The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   3rd Gen What went wrong with FRLG? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=343519)

BettyNewbie February 3rd, 2015 5:26 PM

What went wrong with FRLG?
 
As some of you may already know, I've never held Generation 3 in that high of regard to begin with. I've always had many issues with the Hoenn games--They killed compatibility with the previous two Gens, featured a bland and poorly-designed region that had zero connections to either of the previous two, had a mostly boring cast of characters and a storyline that made zero sense if you knew what the Water Cycle was, began the tradition of using new Pokémon to "replace" instead of compliment the old ones, and started the trend of GF increasingly catering to competitive battling instead of casual play. Also, the graphics fell considerably below what the GBA was capable of, the music sounded like nails on a chalkboard (sorry, trumpet fans), the overhauled stat system was useless outside of competitive and only made in-game play more tedious, and way too many good features from the previous Gen were removed (like Day/Night).

My stance on the Hoenn games has softened a little bit over time, though. I ended up liking many Pokémon introduced in these games (the starters, Gardevoir, Breloom, and Milotic, for example), and the modern remakes--OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire--are great-looking games that fix many of the problems the originals had.

On the other hand, it's the other half of Generation 3 that's increasingly starting to frustrate me.

I love Generation 1. How could I not? Yellow was my very first game way back in 1999, and I came of age right at the height of Pokémania. I had the games, the anime (on these things called "VHS tapes"), the toys, everything. There's just so much nostalgia associated with these games, and they still hold up pretty well for me. The region is memorable, the characters are memorable, the storyline is simple, yet effective, and there's a lot of great Pokémon to choose from. Granted, the Even Better Sequels eventually superseded Gen 1 as my favorite Gen, but old-school Red, Blue, and Yellow still rank pretty high in my book.

So, why don't I like FireRed and LeafGreen, then? Why do the games fill me with more rage than joy? I mean, my favorite Generation's remakes don't invoke the same feelings; in fact, I quite like them and even consider them a gold standard for what good remakes should look like. They look good, they play well, and they do a fantastic job of integrating all three Gen 2 games together and adding enough new content to set them apart from the originals.

And, then, I think about it and realize... None of those things are true for FireRed and LeafGreen. They aren't "good remakes" by any stretch of the word. In fact, they're pretty terrible.

Why did FRLG fail, while HGSS (and later, ORAS) prevail? What do the later remakes have that the first ones don't? What went wrong with FRLG?

1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.

What do you think? Did any of these things bother you as much as they bothered me? Would I have seen the games differently if I had been a newcomer instead of a Gen 1-2 veteran?

Mega_Kris February 3rd, 2015 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605743)
1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.

This isn't a strong reason to hate the game. Things introduced in Gold/Silver/Crystal doesn't mean they were NOT introduced in Red/Blue. Sure there were somethings i think FGLG could've used from Gen 2 that would still feel like its Red/Blue remake. Games such as
Quote:

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.
This would've been nice. but considering your first game was Yellow, and you show off your love for yellow more than gen 1 at all. I believe you're taking it harder than most.

Quote:

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.
this is the only one i feel as strongly.

Quote:

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?
they brought forth the same game as before with new re-designed graphics. Again...when you think of "remake" you think it means it's a new game with emphasis of new features. you expected new features and because you didn't get many, you pushed on it harder than necessary. Overall though FRLG seems to get even more hate than necessary. Most remakes for its time never added anything major changes.

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.

[/INDENT]What do you think? Did any of these things bother you as much as they bothered me? Would I have seen the games differently if I had been a newcomer instead of a Gen 1-2 veteran?[/QUOTE]

A favor for nostalgia is good.....keep in mind, some people actually WANT to play the original games but with better graphics, and few updated features. if you don't think thats good in any way....so be it....but that doesn't mean the remake "FAILED" because it did what every remake should.

BettyNewbie February 3rd, 2015 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605808)
This isn't a strong reason to hate the game. Things introduced in Gold/Silver/Crystal doesn't mean they were NOT introduced in Red/Blue. Sure there were somethings i think FGLG could've used from Gen 2 that would still feel like its Red/Blue remake.

But, FRLG came out after GSC, so they should, theoretically, have all of the new mechanics and Pokémon those games brought to Kanto, right? Games are supposed to go forwards, not backwards. A GBA game should not feel less modern than a GBC one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605808)
This would've been nice. but considering your first game was Yellow, and you show off your love for yellow more than gen 1 at all. I believe you're taking it harder than most.

Yes, I prefer Yellow to Red/Blue, so what? It's not that different from all of the Emerald fans bemoaning ORAS for not including many Emerald features (and there are many).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605808)
they brought forth the same game as before with new re-designed graphics.

Technically, the international Red/Blue (and the limited release JP Blue) were also that in regards to the original Red/Green, same game with (slightly) different graphics. By that standard, even Yellow added more to Gen 1 than FRLG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605808)
Again...when you think of "remake" you think it means it's a new game with emphasis of new features. you expected new features and because you didn't get many, you pushed on it harder than necessary. Overall though FRLG seems to get even more hate than necessary. Most remakes for its time never added anything major changes.

When most people think of remakes, they think of an old story with all of the graphical and mechanical advancements of newer games. This is especially true for a series like Pokémon, where there's a heavy emphasis placed on new features with each new Generation.

Remember the huge outcry over ORAS not having trainer customization? That's exactly how people who wanted to experience Gen 1 with things like Day/Night (or, just a clock, period), breeding, and newer Pokémon felt about FRLG.

Mega_Kris February 3rd, 2015 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605920)
But, FRLG came out after GSC, so they should, theoretically, have all of the new mechanics and Pokémon those games brought to Kanto, right? Games are supposed to go forwards, not backwards. A GBA game should not feel less modern than a GBC one.

keyword "should". you're saying since these games aafter they should have more, regardless if it even is a remake. so theoretically, no they shouldn't. They could've. They might've. but not should've.

you want to play games based on the software capabilities of the console. thats not what remakes are about. sure its part of it, but not ALL of it. and if thats all you care about (which you seem to constantly focus on and bash FRLG) then yes.

Quote:

Yes, I prefer Yellow to Red/Blue, so what?
Don't you think its bias to hate FRLG a little more just for that? Yellow is still a bigger shift apart from RB....primarily that it was designed to feel like the anime.

Quote:

Technically, the international Red/Blue (and the limited release JP Blue) were also that in regards to the original Red/Green, same game with (slightly) different graphics. By that standard, even Yellow added more to Gen 1 than FRLG.
If we're going to be technical. international Red and Blue used both aspects from JP Red/Green and JP limited edition Blue. They were refined, still considered the same game. But regardless, my main point is this....it was still a game based on the originals. Yellow was a shift to focus on Pikachu and most of the additions were based on anime/pikachu. the original Red/Green/Blue had absolutely no focus on Pikachu


Quote:

When most people think of remakes, they think of an old story with all of the graphical and mechanical advancements of newer games. This is especially true for a series like Pokémon, where there's a heavy emphasis placed on new features with each new Generation.
with very few remakes. its not that true. Let's keep in mind that not most people think "mechanical" advancements....that is only on you and maybe a select demented few.

Regardless of what you believe "most" people think, most remakes objectively are the same story, the same gameplay. Changes are often done graphically or covering up a major plot hole, or something that was heavily criticized. Any changes to gameplay is often to be

additions were refinements and "bonus". expansions are often done as well. sometimes remakes are also designed so they can open up to sequels, so they add in additional scenes especially the ending for the sake of making more. but it all depends on what the remake is for. MOST people know that remakes are designed to experience the original games with modern graphics, with some additions that do NOT overshadow the original experience.

Quote:

Remember the huge outcry over ORAS not having trainer customization? That's exactly how people who wanted to experience Gen 1 with things like Day/Night (or, just a clock, period), breeding, and newer Pokémon felt about FRLG.
which is why i believe Pokemon Alpha Sapphire should've been remade BEFORE XY came out. that way, one of the more newer 3D games could've taken advantage of the new features and at the same time, not make a mess of the games. adding more features to each remake, makes it difficult to follow.

Now that ORAS has features of XY, what will DP have? what will BW and B2W2 have?

In pokemon red and blue there was no day/night feature. but you also have to consider, most of the pokemon weren't designed to take advantage of the day/night feature, and it would've been far easier to capture all pokemon.

when gold/silver came out more pokemon took advantage of the day/night feature because of the roster. it also helped encountering more pokemon since the roster got far bigger this time. made pokemon more rare. so i completely understand why they didn't bother with it. it wasn't as beneficial as Gold/Silver

Egon Spengler February 3rd, 2015 9:55 PM

Boooooooo!

This is all I have ever played really, I have never played any of the RSE games, just FRLG for me. As soon as I get every one from these games I do plan on continuing on though.

You hate Gen III so much, but what about Colosseum and Gale of Darkness?

moon February 4th, 2015 5:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Egon Spengler (Post 8605974)
You hate Gen III so much, but what about Colosseum and Gale of Darkness?

Those are not part of the main game series and can't really be fitted into a generation like that. In ways, yeah, but I wouldn't say so :)

BettyNewbie, I actually agree with all of your points. FR/LG are the worst pokemon games I have played. They feel like plastic after Gen 2's deep world, and the environments are plain boring after Hoenn's wild nature. They could have made the region better, instead of making it the most plain and least exciting part of the series.

One point I'm especially appalled with is the music. Hoenn's tracks were unique and modern on the GBA system, but the soundfont used in FRLG was just... Boring. Bad. Dulled down the beautiful original tunes from the GB.

BettyNewbie February 4th, 2015 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
keyword "should". you're saying since these games aafter they should have more, regardless if it even is a remake. so theoretically, no they shouldn't. They could've. They might've. but not should've.

Because, I should expect Generation 3 games to have all of the new features that had been introduced in the franchise up until that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
If we're going to be technical. international Red and Blue used both aspects from JP Red/Green and JP limited edition Blue. They were refined, still considered the same game. But regardless, my main point is this....it was still a game based on the originals. Yellow was a shift to focus on Pikachu and most of the additions were based on anime/pikachu. the original Red/Green/Blue had absolutely no focus on Pikachu

International RB was still, basically, just a re-release of the original RG with slightly different graphics and slightly fewer bugs. (As bad as RB's sprites were, they were still, believe it or not, an upgrade over RG's sprites.)

