the postgame, too. In HGSS, only three of the new evolutions can be used (Mamoswine, Tangrowth, Yanmega), and it's very unlikely that you will use Yanmega unless you're lucky to have a Yanma swarm.

It's clear to me that they approached FRLG with a very different mindset from HGSS. FRLG is a more minimalistic remake. It may not have been much nostalgic for Western players, as Yellow was released in the West in 1999, but the Japanese got it eight years after the original Red and Green, so it was definitely nostalgic to them.

FRLG would be better with Crobat, Espeon and Umbreon, but they're not a big loss. There's plenty of good Flying types to choose from, and even Golbat is usable (Golbat is basically the same as Pidgeot). Espeon is inferior to Alakazam and some other Psychic types. The only one that stands out is Umbreon, and only because it would be the only Dark type.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
That's your opinion, not fact. Personally, I much preferred GSC's roster, and XY has them all beat.

It's not opinion. The Kanto Dex has great type distribution. It's one of the better thought out Dexes when it comes to type distribution. It does have only one Ghost line and only one Dragon line, but GSC was mostly the same, Gastly was all that was available early on and you could only catch Misdreavus at the very end of the game.

GSC's Dex has all the 251 Pokémon except for the 1st gen legendaries but some of them are only catchable in Kanto. In principle, all the 251 are supposed to be available, but there's the odd one that's only available in the postgame, and even those only available in the postgame of the postgame (Mt. Silver). :P Umbreon is the only Dark type available before the League, for example, and it's unlikely you'll have one to fight Morty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8608505)
That was a legit issue with the Gen 2 games, but I don't find it a complete deal killer. The games had more than enough to make up for that.

When you're breeding for Stadium 2 cups you'll find it VERY annoying, trust me. 2nd gen was when GF started making evolutionary items scarce in the games. In RBY you could simply buy the stones in Celadon, very convenient.

BettyNewbie February 6th, 2015 9:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
It's a shame it's a Red hack, though. 1st gen doesn't have Dark types and the mixed Special stat still makes certain Pokémon overpowered (those which learn Amnesia, for example).

The hack does have Dark and Steel added (along with several new moves of those types). The split Special stat's the only thing that it's missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
Because it wasn't in the original games...? Having Crobat would detract from the "pure" 1st gen experience which they wanted to achieve.

If that's the case, they shouldn't have let you play as a girl, either. And, you should've been stuck with a Bag that could only hold 20 items at a time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
Also, Shellos and Gastrodon were intended for RSE and ended up being 4th gen Pokémon. They're not in the Hoenn Dex in ORAS and you can only catch them with the DexNav after you beat Groudon/Kyogre, so very late in the game.

Which is a mistake those games made, IMO. Luckily, the Hoenn Dex isn't nearly as bad as Kanto's. (Only Ice types and to a lesser extent, Ghost types are low in number.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
Gyarados has Dragon Dance and Earthquake in FRLG. It's less versatile but arguably more powerful.

Oh, wow... Look at that powerful STAB.[/sarcasm]

Gyarados was near-useless between Gens 1 and 4. It needs either a Base 100 Special or a P/S Split to function. Thank goodness the latter happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
Victreebel has a **** movepool in FRLG either way, but it compensates for lack of critting Razor Leaf with the ability to learn Giga Drain (a better Grass move than Razor Leaf) and Sludge Bomb via TM.

Remember that Giga Drain still had 60 BP/5 PP in FRLG, so an upgrade, it was not. Sludge Bomb isn't all that impressive, either. And, with that awful Base 60 Sp. Defense, you're better off just using either Venusaur or Vileplume (who also get Giga Drain and Sludge Bomb).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
I speak of Charizard with experience. It's much better in FRLG than in RBY. I'm not speaking of competitive here. And actually, even in competitive it's better, since Fire was a **** type in RBY (not even resistant to Ice) and Charizard had low Special.

And, in regards to both in-game and competitive, XY has both beat, as Charizard has a P/S Split, larger movepool, and two powerful Megas to work with. You also get it in addition to a Kalos starter instead of on its own with its frail defenses to worry about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
I certainly didn't feel Kanto Dex was awful when I played Blue version.

