![]() |
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The outdated battle mechanics make the games really unplayable in today's standards, and not to mention how horrendous the sprites from R/B are.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. |
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). |
Quote:
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 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 |
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
|
Quote:
yes, it started it all, it still deserves flak. I've seen better sprites from games that are 20 years older. |
Nostalgia makes everything good. and it is still addictive. Also Pokemon centers were great.
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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...
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
Just in this department, alone, GSC were a huge improvement. I love RBY hacks that use Gen 2 back sprites for this very reason. |
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. |
I agree with most of what you said, Imperator.
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
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. 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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
I personally don't use Berries during my runs of the games, so I don't mind not being able to get them. Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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?) Quote:
Quote:
Nostalgia's great and all, but that's what the original games are for. And, ROM hacks. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, it's not like ORAS were the first games to alter Hoenn's story. Whoops. Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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* |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
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
|
Quote:
But overall, Gen 1 in specific isn't innovating. its the entire Pokemon series that was innovative. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please use the word correctly. Gen 1 introduced everything because Gen 1 was the introduction. |
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? |
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. |
Quote:
|
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 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 ;*) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
(Also technically Gold and Silver had a Regional Dex. Just thought I'd point that out.) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:26 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.