Yellow went even further by including new features (many inspired by the then popular anime), fixing more bugs, adding GBC colors, and adding much nicer sprites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
with very few remakes. its not that true. Let's keep in mind that not most people think "mechanical" advancements....that is only on you and maybe a select demented few.

Hey, there! Watch the name-calling!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
Regardless of what you believe "most" people think, most remakes objectively are the same story, the same gameplay. Changes are often done graphically or covering up a major plot hole, or something that was heavily criticized. Any changes to gameplay is often to be

additions were refinements and "bonus". expansions are often done as well. sometimes remakes are also designed so they can open up to sequels, so they add in additional scenes especially the ending for the sake of making more. but it all depends on what the remake is for. MOST people know that remakes are designed to experience the original games with modern graphics, with some additions that do NOT overshadow the original experience.

As I explained in the other thread, you're equating Pokémon with more story-driven franchises like Zelda, which doesn't really work that well. Zelda doesn't place nearly as much of an emphasis on new gameplay features and mechanics with each new release, so it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not the Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask remakes have things that Wind Waker and Twilight Princess had. The main thing that drives those games is story, not gameplay.

Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. The biggest thing that separates one Gen from another is their graphics, mechanics, features, and most of all, Pokémon count. That's the main criteria people use to determine how "modern" a Pokémon game is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
which is why i believe Pokemon Alpha Sapphire should've been remade BEFORE XY came out. that way, one of the more newer 3D games could've taken advantage of the new features and at the same time, not make a mess of the games. adding more features to each remake, makes it difficult to follow.

So, you wanted them to be made for the DS at the very end of Gen 5, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
Now that ORAS has features of XY, what will DP have? what will BW and B2W2 have?

They'll have the features of whatever Generation they're remade in, which probably won't happen Gen 8 or 9, at the very earliest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
In pokemon red and blue there was no day/night feature. but you also have to consider, most of the pokemon weren't designed to take advantage of the day/night feature, and it would've been far easier to capture all pokemon.

So, what? FRLG weren't Gen 1 games, they were Gen 3 games, and last I checked, internal clocks had become a standard feature of the games by then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8605971)
when gold/silver came out more pokemon took advantage of the day/night feature because of the roster. it also helped encountering more pokemon since the roster got far bigger this time. made pokemon more rare. so i completely understand why they didn't bother with it. it wasn't as beneficial as Gold/Silver

No other game besides GSC and HGSS have had Pokémon based on the time of day, and yet, they all still have Day/Night. The feature has more benefits than just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor (Post 8606216)
BettyNewbie, I actually agree with all of your points. FR/LG are the worst pokemon games I have played. They feel like plastic after Gen 2's deep world, and the environments are plain boring after Hoenn's wild nature. They could have made the region better, instead of making it the most plain and least exciting part of the series.

That's one of my biggest gripes, right there. FRLG felt like several steps backwards from GSC and RS, which is just wrong. Just because they were remakes didn't mean that they had to ignore almost everything that Gens 2 and 3 had brought to the franchise. If all people wanted was Gen 1 with different graphics and a few bugfixes and new features, Yellow already did that well enough. FRLG needed to be a lot more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor (Post 8606216)
One point I'm especially appalled with is the music. Hoenn's tracks were unique and modern on the GBA system, but the soundfont used in FRLG was just... Boring. Bad. Dulled down the beautiful original tunes from the GB.

Oh, I didn't mention it, but I have a special hatred for FRLG's music, myself. The GBA didn't have great sound quality to begin with, but FRLG's soundfont was far below even that standard. If they couldn't give us decent remixes, could they have, at least, just given us the original music? Even with a "GB Sounds" item?

Bellsprout February 4th, 2015 1:39 PM

Weirdly enough fr/lg are probably my favorite remakes lol. I thought the overworld graphics were cute. Idk something about the style of the game was really endearing for me. I personally never found the features in gsc to be that great. I never cared for the day/night system and I wasn't a big berry user in gsc or rse. So I wasn't that sad they weren't included.

I really loved the addition of the Sevii islands. I found it to be so much fun exploring all the islands and I especially loved the added story to them after you defeated the Champion. For me that was such a pleasant addition that tied into the game nicely. I guess I really enjoyed the simplicity of the originals so I was happy that it was improved upon, but yet preserved at the same time.



Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605743)
3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)?

I don't really understand why you would think they would include missingno among other glitches that were present in the original games. The forced battle tutorial wasn't that bad imo. It was literally just your first battle with your rival with some pointers from Oak. I felt like it was just an emphasis on how much of a green horn you're supposed to be in the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605743)
4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea.

I agree these games didn't really add much. Yeah the vs seeker was a bit like previous gear we've seen, but I found it far more useful. the pokegear was imo horrible when it came to battling people again. There was only a set amount of trainers you could register and their calls were pretty annoying. The PokeNav was an improvement upon this, but even so I didn't find it as useful as the vs seeker. Ultimately the seeker let you pick which trainers you wanted to battle, even if they didn't jump up right away you could easily recharge the thing and try again. I found it really useful for grinding. It's one of my all time fav items in the games.

BettyNewbie February 4th, 2015 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayselipera (Post 8606686)
I personally never found the features in gsc to be that great. I never cared for the day/night system and I wasn't a big berry user in gsc or rse. So I wasn't that sad they weren't included.

Well, that's why RBY existed. They didn't have any of GSC's or RSE's features, and they could still be played on a GBA. The only issue was that they couldn't trade with RSE, which is pretty much a moot point nowadays (as none of the older games, GB/C or GBA, are compatible with the newest ones).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayselipera (Post 8606686)
I really loved the addition of the Sevii islands. I found it to be so much fun exploring all the islands and I especially loved the added story to them after you defeated the Champion. For me that was such a pleasant addition that tied into the game nicely. I guess I really enjoyed the simplicity of the originals so I was happy that it was improved upon, but yet preserved at the same time.

I found the Sevii Islands to be extremely underwhelming. Nothing about them was unique or distinctive (even their very soundtrack was ripped off from Johto), and there really wasn't anything to do there but a couple of tedious fetch quests and catching weak, underleveled Gen 2 Pokémon like Sentret and Hoppip that should've been in the Kanto Dex to begin with. Storytelling was next to non-existent.

They should've been something more like the anime's Orange Islands, with their own League and backstory, as well as distinct tropical setting. And, if GF was unwilling to give us that, they could've, at least, let us visit Johto, instead (HGSS were still a good 5-6 years away, after all).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayselipera (Post 8606686)
I don't really understand why you would think they would include missingno among other glitches that were present in the original games.

I never said that. (Even though those glitches did have more use than the Teachy TV.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayselipera (Post 8606686)
The forced battle tutorial wasn't that bad imo. It was literally just your first battle with your rival with some pointers from Oak. I felt like it was just an emphasis on how much of a green horn you're supposed to be in the story.

But, the problem is that we, the players, were far from being "green horns." Many of us were going into FRLG with two whole Generations under our belt, including the very games FRLG were remaking (which didn't include any tutorials aside from the Old Man, despite being the actual first Pokémon games).

Megan February 4th, 2015 3:08 PM

FRLG definitely threw a ton of potential out of the window. I mean, I'm not a fan of textbox tutorials and all that stuff in general (in fact I really hate those with a passion), but seeing how Oak explains to you in your first battle, how battles work also pains me in a second aspect: the feature is never used again.
It's a feature that's in the game, a feature, that's actually used. But why is it only used once? Why doesn't Giovanni talk to you during one of your battles against him? Sure, they implemented that feature in future games, but why did it take so long?

It's the same with those automated battles, especially in RSE. First you get your Pokeballs which allow you to catch Pokemon and then some time later they show you a catching tutorial anyway. I mean, at least Wally catching his Pokemon was somewhat plot relevant, so it's not that big of a deal, but why never use these scripted battles outside of this tutorial?

It's stuff like that, that just pains me, because it could have improved the playing experience a little bit more. And like I said, it's features that are already in the gen 3 games.

Also evolution lock. Why showing us in the other games, that some Pokemon evolve by friendship, when in FRLG these don't work pre National Dex? Explaining that it's not because the friendship isn't high enough, but because it just didn't work? That's terrible design. Fortunately they fixed that in the other remakes.

Including the Sevii Islands...tbh. long before the remakes where released (heck, long before RS were released) I already heared some rumors about some islands named after numbers that were supposed to be in the gen 1 games, but where scrapped because of lack of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if those rumors where true and GF decided to make FRLG what RBGY where supposed to be. Unfortunately that's not a step forward and the islands themself were really boring, too. They weren't explorative, instead they just let you run some erands to get some jewelry and passwords.

BettyNewbie February 4th, 2015 6:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8606767)
FRLG definitely threw a ton of potential out of the window. I mean, I'm not a fan of textbox tutorials and all that stuff in general (in fact I really hate those with a passion),

They weren't even needed, too. I mean, we got along just fine in RBY without a "how to battle" tutorial, so why did we need one in FRLG? Were they aiming these games at preschoolers, or something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8606767)
but seeing how Oak explains to you in your first battle, how battles work also pains me in a second aspect: the feature is never used again.
It's a feature that's in the game, a feature, that's actually used. But why is it only used once? Why doesn't Giovanni talk to you during one of your battles against him? Sure, they implemented that feature in future games, but why did it take so long?

That's very true! What a waste of a potentially useful feature. I would've loved to see in-battle dialog for Giovanni, if not also Blue, the other Gym Leaders, and Elite Four.

Speaking of wasted things, there's also the Fame Checker. What's the point of this thing? It makes you go through this scavenger hunt all over the game for absolutely no reward. Maybe, they thought they were doing "character development" with it, but that could've just as easily been achieved by, I don't know, showing the Gym Leaders and E4 Members outside of their rooms and doing things and interacting with other characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8606767)
Also evolution lock. Why showing us in the other games, that some Pokemon evolve by friendship, when in FRLG these don't work pre National Dex? Explaining that it's not because the friendship isn't high enough, but because it just didn't work? That's terrible design. Fortunately they fixed that in the other remakes.

Because, apparently, they thought your cartridge would explode if Golbat was allowed to evolve like it can in every other post-RBY game. :rolleyes2:

(And, let me remind you that Crobat, along with about 60 other Gen 2 Pokémon, was originally planned for Red and Green. Crobat's cry even exists in Red and Blue's data! Wanna do Gen 1 right? Give us these 60 scrapped Pokémon!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8606767)
Including the Sevii Islands...tbh. long before the remakes where released (heck, long before RS were released) I already heared some rumors about some islands named after numbers that were supposed to be in the gen 1 games, but where scrapped because of lack of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if those rumors where true and GF decided to make FRLG what RBGY where supposed to be. Unfortunately that's not a step forward and the islands themself were really boring, too. They weren't explorative, instead they just let you run some erands to get some jewelry and passwords.