That's because nothing better existed at the time of Gen 1. We hadn't played any games with Dexes of 200 or higher yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
People play remakes because of nostalgia, too, and having things like Houndoom and Sneasel in the Kanto Dex would be a definite nostalgia killer. Tyranitar would be impractical as it evolves too late. Umbreon is really the only one that would make sense

Having Sneasel and Houndoom wouldn't have killed my nostalgia at all. In fact, I've always wanted to go through Kanto with either Pokémon (especially the latter, as the former sucked before Gen 4) and tear through all of the Psychics that gave me problems in RBY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
having a Dark type isn't a requirement to beat Sabrina at all

Then, why did they create the type in the first place if Psychics are soooo easy to beat without anything resisting them and nothing SE against them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608624)
It's clear to me that they approached FRLG with a very different mindset from HGSS. FRLG is a more minimalistic remake. It may not have been much nostalgic for Western players, as Yellow was released in the West in 1999, but the Japanese got it eight years after the original Red and Green, so it was definitely nostalgic to them.

FRLG definitely weren't made for veterans in the West, that much I can definitely tell you. That's a huge reason why I want to see a new remake, one that was made with the same level of care and quality as HGSS and ORAS.

Bellsprout February 7th, 2015 2:07 PM

I love the look of the older games, but I can no longer play rby or even gsc because of how outdated they are now. At the time though I really enjoyed them and I've come to really enjoy their remakes so the love is still there. There's just so much more in the games now that I can't go back without feeling kinda meh about it.

Cerberus87 February 7th, 2015 6:24 PM

On the merit of the thread, there's not much reason to play RBY when FRLG exists, I think. FRLG is way closer to the "modern" Pokémon experience than RBY. The only thing that's missing in FRLG is the P/S split and the Fairy type.

BettyNewbie February 7th, 2015 8:15 PM

At this point, I think hacks are the best way to go. What GF couldn't get right in RBY and (especially) FRLG, fans are fixing, and they're doing a great job of it.

Right now, I'm following a pretty awesome Red hack that's adding a ton of modern features (like Dark/Steel/Fairy, new moves, new Pokémon, a P/S Split, and so on) to the game and is doing a really great job of bringing Gen 1 up to par (all while being based on old school Red, mind you).

I'm still waiting for that modern 3DS remake, mind you, but until then, I've got some great hacks. They're pretty much the only thing keeping Gen 1 alive now.

Mega_Kris February 7th, 2015 10:14 PM

Im not the typical pokemon fan. I enjoy hacks, but I appreciate the originals better. It depends on the hack but if they add new poke.on, thats where I dont get involved.

BettyNewbie February 7th, 2015 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8610802)
Im not the typical pokemon fan. I enjoy hacks, but I appreciate the originals better. It depends on the hack but if they add new poke.on, thats where I dont get involved.

Yeah, I think I already figured that out, myself. Don't worry, I disagree with the fandom on a lot of things, too. (If not the same things you disagree on.)

It's a shame that you're so much against any kinds of changes to the games, though, because you're missing out on a lot of great hacks. At least, you're honest about your preferences, though. *Shrug*

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610819)
Yeah, I think I already figured that out, myself. Don't worry, I disagree with the fandom on a lot of things, too. (If not the same things you disagree on.)

It's a shame that you're so much against any kinds of changes to the games, though, because you're missing out on a lot of great hacks. At least, you're honest about your preferences, though. *Shrug*

Im definitely against changes...but im definitely for additions...so long as it doesnt disrupt the original positive experience that the original game had.

HGSS despite the additions, didnt make significant changes to the main plot.

Keep in mind, each Pokemon game has its own charm...and I try best to see each charm. Pokemon Red/Blue? Was the standard gameplay which definitely needed improvement. However, I dont want a remake to have additions that are not needed to enjoy it.

ORAS isnt a remake....but worst, it didnt need to go to the extent it did...the only reason why it went so far was because they tied too hard to incorporate the mega evolution into the story.

Unlike HeartGold/SoulSilver had more additions, less changes. And of course theres going to be changes, however the [email protected] has to be minimal.


An example of what I believe Gen 1 3D remake could be expanding Mew/Mewtwo and Articuno/Zapdos/Moltres story. Fix the glitches, add a new secret unmarked route. add minigames and events. Overall, still keep the same gen 1 pokemon with the exception if also adding in their pre evolutions and evolutions introduced in other gens. But overall.....still keep the original feel with updated graphics.