I've never heard of that rumor, myself. (I have heard of several Orange Islands rumors, none of which were true, of course.) Evidence?

Now, what I *do* know is that the Sevii Islands were originally going to be a lot larger than they actually ended up being. Why were these extra islands scrapped? Did they run out of time, or something? They could've done so much more with that place.

CoffeeDrink February 4th, 2015 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605743)
3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.

I'm a tad confused here. I'll have to cut this up in a few sections:

1. The battle tutorial at the beginning of the game on how to battle? Is what you're referring to the Battle with Blue? Because if it is, the point would be completely nullified by the fact that you were forced to battle your rival in the Original games to begin with. To take it out would be like saying Greedo shot first, and it would completely change the entire character of Blue simply because of- - SMELL YOU LATER GRAMPS! *struts out* . . . as I was saying, the 'tutorial' is a key part of the story in Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow and it would not make as much sense to have the Rival continually harass you if it wasn't shown right out the gate "I know! I'll ask my sister for a Town Map. I'll tell her not to give you one, Red!" So, if this is the tutorial you are speaking of, it needs to remain in the games to establish Blue's overall douche-like character.

2. Giovanni. I feel that your perception of Giovanni is completely off. Here is the example: In Pokémon Blue, Green, and Red Versions Giovanni utilizes an Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Screech, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Horn Attack. That's it.) and a Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Comet Punch, Rage, Bite) when you first encounter him.

However in Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green Versions Giovanni utilizes the following: An Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Harden, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Stomp, Scary Face, Fury Attack, Tail Whip), and Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Fakeout, Bite, Mega Punch, Tail Whip). This is a clear case of an upgrade. The move sets were fleshed out and his Pokémon all know four moves and aren't limited to one or two. While it might be confusing to you as to why he still utilizes a Rhyhorn coming off of Pokémon Yellow, I must remind you that Pokémon Versions Fire Red and leaf Green are based off of Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Green Version Respectively, and more closely mirror those games and not Pokémon Yellow Version.

3. The Missing No. glitch was never meant to be in the game in the first place, so removing the issue was the only logical solution. While it was fun, it was also very corruptive and could harm the game data in numerous ways. There is also something to be said about trying to recreate an 4-Megait glitch with a 128-Megabit cartridge. While it might be a little weird, I'm glad they 'fixed' it (in actuality they didn't have to fix it because they were working off a completely different system). And to be honest, there could never be a true remake without culling the new types to begin with (Poison is Super Effective against Bugs don't you know?).

Some of these gripes I find to be minor, but the idea that they dumbed down some trainers is a bit much. Take a gander at Blue himself! His Rhydon didn't know a single Rock or Ground type move until the games were remade.

Bellsprout February 4th, 2015 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606765)
I never said that. (Even though those glitches did have more use than the Teachy TV.)

oh, it just seemed like that's what you meant by how you worded it, nvm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606765)
But, the problem is that we, the players, were far from being "green horns." Many of us were going into FRLG with two whole Generations under our belt, including the very games FRLG were remaking (which didn't include any tutorials aside from the Old Man, despite being the actual first Pokémon games).

no matter how many generations you have under your belt there's always new players. when i first started playing i was very young and there were barely any tutorials and i didn't know wtf i was doing for a while there lol. i think in general the tutorials are helpful for new players and yeah slightly annoying for people who have played awhile, but there's been other more tedious and annoying tutorials in the games for me to really consider this one bad in any way.

BettyNewbie February 4th, 2015 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8607066)
1. The battle tutorial at the beginning of the game on how to battle? Is what you're referring to the Battle with Blue? Because if it is, the point would be completely nullified by the fact that you were forced to battle your rival in the Original games to begin with. To take it out would be like saying Greedo shot first, and it would completely change the entire character of Blue simply because of- - SMELL YOU LATER GRAMPS! *struts out* . . . as I was saying, the 'tutorial' is a key part of the story in Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow and it would not make as much sense to have the Rival continually harass you if it wasn't shown right out the gate "I know! I'll ask my sister for a Town Map. I'll tell her not to give you one, Red!" So, if this is the tutorial you are speaking of, it needs to remain in the games to establish Blue's overall douche-like character.

In FRLG, Oak gives you a step-by-step tutorial through the first battle with Blue. He doesn't do this at all in the original games, where it's just a normal battle with no interrupting dialog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8607066)
2. Giovanni. I feel that your perception of Giovanni is completely off. Here is the example: In Pokémon Blue, Green, and Red Versions Giovanni utilizes an Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Screech, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Horn Attack. That's it.) and a Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Comet Punch, Rage, Bite) when you first encounter him.

However in Pokemon Fire Red and Leaf Green Versions Giovanni utilizes the following: An Onix at lv. 25 (Rock Throw, Bind, Harden, Rage), a Rhyhorn at lv. 24 (Stomp, Scary Face, Fury Attack, Tail Whip), and Kangaskhan at lv. 29 (Fakeout, Bite, Mega Punch, Tail Whip). This is a clear case of an upgrade. The move sets were fleshed out and his Pokémon all know four moves and aren't limited to one or two.

I was talking about the FINAL Gym battle against him. In Red/Blue, his ace was a L51 Rhydon. In Yellow, it was a L55 Rhydon. FRLG? A L49 Rhyhorn. Not only was its level dropped from even Red/Blue, but it was also devolved. Why else would they do this if not to make him even more stupidly easy than he was in the originals?

(And, BTW, the Pokémon in Yellow did have good movesets, at least for the time. Giovanni's Rhydon had Rock Slide/Earthquake, while both of his Nidos had Earthquake/Thunder. He was still pretty easy, though.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8607066)
I must remind you that Pokémon Versions Fire Red and leaf Green are based off of Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Green Version Respectively, and more closely mirror those games and not Pokémon Yellow Version.

So, what? Being called "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" didn't stop those games from including Eusine, Buena's password, ExtremeSpeed Dratini, and other Crystal exclusives. Even ORAS, at least, had the Delta Episode as a slight acknowledgment of Emerald (which, I admit, they could've done a better job with; Emerald was a part of Gen 3, too). Remakes are supposed to represent the entire Generation and not just the paired games.

CoffeeDrink February 4th, 2015 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607176)
I was talking about the FINAL Gym battle against him. In Red/Blue, his ace was a L51 Rhydon. In Yellow, it was a L55 Rhydon. FRLG? A L49 Rhyhorn. Not only was its level dropped from even Red/Blue, but it was also devolved. Why else would they do this if not to make him even more stupidly easy than he was in the originals?

(And, BTW, the Pokémon in Yellow did have good movesets, at least for the time. Giovanni's Rhydon had Rock Slide/Earthquake, while both of his Nidos had Earthquake/Thunder. He was still pretty easy, though.)

While I will concede to the fact that Giovanni uses a lv.50 Rhyhorn in Fire Read and Leaf Green Versions, I will not accept the fact that it's weaker than his Lv.50 Rhydon in Pokémon Versions Blue, Green, and Red. Giovanni's Rhydon in Red, Green and Blue utilized Horn Drill, Fissure, Tail Whip and Stomp. Effectively three of these moves can be deemed nigh useless by simply coupling two OHKO moves with Tail Whip. Giovanni's re-issued Lv.50 Rhyhorn made better use of it's skill set, and his entire team in general was overhauled as well to include a better variety of moves.

Simply because the fact that his entire team is weak to Water and Ice Type moves makes most of the argument of making him easier or more difficult mostly moot; but the same could be said with nearly every gym leader in every game we've seen so far. So I suppose it really comes down to opinion on whether or not things became more or less difficult with gained knowledge of previous games. Don't forget that there were also moves introduced that didn't exist in the Originals and the fact that Typing changed with the additions of two new types may also have a bearing on how well you perform against his Pokémon.

Other than that, I don't know what much else I could tell you.

Mega_Kris February 4th, 2015 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606561)
Because, I should expect Generation 3 games to have all of the new features that had been introduced in the franchise up until that point.

Because obviously Gen 3 is relying on game mechanics...Generations are labels....To me, Gen 3 is defined by "New Pokemon". If we see a new roster of pokemon, its a new Generation. It means nothing to me relating Game mechanics, or even "Graphics" for that matter.

Quote:

International RB was still, basically, just a re-release of the original RG with slightly different graphics and slightly fewer bugs. (As bad as RB's sprites were, they were still, believe it or not, an upgrade over RG's sprites.)

Yellow went even further by including new features (many inspired by the then popular anime), fixing more bugs, adding GBC colors, and adding much nicer sprites.
point being that

Quote:

As I explained in the other thread, you're equating Pokémon with more story-driven franchises like Zelda, which doesn't really work that well. Zelda doesn't place nearly as much of an emphasis on new gameplay features and mechanics with each new release, so it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not the Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask remakes have things that Wind Waker and Twilight Princess had. The main thing that drives those games is story, not gameplay.
you clearly not a Zelda fan, because gameplay is just as much as a driving force than story....the only difference is Pokemon fans consider story and gameplay expendable when it comes to the next big thing. I mean, you're willing to get new gameplay features (to the point that its not even close to the original) and still be ok to be labeled as a remake. instead you strive for a remake that's anything but a label. Which to me i ask? Why do you even care? seriously? Why?

FRLG was a real, standard remake. what barely made it a Gen 3 (to me) was that they added a few Gen 3 pokemon. and this was the FIRST remake...no one should complain for staying true to the original. I will however agree it could've used so much more without hurting the original. They could've added a new route, some more hidden minigames / side quests. Etc. etc. but al lin the terms of feeling an additional bonus, not the striving force of the game.

Quote:

Pokémon, on the other hand, is just as much gameplay as it is story. The biggest thing that separates one Gen from another is their graphics, mechanics, features, and most of all, Pokémon count. That's the main criteria people use to determine how "modern" a Pokémon game is.
Tthe only thing that makes a new generation is just the Pokemon...and even then, its just a way for Nintendo and fans to organize the series without thinking too hard.

Quote:

So, you wanted them to be made for the DS at the very end of Gen 5, then?
What i want is a remake...a true remake, real remake.....the whole point of remakes is it to "remade". it doesn't mean "add all these features, change the story, and label it a remake".