Trust me when I say ppl want to play the original with only updated graphics. So far that the glitches wiuld be considered canon and even use MissingNo.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8611484)
Im definitely against changes...but im definitely for additions...so long as it doesnt disrupt the original positive experience that the original game had.
....
Keep in mind, each Pokemon game has its own charm...and I try best to see each charm. Pokemon Red/Blue? Was the standard gameplay which definitely needed improvement. However, I dont want a remake to have additions that are not needed to enjoy it.

This, I think, is where we differ, especially in regards to RBY. As endearing and nostalgic as the original games are, they've always felt "incomplete" to me, as if they were an Obvious Beta for GSC. The games were full of glitches, a lot of things didn't work properly (think Focus Energy or Ghost's matchups with Psychic), and the type balance was completely off.

This is a big reason why I love that Red hack I linked to. It's actually striving to make RBY feel less like a GSC beta and more like a complete experience, something that FRLG failed to do.

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611750)
This, I think, is where we differ, especially in regards to RBY. As endearing and nostalgic as the original games are, they've always felt "incomplete" to me, as if they were an Obvious Beta for GSC. The games were full of glitches, a lot of things didn't work properly (think Focus Energy or Ghost's matchups with Psychic), and the type balance was completely off.

This is a big reason why I love that Red hack I linked to. It's actually striving to make RBY feel less like a GSC beta and more like a complete experience, something that FRLG failed to do.

I feel that you read what i imagine out of a remake from one extreme to the other. For you there's nothing in-between. so whenever we talk about it, you fully support remake a game that changes the vast majority of the game, and calling it a remake. Then dismiss my vision by going entirely the opposite way. when its not...

When you talked about justifying the massive changes that ORAS had, you also saying Red/Blue having the vast amount of changes can be justified. Which is something i don't want to see....i don't want to see mega evolutions incorporated into the main storyline, or new tiems we already saw in current gen that makes the game much easier.

To me, I still believe Red/Blue had a lot going on despite feeling complete. whatever is missing, to me feels like 20% or maybe 30% at most. things i felt were missing:

special attack and special defense (obviously), Pokemon able to hold items, and many other things introduced in Gen 2....however.....that's where i limit it mechanics wise. i don't think Gen 1 needs mega evolutions. and all that.


Keep in ind half of the nostalgia is the story and aesthetics, the other half is gameplay. I'm up for fixing all the issues it had, ut i don't think the gameplay needs a completely new experience that the current gens are providing.

story-wise expanding mew/mewtwo story. also adding in a plot for moltres, zapdos, and articuno. and expanding Team Rocket's plot is also good for me. it's not completely changing the original Red/Blue experience...only enhancing it.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 7:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8611990)
I feel that you read what i imagine out of a remake from one extreme to the other. For you there's nothing in-between. so whenever we talk about it, you fully support remake a game that changes the vast majority of the game, and calling it a remake. Then dismiss my vision by going entirely the opposite way. when its not...

When you talked about justifying the massive changes that ORAS had, you also saying Red/Blue having the vast amount of changes can be justified. Which is something i don't want to see....i don't want to see mega evolutions incorporated into the main storyline, or new tiems we already saw in current gen that makes the game much easier.

To me, I still believe Red/Blue had a lot going on despite feeling complete. whatever is missing, to me feels like 20% or maybe 30% at most. things i felt were missing:

special attack and special defense (obviously), Pokemon able to hold items, and many other things introduced in Gen 2....however.....that's where i limit it mechanics wise. i don't think Gen 1 needs mega evolutions. and all that.

Keep in ind half of the nostalgia is the story and aesthetics, the other half is gameplay. I'm up for fixing all the issues it had, ut i don't think the gameplay needs a completely new experience that the current gens are providing.

story-wise expanding mew/mewtwo story. also adding in a plot for moltres, zapdos, and articuno. and expanding Team Rocket's plot is also good for me. it's not completely changing the original Red/Blue experience...only enhancing it.

What it sounds like you want is RBY remade on a GSC base, to be honest. There, you wouldn't get anything more than the mechanics GSC added, and the graphics would only be slightly better than what the originals had (so, it would still look and feel like old school RBY). The minor story expansions you want could also easily be done with a GSC base.