Quote:

They'll have the features of whatever Generation they're remade in, which probably won't happen Gen 8 or 9, at the very earliest.
Which to me, basically don't even call them remakes.

Quote:

So, what? FRLG weren't Gen 1 games, they were Gen 3 games, and last I checked, internal clocks had become a standard feature of the games by then

No other game besides GSC and HGSS have had Pokémon based on the time of day, and yet, they all still have Day/Night. The feature has more benefits than just that.
which makes me care even less about the day/night feature on FRLG. it didn't matter to me at all in Emerald. this is just complainign for the sake of it.

BettyNewbie February 4th, 2015 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8607195)
While I will concede to the fact that Giovanni uses a lv.50 Rhyhorn in Fire Read and Leaf Green Versions, I will not accept the fact that it's weaker than his Lv.50 Rhydon in Pokémon Versions Blue, Green, and Red. Giovanni's Rhydon in Red, Green and Blue utilized Horn Drill, Fissure, Tail Whip and Stomp. Effectively three of these moves can be deemed nigh useless by simply coupling two OHKO moves with Tail Whip. Giovanni's re-issued Lv.50 Rhyhorn made better use of it's skill set, and his entire team in general was overhauled as well to include a better variety of moves.

As I said, his Yellow Rhydon had a much better moveset and was higher leveled... Much more challenging that the Rhyhorn from FRLG (which actually has a weaker Rock move than the Yellow Rhydon). Plus, Rhyhorn gives almost no EXP for that point of the game, which is the last thing you want with the E4 coming up.

His Nidos also actually have worse movesets in FRLG than in Yellow, knowing Poison Sting (!) instead of Thunder. The movesets may be better than Red/Blue, but they're on par with Yellow, at best, which is just sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8607195)
Typing changed with the additions of two new types may also have a bearing on how well you perform against his Pokémon.

Two new types that barely existed in FRLG because of the tiny, restrictive Dex. All you had was Magneton for Steel, and there weren't any Dark types. Good luck against Sabrina!

Megan February 5th, 2015 3:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8606973)
They weren't even needed, too. I mean, we got along just fine in RBY without a "how to battle" tutorial, so why did we need one in FRLG? Were they aiming these games at preschoolers, or something?

To be fair, that's a problem the whole game developing industry seems to have. I don't know if they think their players are too stupid to figure out how the easiest controls work. What I do know, however: when people talk about making tutorials in video games, they always tell you to make everything as intuitive as possible, so the player can figure out everything on his own.
Also let's be honest: children don't care for textbox tutorials, they just press buttons, until everything works as it should. {XD}
Quote:

I've never heard of that rumor, myself. (I have heard of several Orange Islands rumors, none of which were true, of course.) Evidence?
Unfortunately it's the same kind of rumors like Mew living under the truck in RBY. Back then I was still at school, but the fact that this rumor was around before any of the gen 3 games hit the market, kind of makes me believe that there might have been some bit of truth for a change.
I mean it's already established, that GF wanted for the first games to contain more stuff than they ended up with and it seems kind of logical to me that they would want to make the remakes what the originals should have been.

LusoTrainer February 5th, 2015 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8605743)
2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.

I'm glad they ignored Yellow. The first generation is composed by Red/Green (Blue being the special edition of that generation and used as the basis for the international release). Yellow was a cheap anime tie-in, nothing more.

As for the remakes: the faithfulness is one of its greatest strenghts. I've started with Red/Blue and FR/LG are still the versions I go to the most to play that storyline and region.

giradialkia February 5th, 2015 9:39 AM

Quote:

Why did FRLG fail, while HGSS (and later, ORAS) prevail? What do the later remakes have that the first ones don't? What went wrong with FRLG?[INDENT]1. They needlessly removed features that were standard in Gold/Silver/Crystal and Ruby/Sapphire, all for the sake of being "faithful." It was bad enough that RS removed Day/Night, but even they still had an internal clock of some sort. FRLG, on the other hand, didn't even bother to give you that much. Yeah, good luck evolving Eevee (in the *only* Gen 3 games it's available in) into Espeon and Umbreon... Oh, wait. No "new" Pokémon in the Kanto Dex, remember? Yeah, screw all of those "new" Pokémon you possibly caught and used in Kanto just a Generation ago, because these are remakes, dammit! And, why do you want to see the same berry trees you probably also saw in Kanto just a Generation ago? Why don't you have amnesia of the previous games? Be lucky that we're still letting you play as a girl.
I gotta agree with you there. After GSC had the PokéGear and RS had the PokéNav, it would've been nice for them to modernise the world of Kanto with some similar communications device. Instead, we got a damn Teachy TV. I hadn't thought about it before, but you definitely have a point when it comes to 'kiddifying' Pokémon. I don't so much mind that the newer Pokémon weren't immediately available, but certain 'mon like Espeon, Umbreon, Crobat, Blissey, etc should absolutely have been available, and simply weren't.

Quote:

2. They didn't acknowledge the entire first Generation. Hard to believe, but Generation 1 was more than just Red and Blue. And, that game had many features people would've liked to have seen return. The remakes may have been called "FireRed" and "LeafGreen," but they were supposed to be about the entire first Generation, which, yes, includes Yellow.
This, I'm not so much on board with. If you really think about it, Yellow was the one and only anime tie-in they've ever done in the main series, and even then the differences between Yellow and RB were pretty miniscule.
I think it's important to view Yellow as having *specifically Pikachu* following you, not *your starter following you*. Remember, Pikachu counts as a character throughout Yellow, reacting to things in the overworld and some people comment on it.
TLDR; I don't think Yellow introduced enough content to warrant its features being in FRLG.

Quote:

3. They completely dumbed down the original games. Don't you just love the forced tutorial on how to battle in Oak's lab? Or, how the Old Man gives you some useless tutorial machine instead of access to Missingno (and infinite Master Balls/Rare Candies)? Or, how Giovanni and the Elite Four got knocked down two levels each? Or, how Giovanni has a weak, unevolved Rhyhorn as his ace? Or, how the Gamblers were renamed "Gamers"? Or, how anything even remotely "scary" from the originals was censored out? A lot has been said about the "kiddification" of Pokémon in the early-mid 2000s, and FRLG were probably the worst example of it.
I've already agreed that the Teachy TV is so so so so so stupid, so no worries there (except come on, they're never going to willingly give you access to something that was a complete glitch in the original games :P). I guess all I can say is, I'm glad they've not been kiddy (to the same extent) since then.

Quote:

4. For all of the things they removed, they didn't contribute anything worthwhile in return. No, seriously, what did these games bring to the table? VS Seeker? Okay, I'll give you that one, but it still wasn't exactly a new idea. Leaf/Green? Forgotten in the sequels, and it's not like she was the first female PC, anyways. Sevii Islands? Oh, yeah, a bunch of forgettable islands (that were never seen or heard from again afterwards) that were only thrown in at the last minute because GF couldn't be bothered to include Gen 2 Pokémon in the Kanto Dex (or give us something like Johto as a postgame). Fame Checker? Are you kidding me?
I remember, the first thing I did in FRLG when I got it, was march to the route west of Viridian to see how they covered up the existance of Johto. And to be honest, I was a little surprised. I mean, whatever about being faithful to a remake - by now, we knew that Johto existed, and even if they'd never let us travel to Johto in FRLG, I remain a little flabbergasted that they'd flat out pretend it wasn't there - I don't think "being faithful to the originals" is an excuse. Still, I for one was pleased by the presence of the Sevii Islands. I liked that they had remixed Johto music, and they let us have some Johto Pokémon, and I thought the extended Team Rocket storyline was pretty good. Basically, the Sevii Island post-game was good, but everything was a bit too half-hearted. There's small references to the radio-evolution experiment they conduct in GSC. And an even bigger deal? "No, your not Giovanni's kid, his kid has red hair."

And then they let us fester for 7 years on the fact that our rival in GSC was Giovanni's son. All in all, I've always thought there was more to be done for the whole Kanto/Johto storyline that they've decidedly left unsaid, but I'm very much nostalgic about the whole thing.
Quote:

5. They were slapped together in a rush, and it shows. Take a look at the staggering list of unused maps and sprites in FRLG's data. A lot was left out of these games, and it's not hard to see why. Unlike, HGSS and ORAS, FRLG were released less than a decade and only one handheld after their original counterparts, which in retrospect, was akin to remaking Diamond and Pearl (instead of Ruby and Sapphire) for the 3DS in 2014. And, why were they rushed out so early? Because, GF couldn't be bothered to find another, more creative way to complete the National Dex in Ruby and Sapphire (such as a second postgame region). Unlike HGSS and ORAS, FRLG weren't carefully developed and released as a favor to fan nostalgia (as there was none in 2004); they were slapped together for purely utilitarian purposes, almost as an expansion pack to RSE rather than standalone games.
I think, all in all, it's important to remember a couple things when discussing FRLG. Firstly, players had a long, long time to get used to Kanto Pokémon, because they were present throughout the first and second generations of games. 3rd gen arrives, and suddenly it's all these new Pokémon. A lot of Pokémon that were (arguably) considered favourites weren't available, like the original fossils, the likes of Arcanine, Gastly's line, and a lot of others. RS were seen as a bit of a reboot to the franchise. It's hard to say, but maybe they really did approach FRLG as a bit of an expansion to RSE rather than their own games. They wanted to stay faithful to the originals, so they really just left out a lot of potentially new material: for example, once I discovered there was now a female Player character, I fully expected them to go the RSE route and have her as at least a secondary character in-game, as an opponent or otherwise. But nope, she doesn't exist if you play as a boy, and vice versa.
Basically, because of the lack of connectivity between 2nd and 3rd gen (something they thankfully never let happen again), FRLG served only to reintroduce the Kanto (and a verrrrry select few Johto) Pokémon to help players fill up their Pokédexes. Colosseum, Gale of Darkness and Emerald later filled in the remaining gaps.

The remakes of GSC and RSE have both significantly added to the features available within their generations; in fact, I think it's pretty fair to say the HGSS and ORAS are the best games of their generations. The same can't be said for FRLG, definitely not, because of... well, all that they're lacking. I think it's safe to say that Game Freak have sinced learned from their mistake, and have managed to retain nostalgia in their remakes without ruining things by keeping them too close to the originals. Unfortunately in most cases of things being remade, staying "faithful" to the originals usually means sticking with something that is old, dated, and basically.. in need of renewal.