And, that's something that's going to have to happen via a ROM hack, for obvious reasons. I, myself, wouldn't actually mind playing such a game, provided it still had Day/Night and later evolutions.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire February 8th, 2015 8:11 PM

I never played Gen I but sometimes I regret not doing so...sure I was like 4 when they came out in the US but still...
Btw I don't think either FRLG or ORAS were the ideal balance for a remake...HGSS was (also note that the gen ii and iii remakes both left stuff out from DPP and XY like the Gen i remakes did with RS so judging FRLG for that would also mean judging the rest.)

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8612087)
What it sounds like you want is RBY remade on a GSC base, to be honest. There, you wouldn't get anything more than the mechanics GSC added, and the graphics would only be slightly better than what the originals had (so, it would still look and feel like old school RBY). The minor story expansions you want could also easily be done with a GSC base.

And, that's something that's going to have to happen via a ROM hack, for obvious reasons. I, myself, wouldn't actually mind playing such a game, provided it still had Day/Night and later evolutions.

once again when you compromise, you compromise a little further down to a rom hack. i'm not talking about a 2D, gen 2 look-a-like...i'm talkign about an official 3D remake of what Red/Blue "should" be.

story-wise isn't about the GSC base. but regardless, thats what i would like GameFreak to do for an official Red/Blue 3D remake.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 8:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8612107)
once again when you compromise, you compromise a little further down to a rom hack. i'm not talking about a 2D, gen 2 look-a-like...i'm talkign about an official 3D remake of what Red/Blue "should" be.

I'm being realistic. Game Freak isn't going to cut important modern gameplay features (which includes Mega Evolution, like it or not) just for the sake of being "faithful." You may be all over such a game, but most people won't.

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8612132)
I'm being realistic. Game Freak isn't going to cut important modern gameplay features (which includes Mega Evolution, like it or not) just for the sake of being "faithful." You may be all over such a game, but most people won't.

That's not true....i know plenty of people who would like to play such a game. In fact, i bet you would if it was considered a hack. But if Gamefreak would ever make it, suddenly the expectation is to have all modern gameplay aspects?

And i don't even consider it an aspect of "dated gameplay" and "modern gameplay". Gen 1 (once adds the fixes of Gen 2) doesn't really need any more than what it already has (when it comes to the battle system). And majority of Pokemon games have ran that way since. only because Generation 6 wants to change it up with Mega evolutions, does that mean the previous Gens are so outdated that they can't be used again?

I truly believe 100% if Gamefreak made a faithful Blue/Red remake in 3D with the fixes equal to Gold/Silver and the expansion equivalent to Crystal's ...people would enjoy it.


Because honestly....its shallow if you absolutely have to have the next game developed by gamefreak to have all the new mechanics introduced in the current Gen...Especially if the fandom does is make ROM hacks that explore other unique aspects, not concentrating on new mechanics.

Are you telling me, that you will enjoy it as a rom Hack but not as an official Gamefreak game? It bothers me extensively, how one-sided you can be about it. You should know being faithful is the #1 thing a remake is about. Its the major aspect that remakes get judged by. If you don't care about that, then you don't care about remakes. and you shouldn't feel so strongly about it. Because you're not debating over a remake, your debating over the next big thing gamefreak has to offer. Me? i'm strictly on the remake, and nothing more. Remakes have always been companion games....


For all i care, all remakes can be companion games to the current gen.....i don't care, and i think that i'm not off-base at all....if i want to play a pokemon game thats about mega evolutions or all the current features of the latest game, i'll play that game. if i want to play a game that is remade from the original with some significant but welcoming additions and stay true to the original, i'd play that one too.

I'm not going to play a game labeled as a remake, and makes so many changes, its not even able to be considered a remake. and for the record, despite how many additions HGSS did, the story remained 80% the same. The gameplay remained the mostly the same except for team battles. that was additional, but it doesn't change the overall experience.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 9:53 PM

You don't get it. Game Freak is not going to go back and release a brand new game done to the gameplay standards of 15 years ago. Otherwise, they'd just port the originals to the Virtual Console and be done with it.

Modern Pokémon means modern mechanics, which includes Megas, Super Training, Amie, Exp. Share, and all that other stuff. It is not a GB/C game with 3DS graphics slapped over it.

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8612175)
You don't get it. Game Freak is not going to go back and release a brand new game done to the gameplay standards of 15 years ago. Otherwise, they'd just port the originals to the Virtual Console and be done with it.

You don't know that. I've seen many developers remake older games with better graphics...and still keep the original experience. Their doing it now. ORAS is the only one that wasn't a faithful remake.....the only one....the rest were plenty faithful

Also, the word "standards" doesn't apply....their not modern "standards" their just the latest features. just because they added mega evolution doesn't automatically make it the standard of today's Pokemon gaming.

Quote:

Modern Pokémon means modern mechanics, which includes Megas, Super Training, Amie, Exp. Share, and all that other stuff. It is not a GB/C game with 3DS graphics slapped over it.
sorry to say, but not all Pokemon need to have everything the latest Pokemon game introduced, especially if its a remake. and if you can't understand that, you don't get remakes.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8612178)
You don't know that. I've seen many developers remake older games with better graphics...and still keep the original experience. Their doing it now. ORAS is the only one that wasn't a faithful remake.....the only one....the rest were plenty faithful

Again, you're comparing Pokémon to other games, which just doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8612178)
Also, the word "standards" doesn't apply....their not modern "standards" their just the latest features. just because they added mega evolution doesn't automatically make it the standard of today's Pokemon gaming.

But... That's exactly what it is. Megas are a Gen 6 innovation in the same way as held items are a Gen 2 innovation and the P/S Split is a Gen 4 innovation. Just like GF won't make a new game that reverts back to the old type-based Physical/Special system, they're not going that make a new game that doesn't have Megas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8612178)
sorry to say, but not all Pokemon need to have everything the latest Pokemon game introduced, especially if its a remake. and if you can't understand that, you don't get remakes.

Um, the games are supposed to be going forwards, not backwards, even in regards to remakes. What you're advocating is the opposite.

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8612205)
Again, you're comparing Pokémon to other games, which just doesn't work.

it works perfectly fine....the problem is the fans, who just refuse to see it that way.

Quote:

But... That's exactly what it is. Megas are a Gen 6 innovation in the same way as held items are a Gen 2 innovation and the P/S Split is a Gen 4 innovation. Just like GF won't make a new game that reverts back to the old type-based Physical/Special system, they're not going that make a new game that doesn't have Megas.
I'm talking about story-wise. Red/Blue remake would need to be mega-evolution capable. BUT that doesn't mean it needs to be incorporated into the main gameplay. GF shot themselves on the foor with ORAS, and that's it. but if they chose to keep the same trend remake such as HGSS, things would've been fine.
Mega Evolution is innovative, which is the perfect reason to keep it in future games, just not in remakes. it disrupts the timeline. and idk about you but i don't want to see a billion time splits for the sake of consistency and still making alterations.

Quote:

Um, the games are supposed to be going forwards, not backwards, even in regards to remakes. What you're advocating is the opposite.
What i'm advocating is the standard in remakes. period.

The only time it applies is if their suppose to be the next big thing in the series. And remakes generally aren't that. their a service to old fans and new fans to experience or re-experience something with new updated graphics of modern times and give things in a new perspective (not a new experience). some mechanics changes to fix the bad stuff of the old. Additions are also there. but not "changes". Mega evolution is a major change....

BettyNewbie February 9th, 2015 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8612207)
The only time it applies is if their suppose to be the next big thing in the series. And remakes generally aren't that. their a service to old fans and new fans to experience or re-experience something with new updated graphics of modern times and give things in a new perspective (not a new experience). some mechanics changes to fix the bad stuff of the old. Additions are also there. but not "changes". Mega evolution is a major change....

You realize that a lot of people want to go through old stories and settings and see old characters with access to modern graphics and mechanics, right? That's the purpose that remakes serve for many people (in Pokémon, that is).

Mega_Kris February 9th, 2015 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8612922)
You realize that a lot of people want to go through old stories and settings and see old characters with access to modern graphics and mechanics, right? That's the purpose that remakes serve for many people (in Pokémon, that is).

access to them is one thing, but not highlighted. that is the major difference

curiousnathan February 20th, 2015 12:27 AM

Generation I certainly isn't my favourite generation of Pokemon, but it does hold quite a few Pokemon that I do like. Namely the Kabuto/Kabutops, Exeggutor etc.