Bounsweet February 5th, 2015 10:11 AM

Gonna be one of the oddballs apparently and say that I think FRLG were great as far as remakes go. It should probably be acknowledged too that these were the very first true remakes. They kept it classic with all of the new features that Gen III added (updated PC system, VS Seeker, breeding, etc.).

It's also really not fair at all to say that these games suck because they're incompatible with Gen I and II because that's a whole issue with the tech from them and not the games themselves, too.

FRLG were good, I'll just say that. The graphics were simple because it was a remake of the most simple games, yet they still fit in with the whole style of Hoenn, imo. My only complaint was that you couldn't evolve Golbat into Crobat or Onix into Steelix until you got the National Dex.

I don't get how the games were dumbed down, either. As far as I remember, they kept the exact same dialogue as the original games. Renaming the Gambler trainer class to Gamer was just the result of censorship issues that popped up in the time span between Gen I and Gen III. Same with Jynx's color scheme.

Yellow as a third installment has always stood apart from the other third installments, also. It focused specifically on the anime, something no other game has done. I don't know why they would even add anything Yellow-specific to the remakes, honestly.

BettyNewbie February 5th, 2015 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.F. (Post 8607415)
I mean it's already established, that GF wanted for the first games to contain more stuff than they ended up with and it seems kind of logical to me that they would want to make the remakes what the originals should have been.

Then, why didn't they give us the 60 Gen 2 Pokémon that were originally planned for Gen 1? As I pointed out earlier, Crobat's cry even still exists in Red and Blue's data, so there's literally no excuse for excluding it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8607436)
I'm glad they ignored Yellow. The first generation is composed by Red/Green (Blue being the special edition of that generation and used as the basis for the international release). Yellow was a cheap anime tie-in, nothing more.

As for the remakes: the faithfulness is one of its greatest strenghts. I've started with Red/Blue and FR/LG are still the versions I go to the most to play that storyline and region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8607720)
This, I'm not so much on board with. If you really think about it, Yellow was the one and only anime tie-in they've ever done in the main series, and even then the differences between Yellow and RB were pretty miniscule.
I think it's important to view Yellow as having *specifically Pikachu* following you, not *your starter following you*. Remember, Pikachu counts as a character throughout Yellow, reacting to things in the overworld and some people comment on it.
TLDR; I don't think Yellow introduced enough content to warrant its features being in FRLG.

I'm going to say it right here--I hate Yellow bashing. Most of it comes from the exact same argument, too, "the anime sucks," or "it's not canon." (Bonus points if the person saying it is a huge Adventures fan and thinks that it's either A) game canon or that B) GF should make a game based on it, not even recognizing the hypocrisy of their statements.)

Even if it was only Pikachu, it was still the very first following Pokémon ever. And, I enjoyed Pikachu's Beach, even if you needed to jump through some hoops to be able to play it. I also liked seeing Jessie and James, and I think they would've been a fantastic way to introduce double battles into FRLG.

And, did I mention that the Gym Leaders were all harder, and that Yellow gave most of them better movesets? Or, that Yellow's sprites are way better than Red and Blue's? Or, that Yellow fixed many of Red and Blue's bugs? Or, that the starter Pikachu was the very first implementation of a happiness system in the games? Or, that Red's canon team is based on Yellow?

Yellow's a part of Gen 1, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8607720)
I gotta agree with you there. After GSC had the PokéGear and RS had the PokéNav, it would've been nice for them to modernise the world of Kanto with some similar communications device. Instead, we got a damn Teachy TV. I hadn't thought about it before, but you definitely have a point when it comes to 'kiddifying' Pokémon. I don't so much mind that the newer Pokémon weren't immediately available, but certain 'mon like Espeon, Umbreon, Crobat, Blissey, etc should absolutely have been available, and simply weren't.

I agree. (Especially, on the phone part.) It's like the games were made specifically for preschoolers who had never played any of the previous ones instead of veterans who you would think would've been the target audience for a remake. Thank goodness GF learned their lesson with HGSS and ORAS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8607720)
Still, I for one was pleased by the presence of the Sevii Islands. I liked that they had remixed Johto music, and they let us have some Johto Pokémon, and I thought the extended Team Rocket storyline was pretty good. Basically, the Sevii Island post-game was good, but everything was a bit too half-hearted. There's small references to the radio-evolution experiment they conduct in GSC. And an even bigger deal? "No, your not Giovanni's kid, his kid has red hair."

Everything about the Sevii Islands was half-hearted. It's like GF used those islands as a dumping ground for things they were too cheap to give us in Kanto, such as Gen 2 Pokémon, Berries, a battle facility (however poor Sevii's Trainer Tower was), a Day Care, and trading compatibility with RSE.

And, screw Johto music, I would've rather seen Johto, itself. Same goes for Silver. And, those Rocket Admins didn't even have different sprites from the Grunts (like in GSC), let alone actual names (like in HGSS). Laaaazy! :rolleyes2:

Amusingly, the Sevii Islands completely vanished after FRLG. They were never seen or even heard from in any other game. (Not even HGSS bothered to acknowledge them, let alone include them.) Something tells me that even GF is ashamed of those islands...

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8607720)
I think, all in all, it's important to remember a couple things when discussing FRLG. Firstly, players had a long, long time to get used to Kanto Pokémon, because they were present throughout the first and second generations of games. 3rd gen arrives, and suddenly it's all these new Pokémon. A lot of Pokémon that were (arguably) considered favourites weren't available, like the original fossils, the likes of Arcanine, Gastly's line, and a lot of others. RS were seen as a bit of a reboot to the franchise. It's hard to say, but maybe they really did approach FRLG as a bit of an expansion to RSE rather than their own games. They wanted to stay faithful to the originals, so they really just left out a lot of potentially new material: for example, once I discovered there was now a female Player character, I fully expected them to go the RSE route and have her as at least a secondary character in-game, as an opponent or otherwise. But nope, she doesn't exist if you play as a boy, and vice versa.
Basically, because of the lack of connectivity between 2nd and 3rd gen (something they thankfully never let happen again), FRLG served only to reintroduce the Kanto (and a verrrrry select few Johto) Pokémon to help players fill up their Pokédexes. Colosseum, Gale of Darkness and Emerald later filled in the remaining gaps.

This is exactly why RSE should've included a second postgame region for the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex (if the GB/C carts had room for two regions, then the GBA carts sure as hell did). I know a lot of people expected to return to Johto after beating Hoenn, and most of the "missing" Pokémon could've easily been put there (as they were all from Gens 1 and 2). Plus, May/Brendan, themselves, moved to Hoenn from Johto, so it's not like they don't have family there and thus, a reason to visit. I think having Johto as a postgame region might have also softened the blow from RSE's compatibility cut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by giradialkia (Post 8607720)
The remakes of GSC and RSE have both significantly added to the features available within their generations; in fact, I think it's pretty fair to say the HGSS and ORAS are the best games of their generations. The same can't be said for FRLG, definitely not, because of... well, all that they're lacking. I think it's safe to say that Game Freak have sinced learned from their mistake, and have managed to retain nostalgia in their remakes without ruining things by keeping them too close to the originals. Unfortunately in most cases of things being remade, staying "faithful" to the originals usually means sticking with something that is old, dated, and basically.. in need of renewal.

Which is exactly why Gen 1 could use a new remake, one that was made with the same level of care and quality as HGSS and ORAS. The Generation that started it all deserves so much better than FRLG.

CoffeeDrink February 5th, 2015 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mochi (Post 8607764)
Gonna be one of the oddballs apparently and say that I think FRLG were great as far as remakes go. It should probably be acknowledged too that these were the very first true remakes. They kept it classic with all of the new features that Gen III added (updated PC system, VS Seeker, breeding, etc.).

It's also really not fair at all to say that these games suck because they're incompatible with Gen I and II because that's a whole issue with the tech from them and not the games themselves, too.

FRLG were good, I'll just say that. The graphics were simple because it was a remake of the most simple games, yet they still fit in with the whole style of Hoenn, imo. My only complaint was that you couldn't evolve Golbat into Crobat or Onix into Steelix until you got the National Dex.

I don't get how the games were dumbed down, either. As far as I remember, they kept the exact same dialogue as the original games. Renaming the Gambler trainer class to Gamer was just the result of censorship issues that popped up in the time span between Gen I and Gen III. Same with Jynx's color scheme.

Yellow as a third installment has always stood apart from the other third installments, also. It focused specifically on the anime, something no other game has done. I don't know why they would even add anything Yellow-specific to the remakes, honestly.

I feel that this sums up much of what I would say. Considering I absolutely hated Hoenn, being able to return to Kanto was quite a relief for me. It was more familiar, and that's what makes sense about the games.

Being able to go through the game with Dark and Steel types wouldn't make sense, but just the fact that the existence of Steel and Dark Type moves calls the 'difficulty' issue to be called into question. Nearly every normal type was capable of learning Bite, Charmander could learn Metal claw, and Magnamite is now Steel/Electric. I'll say again that just the existence of two new types throws the Original Type effective scale out the window entirely.

And the excuse to offer you on why they didn't include the 60+ Pokémon that you said were 'behind the game' is simply the fact that they weren't in the final product to begin with. I feel like we'll all be at odds with how the remakes were handled, so I agree to disagree.

Cerberus87 February 5th, 2015 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie
And, did I mention that the Gym Leaders were all harder, and that Yellow gave most of them better movesets?

IMO the most difficulty from Yellow is artificial difficulty. Sorry, but cranking up enemy levels to the moon is artificial difficulty. Yellow did have improved movesets but the 1st gen AI is still hopeless and buggy.

Also, some of the gyms could be EASIER depending on your approach. Erika's two strongest Pokémon were devolved compared to RGB. Lt. Surge has a stronger Raichu but it's his only Pokémon and a Geodude still kills him. Koga has three Venonat, which is a very easy Pokémon to kill. Sabrina has an Abra without any offensive moves.

Platinum was a far more legitimately difficult game than Yellow, with gym leaders actually using smart strategies. And B2W2's Challenge Mode is even better in that regard.

BettyNewbie February 5th, 2015 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8608111)
Nearly every normal type was capable of learning Bite, Charmander could learn Metal claw, and Magnamite is now Steel/Electric. I'll say again that just the existence of two new types throws the Original Type effective scale out the window entirely.

Oooh, Bite and Metal Claw, what powerful attacks without STAB. :rolleyes2: And, remember that Bite was still a Special attack, so most of the things that learned it couldn't even use it properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8608111)
And the excuse to offer you on why they didn't include the 60+ Pokémon that you said were 'behind the game' is simply the fact that they weren't in the final product to begin with.

If that's the excuse, then we shouldn't have been able to play as a girl, either. Like Crobat and friends, Leaf/Green was planned for the originals, yet cut because of space issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8608254)
Platinum was a far more legitimately difficult game than Yellow, with gym leaders actually using smart strategies. And B2W2's Challenge Mode is even better in that regard.

Of course, they were... The DS games had far better AI and movesets than any other preceding Gen. But, Yellow still paved the way for Third Versions/Sequels upping the difficulty from the paired games.

LusoTrainer February 6th, 2015 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
I'm going to say it right here--I hate Yellow bashing.

Good to know, but it's irrelevant for the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
Most of it comes from the exact same argument, too, "the anime sucks," or "it's not canon."

Funny, but I never made such statements. Yellow was an adaptation of the anime, using the Red/Blue versions as a basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
Even if it was only Pikachu, it was still the very first following Pokémon ever.

Because that's what happened in the anime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
And, did I mention that the Gym Leaders were all harder, and that Yellow gave most of them better movesets? Or, that Yellow's sprites are way better than Red and Blue's? Or, that Yellow fixed many of Red and Blue's bugs? Or, that the starter Pikachu was the very first implementation of a happiness system in the games?

So? It was released after the international Red/Blue, so it better have some bugfixes. Just like the international verions had improvements over the japanese ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
Or, that Red's canon team is based on Yellow?

That's up to debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8607804)
Yellow's a part of Gen 1, whether you like it or not.

It's more of a spin-off than anything else in the main series.

BettyNewbie February 6th, 2015 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609200)
Funny, but I never made such statements. Yellow was an adaptation of the anime, using the Red/Blue versions as a basis.

No, it isn't. You still play as Red, your rival is still Blue, you still defeat Giovanni for good, and you still fight the Elite Four and Blue at the end. Aside from a few extra bits, it's still the games' story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609200)
That's up to debate.

Why else would you think Red has a L81 unevolved Pikachu as his ace, or all three starters on his team without trading?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609200)
It's more of a spin-off than anything else in the main series.

It's a handheld Pokémon game that was made by Game Freak, so nope, not a spin-off. It's part of the Main Series, whether you like it or not.

LusoTrainer February 7th, 2015 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8609439)
No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. You don't get to choose a starter, you're stuck with Pikachu as your starter throughout the whole thing (just like in the anime), the sprites and parts of the story were changed to be more faithful to the anime, etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8609439)
Why else would you think Red has a L81 unevolved Pikachu as his ace,

Because he can?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8609439)
or all three starters on his team without trading?

To not neglect any of the starter choices made by the players?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8609439)
It's a handheld Pokémon game that was made by Game Freak, so nope, not a spin-off.

How does being an handheld game made by Game Freak makes it not a spin-off? A spin-off is something derived from an existing product or franchise. And Yellow fits that description.

BettyNewbie February 7th, 2015 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609841)
Yes, it is. You don't get to choose a starter, you're stuck with Pikachu as your starter throughout the whole thing (just like in the anime), the sprites and parts of the story were changed to be more faithful to the anime, etc...

The sprites were changed to look BETTER. Do you really think Golbat was meant to look like this?

And, Red and Blue's sprites were changed to look more like their official art, which is what Ash and Gary's original designs happened to be based on. They use those exact same sprites in GSC.

And, what from the story was changed to be more like the anime? You mean, Jessie and James? ...They weren't exactly a whole lot like their anime counterparts, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609841)
Because he can?

If that's all you can say, then you've clearly lost that argument, LOL. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609841)
To not neglect any of the starter choices made by the players?

But, it's impossible to own all three starters ("own" meaning "all having the same OT/Trainer ID") in RB, so it wouldn't make any sense, storywise. With Yellow, on the other hand, it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8609841)
How does being an handheld game made by Game Freak makes it not a spin-off? A spin-off is something derived from an existing product or franchise. And Yellow fits that description.

The biggest thing that distinguishes canon from non-canon in Pokémon is Game Freak's involvement. (Hence the reason why Colosseum/XD aren't canon; Game Freak wasn't involved with either.)

Here's how Bulbapedia defines game canon:

Quote:

The canon of the core series considers the following:
  • Events occurring in the core series games are the ultimate canon.
  • Player choices such as the hero's gender and starter Pokémon are generally not standardized within the canon, with the exception of Red in the Generation I games and their remakes.
  • In the case of conflicts between versions of a game, the later one such as a third version or remake, supersedes. As such, Pokémon Crystal Version canonically supersedes Pokémon Gold and Silver Versions, while Pokémon Platinum Version is canon instead of its paired counterparts Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions. If equally new versions, such as paired versions, conflict, the canonical one is generally not standardized.
  • Content from games related to the core series is canon unless it conflicts with events in the core series games, while content from unrelated spin-offs is generally non-canon.
  • Canonical material via other forms of media, like animated trailers, manuals or merchandise, may exist depending on each case.

Note the emphasis on "core series." How is a "core series" game defined?


Quote:

The core series[1][2] of the Pokémon games or core games[3], commonly referred to as the main series by fans, is the game series that is always released on a Nintendo handheld system and developed by Game Freak, which follow the now-standard model of a player's journey through a specific region to catch and raise Pokémon, battle Trainers, earn Badges from Gym Leaders, and defeat the Pokémon League to enter the Hall of Fame there.

How does that NOT describe Yellow? Sure enough, it's listed on the page as a CORE SERIES game, right there with Red and Blue.


Just give it up. I get it, you hate Yellow. (You wouldn't call it a "cheap spin-off" and get so worked up over its canonicity if you didn't, otherwise.) It's still a canon main series game, though, like it or not.

LusoTrainer February 7th, 2015 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
The sprites were changed to look BETTER.

The sprites were changed to look like the anime, that's not up to debate. As an example:

This a Team Rocket grunt:

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/a1/Spr_RG_Rocket.png

This is a better looking version of it:

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1b/Spr_GS_Rocket_Grunt_M.png

This is Yellow's version (and proof that the concept of the game was to be an adaptation of the anime):

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/8f/Spr_Y_Jessie_James.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
You mean, Jessie and James? ...They weren't exactly a whole lot like their anime counterparts, you know.

Jessie and James were created for the anime. In the main games, they don't exist at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
If that's all you can say, then you've clearly lost that argument, LOL. :P

The argument that it's up to debate? No, since you never refuted it in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
But, it's impossible to own all three starters

That's a game mechanism. Red (as presented in G/S) is meant to represent the playerbase, universally (even those who played Yellow). Hence why all the starters are on his team. That doesn't mean his team uses Yellow as a basis. Otherwise why not call him Yellow instead of Red?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
The biggest thing that distinguishes canon from non-canon in Pokémon is Game Freak's involvement.

Source? Game Freak never made a statement on what's considered canon or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
Here's how Bulbapedia defines game canon:

Bulbapedia is a fan made wiki. Not to mention that it provides no source on that specific matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
How does that NOT describe Yellow? Sure enough, it's listed on the page as a CORE SERIES game, right there with Red and Blue.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
Just give it up.

On what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610139)
I get it, you hate Yellow. (You wouldn't call it a "cheap spin-off" and get so worked up over its canonicity if you didn't, otherwise.) It's still a canon main series game, though, like it or not.

I could care less about canon. You are the one who has a problem admitting the purpose of the Yellow version and can't accept the fact that it was made to adapt the anime.

BettyNewbie February 7th, 2015 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8610204)
I could care less about canon. You are the one who has a problem admitting the purpose of the Yellow version and can't accept the fact that it was made to adapt the anime.

Then, why does Yellow's existence as a main series game bother you so much, then? So much that you want to start an argument over it?

I can't help but notice that your signature depicts Red's canon team... But, with Pikachu replaced with Aerodactyl. You obviously dislike Pikachu, so it's no wonder that you're not a fan of Yellow. (Although, you can always BOX the little yellow rat if you don't want to use it, you know.)

The fact that you picked Aerodactyl, of all things, to "replace" Pikachu also suggests that you're an Adventures fan, as that's the only place that I know of where Red owns an Aerodactyl...

... Seems like somebody might be a teensy bit bitter that GF pays more attention to the anime than his favorite non-canon adaptation. (Seriously, it's been almost 20 years, and you can count the number of Adventures references in the games on one hand. Less than a hand, in fact.)

Nah February 7th, 2015 3:36 PM

I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but there is one comment I'd like to make: Yellow is not a spin-off. It is an enhanced version of Red/Blue/Green. If you say that Yellow is a spin-off, you'd also have to say that every 3rd version (Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) is also a spin-off. But they're not. A spin-off would be something that uses the franchise as a basis but is wholly different. Examples of Pokemon spin-off games would be stuff like Pokemon Conquest or the Ranger sub-series.

I believe the reason why Yellow features several components of the anime in it is not because it's an adaptation of the anime (the plot and game structure is still very similar to that of R/B/G), but to draw in fans of the anime to the games. Not everyone's first exposure to Pokemon was through the games. Adding anime components into Yellow helps entice fans of the anime into buying the games if they've never played the games before.

BettyNewbie February 7th, 2015 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but there is one comment I'd like to make: Yellow is not a spin-off. It is an enhanced version of Red/Blue/Green. If you say that Yellow is a spin-off, you'd also have to say that every 3rd version (Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) is also a spin-off. But they're not. A spin-off would be something that uses the franchise as a basis but is wholly different. Examples of Pokemon spin-off games would be stuff like Pokemon Conquest or the Ranger sub-series.

I believe the reason why Yellow features several components of the anime in it is not because it's an adaptation of the anime (the plot and game structure is still very similar to that of R/B/G), but to draw in fans of the anime to the games. Not everyone's first exposure to Pokemon was through the games. Adding anime components into Yellow helps entice fans of the anime into buying the games if they've never played the games before.

THANK YOU.

I think many people fail to realize how intertwined the marketing for the games and anime was back in the Pokémania days. Even if the games came first, it wasn't until the anime became a huge success that the "Fad" took off, so it made sense to view the anime as an expansion of the games and treat them as one-in-the-same.