LaVida February 20th, 2015 2:47 PM

I agree with the people who said that generation 1 had horrendous sprites and a couple of flaws... but let's be honest on this: Wasn't generation 1 the most innovative one in the whole series? :P I mean, Game Freak has added a couple of new features over the last years, sure, but the main part of the game has stayed the same: Training and collecting Pokémon, challenging 8 gym leaders and the Elite 4 while defying some evil organization. That's why I love generation 1. For its time, it was something completely new. Without generation 1, we wouldn't have generation 6, remember that :3

Mega_Kris February 21st, 2015 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVida (Post 8626346)
I agree with the people who said that generation 1 had horrendous sprites and a couple of flaws... but let's be honest on this: Wasn't generation 1 the most innovative one in the whole series? :P I mean, Game Freak has added a couple of new features over the last years, sure, but the main part of the game has stayed the same: Training and collecting Pokémon, challenging 8 gym leaders and the Elite 4 while defying some evil organization. That's why I love generation 1. For its time, it was something completely new. Without generation 1, we wouldn't have generation 6, remember that :3

Pokemon in general is unique as it allowed you to capture 150 pokemon all within a gameboy (a system most people heavily underestimated before pokemon).

But overall, Gen 1 in specific isn't innovating. its the entire Pokemon series that was innovative.

LaVida February 22nd, 2015 7:36 AM

What I meant to say was that since generation 1, the main Pokémon series has not changed dramatically regarding gameplay. The main elements in recent Pokémon games are the same as they were back then. (Training and collecting Pokémon, beating 8 gyms, the Elite 4 and an evil organization.) Game Freak has added some new features (e.g. EV training, mega evolution) but the core of the games has been the same since generation 1. Compared to recent games, it looks old and shabby, but it was very innovating at its time and has been the most innovative generation because Game Freak has kept the overall concept and has only added a few new gimmicks here and there in each new Pokémon game.

Mega_Kris February 22nd, 2015 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVida (Post 8628560)
What I meant to say was that since generation 1, the main Pokémon series has not changed dramatically regarding gameplay. The main elements in recent Pokémon games are the same as they were back then. (Training and collecting Pokémon, beating 8 gyms, the Elite 4 and an evil organization.) Game Freak has added some new features (e.g. EV training, mega evolution) but the core of the games has been the same since generation 1. Compared to recent games, it looks old and shabby, but it was very innovating at its time and has been the most innovative generation because Game Freak has kept the overall concept and has only added a few new gimmicks here and there in each new Pokémon game.

The overall concept is what kept it alive yes. although if you look at it strictly as an RPG, going to beat 8 gyms (dungeons) and Elite 4 (main bosses) and an evil organization (villains) seems to be alright.

Again, the series is what's innovative, not Gen 1, it was the series itself. Gen 1 just has the luxury of be the beginning. Gen 2 although i believe is truly innovative, adding in special def and special attack, shinies, and breeding pokemon. Gen 2 introduced twiced as much as gen 1 and most of it was a staple to the series.

LaVida February 22nd, 2015 11:06 AM

Quote:

Gen 2 although i believe is truly innovative, adding in special def and special attack, shinies, and breeding pokemon. Gen 2 introduced twiced as much as gen 1 and most of it was a staple to the series.
Are you kidding me? Generation 1 introduced EVERYTHING but special defense (special attack did exist in generation 1 btw), shinies and breeding. Every Pokémon game after generation 1 is a copy of generation 1 with some minor new features.

BettyNewbie February 22nd, 2015 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVida (Post 8628841)
Are you kidding me? Generation 1 introduced EVERYTHING but special defense (special attack did exist in generation 1 btw)

Special Defense existed in Gen 1, too; it was just the same stat as Special Attack. (Which had the unintended effect of making Alakazam a powerful Special wall and Chansey a powerful Special sweeper.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVida (Post 8628841)
Every Pokémon game after generation 1 is a copy of generation 1 with some minor new features.