It wasn't uncommon for game-based materials to use anime artwork and treat Red/Blue and Ash/Gary as the same people. Like, the Monopoly and Master Trainer board games, for example. Both were actually based on the games' story (just look at the Gym Leaders' Pokémon on the Monopoly board), yet they used anime artwork for the Pokémon and Ash, Gary, and Jessie/James in place of Red, Blue, and the generic Rocket Grunts. The fact that "Ash" and "Gary" were default names of the PC and Rival in RB only helped this.

Yellow was only a natural extension of this marketing, a main series game that openly embraced the then-popular anime and successfully merged the two together. The end result was a game that enhanced Gen 1's setting and was arguably superior to RB.

Once Gen 3 hit and Pokémania had turned into backlash, the games and anime started to go their separate ways. Ash and Red both got redesigns that made them look more like different characters (same goes for Gary and Blue), and marketing materials based on the games no longer used anime artwork or put Ash and Pikachu on the cover (most blatant in the recent rerelease of Monopoly, which replaced all of the anime art with game art and swapped out Ash, Gary, and Jessie/James for Red, Blue, and generic Rocket Grunts).

While the games still include nods here and there to the anime (like the reference to Alain in ORAS, most recently), they're not as big or as numerous as the references in Yellow... But, that still doesn't make Yellow any less of a main series game.

mew_nani February 8th, 2015 1:02 AM

I will admit, I have a soft spot for Pokemon FR/LG. It was the first Pokemon game I ever played, I love the thing to death. But I do have to admit it's a more boring version of Pokemon Red and Blue. It would have been a lot better if they kept the day and night cycle and maybe integrated later evolutions like Crobat into the regional Pokedex. It sucked if you had a Golbat that was ready to evolve but couldn't because you didn't have the National Dex yet. The music isn't that bad, what with just being transposed up or down a few keys, but still it could be better. But the game needed more elaboration, especially with the Sevii Isles. There were so many mysterious things there that badly needed more explanation, like Pattern Bush and Altering Cave. (Also Birth Island and Navel Rock. Why were they event exclusive? WHY!? I remember seeing Lugia in the Pokedex you bought in stores for 3rd Gen and it had Navel Rock there and I kept wondering what it was. :( )

Also why don't we have weather? What kind of region doesn't have rain or snow? And finally Pokemon Yellow IS a mainstream game. Gold and Silver have Red with all 3 starters and Pikachu in his team, and you can get all 3 starters in Yellow. Also Pikachu is unevolved, and in Yellow you could not evolve the Pikachu you were given at the start of the game.

Mega_Kris February 8th, 2015 11:31 AM

Yellow may be enhanced version of Red/Blue.....however there are aspects of Yellow that tries harder to be a separate entity.


Having all pokemon is a mechanic aspect, not a story aspect. The reason why there are alternate version (version A and B) is to encourage trading between fans and completing the Pokedex, to find which version of Red/Blue/Yellow is canon based on the pokemon that you can capture is iinnacurate and irrelevant.


Also keep in mind that when yellow was made, pokemon 2 was already in the process of being made, (gold/silver). So some of the sprites were definitely able to be carried over.

Also Jessie, James, Meowth, how come we dont see them again? Other things such as Beach House in Route 19 dont appear, not even as a reference.

Blue/Green also doesn't even have eevee, flareon, cvaporeon or jolteon. So how come its valid to apply it to Red for having all starter and pikachu but doesnt even apply to Blue/Green?

Regardless, it wouldnt have hurt to used "some" elements from those games but not all too much. The problem with adding new routes is changing the set routes in Johto region. I definitely wouldve liked to see the companion system. However I will say this, FRLG feels just as entertaining as Red/Blue.....im not a huge fan of those games. I prefer yellow. But I never expected that FRLG would use Yellow. Did I hope for it? But never expected it.

LusoTrainer February 8th, 2015 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610303)
Then, why does Yellow's existence as a main series game bother you so much, then?

What's considered "main series" comes from fandom, not Game Freak. And as a fan, I have the right to state what I consider to be a main game and a spin-off, specially when it fits the description.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610303)
You obviously dislike Pikachu,

No, I don't. But nice strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8610303)
The fact that you picked Aerodactyl, of all things, to "replace" Pikachu also suggests that you're an Adventures fan,

Wrong, again. The reason for why Aerodactyl is in my sig is because it's the only Pokémon that you receive/face, aside from Lapras and Snorlax, that is part of the main quest and doesn't require a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but there is one comment I'd like to make: Yellow is not a spin-off. It is an enhanced version of Red/Blue/Green.

No. As I've said before, then enhanced version of Red/Green is Blue, which is what was used as a basis for the international release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
If you say that Yellow is a spin-off, you'd also have to say that every 3rd version (Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) is also a spin-off.

No, I've not. Crystal, Emerald and Platinum are comparable to Blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
A spin-off would be something that uses the franchise as a basis but is wholly different.

It's different. You don't get to choose a starter of that region and the game was made with the intention to adapt the anime of that same franchise as seen by many of the changes and new features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
I believe the reason why Yellow features several components of the anime in it is not because it's an adaptation of the anime (the plot and game structure is still very similar to that of R/B/G),

That doesn't make it less of an adaptation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zekrom (Post 8610419)
but to draw in fans of the anime to the games.

Exactly. Hence why they used the anime as inspiration. It was the very reason for why they made it in the first place.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8611432)
Also Jessie, James, Meowth, how come we dont see them again? Other things such as Beach House in Route 19 dont appear, not even as a reference.

As for the TRio, their canonicity is about equal to Lorelei and Agatha's. For whatever reason, they didn't return in GSC, and GF didn't care enough to explain why. Same goes for the Beach House. (It may have been destroyed in the Cinnabar eruption for all we know; there were giant rocks from the eruption blocking the Route 19 path, after all.)

Their absence in FRLG and HGSS doesn't mean anything, as those games take place in a different timeline than RBY and GSC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8611432)
Blue/Green also doesn't even have eevee, flareon, cvaporeon or jolteon. So how come its valid to apply it to Red for having all starter and pikachu but doesnt even apply to Blue/Green?

Blue's team is a mystery, yes. The best I can explain is that he boxed some of his team for other Pokémon after they had "failed" him in the final battle against Red. We know that he caught other Pokémon besides just the six he used in Yellow, and it seems like something he would do. (In fact, it's something that he did do with his Fearow and Rattata in that very game, the former disappearing after the Pokémon Tower battle, and the latter after the SS Anne battle.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611771)
What's considered "main series" comes from fandom, not Game Freak. And as a fan, I have the right to state what I consider to be a main game and a spin-off, specially when it fits the description.

And, what makes your opinions any more "fact" than others? Do you work for Game Freak? I see far more people calling Yellow a main series game than a spin-off, and to me, majority rules.

Just admit your bias and move on. You hate the anime, and you hate Pikachu, and it absolutely offends you that GF ever acknowledged either enough to to create a main series "tribute" to both (as opposed to a certain manga that you undoubtedly consider to be a "superior" and "faithful" adaptation, despite it being even more far-off from the games' story than the early anime ever was... there's a reason why the anime took off and Adventures didn't).

LusoTrainer February 8th, 2015 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611772)
And, what makes your opinions any more "fact" than others?

Who's stated that they are facts? My opinion is supported by actual arguments (and these are based on facts), which you seem to be unable to deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611772)
I see far more people calling Yellow a main series game than a spin-off, and to me, majority rules.

That's a fallacy, therefore not a valid argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611772)
Just admit your bias and move on.

My bias?! You're kidding me, right? Look at your own original post and following comments and try to find the irony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611772)
You hate the anime, and you hate Pikachu,

Another strawman. But hey, when the arguments are lacking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611772)
and it absolutely offends you that GF ever acknowledged either enough to to create a main series "tribute" to both (as opposed to a certain manga that you undoubtedly consider to be a "superior" and "faithful" adaptation, despite it being even more far-off from the games' story than the early anime ever was... there's a reason why the anime took off and Adventures didn't).

Apparently you are unable to have a valid argument and resort to strawmen and ad hominem to try to justify the unjustifiable.

And since you have a problem reading what I post, I'll re-post again, in bold (I can also increase the size, if you still can't read), my previous reply against your baseless accusations:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611771)
No, I don't. But nice strawman.

(...)

Wrong, again. The reason for why Aerodactyl is in my sig is because it's the only Pokémon that you receive/face, aside from Lapras and Snorlax, that is part of the main quest and doesn't require a choice.


mew_nani February 8th, 2015 4:40 PM

Luso. Everybody. Calm down. Yellow is the official gen 1 game on which Gold and Silver is based on, and while it DOES include things from the anime it is STILL canon and is STILL the canon gen 1 game, or at least it was before FireRed and LeafGreen retconned it. Now can we just continue talking about how FireRed and LeafGreen could have been better, instead of squabbling over whether Yellow is canon or not?

LusoTrainer February 8th, 2015 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611827)
Luso. Everybody. Calm down. Yellow is the official gen 1 game on which Gold and Silver is based on, and while it DOES include things from the anime it is STILL canon and is STILL the canon gen 1 game,

Like I said, Game Freak never made any statements regarding "canon" or which version is meant to represent Generation 1 as a whole. It's not even what my argument is about.

mew_nani February 8th, 2015 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611834)
Like I said, Game Freak never made any statements regarding "canon" or which version is meant to represent Generation 1 as a whole. It's not even what my argument is about.

It's still canon because Red's team in Gold and Silver has all 3 starters and one unevolved Pikachu in it. It's a nod to Yellow. But that's not the point; your utter refusal to even consider Yellow as canon is derailing the thread. This thread is about how FireRed and LeafGreen failed as remakes and how they could have been made better, not whether or not Yellow was canon or not, and that doesn't even matter because FR/LG retconned Yellow out of the timeline. If you wanna debate on whether or not Yellow was the true Gen 1 game go make your own thread about it, but leave it out of this one.

LusoTrainer February 8th, 2015 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611840)
It's still canon because Red's team in Gold and Silver has all 3 starters and one unevolved Pikachu in it.

See my post regarding that interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611840)
your utter refusal to even consider Yellow as canon is derailing the thread.

Wrong. I never made any argument regarding "canon", precisely because Game Freak never made any claim about it. My argument was always that Yellow was a spin-off adaptation of the anime and therefore not something they should have based on if the purpose of these remakes was to re-tell the original quest as it was seen in Red/Green/Blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611840)
If you wanna debate on whether or not Yellow was the true Gen 1 game go make your own thread about it, but leave it out of this one.