Seriously? If any game has been "copied" by later Gens, it's RSE, not RBY. Almost every (non-remake) game released since Gen 3 has followed the formula established by Ruby and Sapphire: Brand new isolated region (Hoenn, Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos), brand new characters, brand new Pokédex that doesn't include every Pokémon, plot revolves around Box Legendaries (Weather Trio, Creation Trio, Tao Trio, Xerneas/Yvetal/Zygarde), brand new Evil Team that's directly involved with said Box Legendaries (Magma/Aqua, Galactic, Plasma, Flare), no postgame besides a Battle Facility (Battle Tower, Battle Frontier, Battle Subway, Battle Maison), etc.

Mega_Kris February 22nd, 2015 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVida (Post 8628841)
Are you kidding me? Generation 1 introduced EVERYTHING but special defense (special attack did exist in generation 1 btw), shinies and breeding. Every Pokémon game after generation 1 is a copy of generation 1 with some minor new features.

Gen 1 introduced what made pokemon....like i said, its innovation encompasses the series more than gen 1 specifically. Generation 1 is the beginning therefore, it's the base of the entire series. However to say "Generation 1 is innovative" you would have to say it holds something none of the current generations have ever used. Generation 1 is the staple of the series, its not innovative compared to any other generation.


Please use the word correctly. Gen 1 introduced everything because Gen 1 was the introduction.

mew_nani February 22nd, 2015 9:53 PM

Personally I don't think the original games were bad at all; I actually like them a bunch. Sure the sprites are horrendous, there were only 151 Pokemon, there was absolutely no post game, but you can't judge a game based on graphics alone, and even with all the glitches and bad sprites the game is still very fun to play. The music is awesome, even with the rampant glitches the game works just fine, and still has the same essential basis all the Pokemon games have; befriending wild creatures and becoming champion.

Humorously the sheer amount of glitches makes the game even more fun to play than it would usually be. Pokemon Red is one of the few games I know of where you can capture an 80' tall Ghost hybrid and make it your best friend, and there's over 100 of these things. Even when the game crashes it's entertaining, cause everything just goes bonkers as opposed to just shutting off with an error message, and you can even battle Professor Oak and trainers that are even harder than most regular trainers with Pokemon that go way over the level cap. Heck you can even program your own minigames in and play them; what other game can you do that in?

Zoinkity February 23rd, 2015 7:58 AM

The changes to the battle system in Gen 2 were very welcome. Multi-turn attacks especially. Adding in moves for ghost and dragon types, even if there weren't many, made those existing Pokémon more viable to use.


Special being one stat was handy though. Chansey could only really be hurt by physical attacks and could learn counter via TM.

BettyNewbie February 23rd, 2015 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoinkity (Post 8630298)
Special being one stat was handy though. Chansey could only really be hurt by physical attacks and could learn counter via TM.

Even better, Chansey actually had firepower. It didn't need to rely on moves like Toxic to inflict damage.

Cerberus87 February 23rd, 2015 1:59 PM

1st gen was the first, but it doesn't have much influence in what the game is today. 2nd gen had far more influence. Its type chart survived through 5th gen, it introduced breeding and held items. Then 3rd gen revamped the stat system and added abilities, and 4th gen added the P/S split. The game is far departed from 1st gen, to the point it's become irrelevant.

Zoinkity February 23rd, 2015 2:42 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant. The game balance hasn't changed in any notable way. The moveset from Gen 1 was never quietly replaced or radically altered, and many of these moves--tackle, confuse ray, flamethrower, hydro pump, etc.--are still the backbone of the current generation. The game balance has never radically changed and the internal logic--the "rules" moves and effects follow in power and PP, for instance--hasn't changed either.

A Gen 1 player like myself can pick up a demo of X/Y and play the game without batting an eye. Subsequent generations add to the world and the experience, but they're all rooted in the basic gameplay of Gen 1.

-and as a cheap parting shot, Gen 1 has the most awesome starters of all ;*)

Cerberus87 February 23rd, 2015 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoinkity (Post 8630764)
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant. The game balance hasn't changed in any notable way. The moveset from Gen 1 was never quietly replaced or radically altered, and many of these moves--tackle, confuse ray, flamethrower, hydro pump, etc.--are still the backbone of the current generation. The game balance has never radically changed and the internal logic--the "rules" moves and effects follow in power and PP, for instance--hasn't changed either.

A Gen 1 player like myself can pick up a demo of X/Y and play the game without batting an eye. Subsequent generations add to the world and the experience, but they're all rooted in the basic gameplay of Gen 1.

-and as a cheap parting shot, Gen 1 has the most awesome starters of all ;*)

The problem is that people are saying 1st gen is more innovative relative to other gens, when it can't be compared to them that way, because it came first. 1st gen's innovation must be compared to other RPGs of the time, not to subsequent gens of the same game.

BettyNewbie February 23rd, 2015 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8630721)
1st gen was the first, but it doesn't have much influence in what the game is today. 2nd gen had far more influence. Its type chart survived through 5th gen, it introduced breeding and held items. Then 3rd gen revamped the stat system and added abilities, and 4th gen added the P/S split. The game is far departed from 1st gen, to the point it's become irrelevant.

I have to agree with Cerberus on this. As I said, the backbone of the modern Pokémon games is really Ruby and Sapphire, not Red and Blue. Things like having Regional Dexes, new Evil Teams, plots that center around Box Legendaries, and simply always being plopped into a brand new isolated region that doesn't have any connections to the previous ones are all things that originated with RSE and still survive to this day in XY.

mew_nani February 23rd, 2015 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8630791)
The problem is that people are saying 1st gen is more innovative relative to other gens, when it can't be compared to them that way, because it came first. 1st gen's innovation must be compared to other RPGs of the time, not to subsequent gens of the same game.

Still going along that line it is pretty innovative. There's not a lot of RPGs out there in which there's more than maybe 16 available party members, especially at that time, and Pokemon Red and Blue were pretty unique in their core concept. You weren't some spiky haired teenager trying to save the world, and you weren't wrapped up in several different conspiracies. You were just a kid, handed a Pokemon, and told to catch more and become champion. If you were a fan of more complex RPGs maybe it wasn't your thing, but for a child the concept was perfect and relatable. Every kid could imagine themselves commanding a fiery dragon and becoming the best. Heck just the first part was the only thing needed to inspire a kid. And there was a boatload of Pokemon a kid could choose from if they didn't like commanding a giant fire breathing dragon. In short, the game was every kid's dream, and even if it was a bit rough around the edges it was still just fine with them.

(Also technically Gold and Silver had a Regional Dex. Just thought I'd point that out.)

BettyNewbie February 23rd, 2015 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8630874)
(Also technically Gold and Silver had a Regional Dex. Just thought I'd point that out.)

No, they didn't. What they had was simply the "New Pokédex" and "Old Pokédex," and since both included every single Pokémon that existed up to that point, the only real difference between the two was order. The New Pokédex put things in a more thematic order and grouped cross-Gen pre/evolutions together, while the Old Pokédex just continued from where Gen 1's Dex left off.

The phrase "Regional Dex" wasn't even spoken in the games until Ruby and Sapphire, as they were the first games to give you a Pokédex that was closely tied to its region, focused on new Pokémon, and didn't include every Pokémon that existed at the time.

The Old/New Pokédexes were later retconned into being Regional Dexes, aka. the Kanto and Johto Dexes, but that only applied to FRLG/HGSS, not RBY/GSC.

mew_nani February 23rd, 2015 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8631322)
No, they didn't. What they had was simply the "New Pokédex" and "Old Pokédex," and since both included every single Pokémon that existed up to that point, the only real difference between the two was order. The New Pokédex put things in a more thematic order and grouped cross-Gen pre/evolutions together, while the Old Pokédex just continued from where Gen 1's Dex left off.

The phrase "Regional Dex" wasn't even spoken in the games until Ruby and Sapphire, as they were the first games to give you a Pokédex that was closely tied to its region, focused on new Pokémon, and didn't include every Pokémon that existed at the time.

The Old/New Pokédexes were later retconned into being Regional Dexes, aka. the Kanto and Johto Dexes, but that only applied to FRLG/HGSS, not RBY/GSC.

It is technically a Regional Dex though as it's not a direct continuation of the National Dex; even though it includes the older Pokemon it's still grouped so that the Johto Pokemon come first. Thus, it's a Regional Dex of sorts, placing emphasis on the Pokemon located in Johto. I did say "technically" there, meaning it could be considered a Regional Dex.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:26 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 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.