Read what has been written before making baseless accusations. The OP was the one who brought Yellow into this discussion. If you have a problem with Yellow being discussed, then talk to/blame him/her.

mew_nani February 8th, 2015 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611871)
See my post regarding that interpretation.



Wrong. I never made any argument regarding "canon", precisely because Game Freak never made any claim about it. My argument was always that Yellow was a spin-off adaptation of the anime and therefore not something they should have based on if the purpose of these remakes was to re-tell the original quest as it was seen in Red/Green/Blue.



Read what has been written before making baseless accusations. The OP was the one who brought Yellow into this discussion. If you have a problem with Yellow being discussed, then talk to/blame him/her.

The OP brought Pokemon Yellow into the thread because Yellow was a Gen 1 game, and FR/LG are REMAKES of Gen 1. Elements of Pokemon Yellow being included in FR/LG are not bad, because FR/LG are remakes of Gen 1 as a whole, not simply remakes of Pokemon Red and Pokemon Blue or Green. My "baseless accusations" aren't baseless at all, because you're STILL derailing the thread because you're missing the forest for the trees. Whether you think Pokemon Yellow is a canon game or just a spinoff of the anime is up to you, but it still doesn't change the fact it's a Gen 1 game and having elements of the game included in a remake is not a bad thing. Now if you wanna go argue with people whether Pokemon Yellow is on the same level as Pokemon Blue or Red go make your own thread and argue there. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation don't say anything.

BettyNewbie February 8th, 2015 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611814)
Who's stated that they are facts? My opinion is supported by actual arguments (and these are based on facts), which you seem to be unable to deal with.

What facts? All I'm seeing coming from you is opinion... Which is derailing the entire thread.

I'm the one who actually provided a definition of what a "main series" game was. You, on the other hand, dismissed it without providing a source of your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8611814)
My bias?! You're kidding me, right? Look at your own original post and following comments and try to find the irony.

I loathe RSE and FRLG, but I would never dismiss either as being "cheap spin-offs," because they still fit the definition of what a "main series" game is. You, on the other hand, won't give the Yellow the same courtesy.

Here are some other posts you've made elsewhere in the forum:

Quote:

I don't have a particular favorite, but I can say that I can't stand Pokémon Yellow.
Quote:

Like I said, I would never pick Yellow. Cheap anime tie-in, limited starter choice, Pikachu follows you in the overworld, is unable to evolve, etc...
Quote:

Pokémon Red, the anime only came later (until it ceased to get my attention).
How are these statements NOT biased? And, how do these NOT also imply a hatred for the anime? (Which, you're allowed to hate... Just OWN up to it!)

Now, can we please get back to the topic of the thread?

LusoTrainer February 9th, 2015 7:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
What facts? All I'm seeing coming from you is opinion... Which is derailing the entire thread.

You are the one who brought Yellow into the discussion, and when some shared a different opinion than yours about it, you started making false claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
I'm the one who actually provided a definition of what a "main series" game was.

Not an official definition, since Game Freak never made a statement about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
You, on the other hand, won't give the Yellow the same courtesy.

I don't have to, the same way I don't have to share your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
Here are some other posts you've made elsewhere in the forum:

And what are the relevance of them to this thread? Isn't it ironic that you claim that I'm derailing this thread when all you do is make baseless accusations about me and bring posts made on different threads over here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
How are these statements NOT biased?

They aren't. My feeling towards the anime are completely irrelevant to the fact that Yellow was an anime adaptation. That's a fact, not even up to debate. Yet you can't seem to accept it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8611896)
Now, can we please get back to the topic of the thread?

That's up to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
The OP brought Pokemon Yellow into the thread because Yellow was a Gen 1 game, and FR/LG are REMAKES of Gen 1.

FR/LG are remakes of Red and Green, nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
Elements of Pokemon Yellow being included in FR/LG are not bad,

That's your opinion, not mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
My "baseless accusations" aren't baseless at all,

Yes, they are. Denying it doesn't make them less baseless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
because you're STILL derailing the thread because you're missing the forest for the trees.

You haven't provided any evidence for where I'm derailing the thread. You claim that I'm derailing it for not accepting Yellow as canon when that's completely false since I never made any statements about canon. You claim that I'm derailing because I'm discussing Yellow on a FR/LG thread when I wasn't the one who brought it into this discussion, etc, etc... Do I need to go on...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
Whether you think Pokemon Yellow is a canon game or just a spinoff of the anime is up to you, but it still doesn't change the fact it's a Gen 1 game and having elements of the game included in a remake is not a bad thing.

That's not a fact, it's your subjective opinion. I don't share it, deal with it. Also, 'spin-off' and 'canon' aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
Now if you wanna go argue with people whether Pokemon Yellow is on the same level as Pokemon Blue or Red go make your own thread and argue there.

It takes at least two to argue, so look at your own comments before making claims about others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8611894)
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation don't say anything.

This is a discussion board. If you can't handle different opinions then you're in the wrong place.

mew_nani February 9th, 2015 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8612617)
FR/LG are remakes of Red and Green, nothing more.



That's your opinion, not mine.



Yes, they are. Denying it doesn't make them less baseless.



You haven't provided any evidence for where I'm derailing the thread. You claim that I'm derailing it for not accepting Yellow as canon when that's completely false since I never made any statements about canon. You claim that I'm derailing because I'm discussing Yellow on a FR/LG thread when I wasn't the one who brought it into this discussion, etc, etc... Do I need to go on...?



That's not a fact, it's your subjective opinion. I don't share it, deal with it. Also, 'spin-off' and 'canon' aren't mutually exclusive.



It takes at least two to argue, so look at your own comments before making claims about others.



This is a discussion board. If you can't handle different opinions then you're in the wrong place.

Dude you're just being a prick at this point. The evidence is the tons of posts you've made taking up half of the page trying to convince others you're right, everyone else is wrong, and Yellow is a terrible game and shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. You can think whatever you want and say what you want but you're derailing the thread around your own opinions, completely ignoring the main purpose of this thread. If you're so dissed that Yellow exists go make your own thread and leave this one alone! You are not adding anything at this point; you're just trying to inflate your own ego and you're annoying everybody else here. I'd be more than happy to argue about Pokemon Yellow in a proper thread that isn't about Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen in the section made for the third generation of Pokemon games. This is the wrong dang place. We wish to talk about the remakes and why they were as bad as they were and how they could have been made better. That is the dang freaking title of the thread. If you don't wanna adhere to it go complain somewhere else. Don't just drag your own prejudices into the thread and act inconsiderate toward the people who actually WANT to talk about FR/LG.

BettyNewbie February 9th, 2015 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LusoTrainer (Post 8612617)
This is a discussion board. If you can't handle different opinions then you're in the wrong place.

Says the person who derailed an entire thread because somebody disagreed with him about a certain game. :rolleyes2:

To get back on topic, what are some things you would've changed about FRLG? Here are mine:

- All later Gen pre/evolutions obtainable in Kanto, along with every other Gen 2 Pokémon that was originally planned for Gen 1 (giving us a Regional Dex of around 190)
- At least, a watered-down clock like RSE's, if not full Day/Night
- Weather effects
- Berry Trees (or, at least, Berry Pots)
- A phone like the PokéGear and PokéNav
- Breeding on Route 5 Daycare
- Following Pokémon
- Gym Leaders based on Yellow (but with Koga and Sabrina's levels nerfed and their teams slightly altered)
- Unselected PC has a secondary rival role (the guy would be named "Red" and the girl would be named "Green")
- Jessie and James return as double battles (and have more appearances after Silph Co.)
- Team Rocket's connection to Mewtwo is fleshed-out
- Lugia's connection to Articuno/Zapdos/Moltres is fleshed-out
- The Sevii Islands are either expanded into a full region or scrapped for either the Orange Islands or Johto
- You can trade with RSE right away without any annoying sidequests, just like HGSS can trade with DPP from the get-go

Any other ideas?

Kip February 9th, 2015 2:42 PM

Throwing my hat in here. :) Long(ish) post...

I think it's possible we're looking at these games with the benefit of hindsight. The games were released almost 11 years ago and we've had two quite impressive remakes since which have set a precedent. We mustn't forget these were the very first Pokémon remakes, and there was no precedent set. It was a different time. What do you do? Do you try and stay as faithful as possible to the originals or do you add features, regions and plot to bring it in line with the current generation? The risk with the second strategy is that you may end up diluting and ruining the experience.

If the FRLG remakes were proposed to me right now after HGSS and ORAS, I would say yes, absolutely add the extra features and plot additions we've come to love because I know that it's possible to add them and still stay faithful to the originals, that'd be fantastic. But back in 2004, I would've err'd on the side of caution. This was RBY we were talking about. This was genesis. This was hallowed ground. I would have been very nervous that it would be ruined by Hoenn Pokémon or different plots arcs or characters, etc.

Personally I thoroughly enjoyed FRLG, more so than RSE. I certainly found myself coming back to FRLG during the DS era as opposed to RSE, but it's a little difficult to say why. I think what I liked about it was that instead of concentrating on gameplay gimmicks and features, the developers instead concentrated on refinements, i.e. making the game as smooth and clutter-free as possible. It's certainly a huge improvement over the RS engine, it's noticeably faster, the text is more readable and there are quite a few gameplay enhancements (icons for the bag for instance), a lot of which patched into Emerald (which is more than can be said for the initial pre-patched Diamond & Pearl experience *shudders*). They're little things, admittedly, but I do love small, thoughtful touches above all. It's quite nice for a game to get out of the way and just let me play if you know what I mean. I think that this refined gameplay is possibly the reason why the FireRed engine seems to be the defacto choice for ROM hackers.

I also liked the extent the developers went to to keep faithful to the originals - little things like the START menu deliberately resized from RSE to not take up all the screen, or the hero deliberately not turning around to face a trainer who's spotted them, echoing the programming oversight in the originals. I also like the lava cookie near the truck as a small tribute to fans and the legendary Mew theory. I like how legendary Pokémon, instead of having their own theme, have kept the standard wild battle theme but with a remixed twist.

I quite enjoyed the addition of the Sevii Isles and their links to Johto. I would have liked to seen more out of them but I was more than happy with what I got. Weirdly enough, the only feature I actively missed out of RSE was berry trees, though I could live with it. :P I actually miss the VS Seeker - I much preferred that than having to either wait for someone to call me or look them up on the PokéNav, though ORAS really came through in that regard with its trainer alerts so I'm happy.

I had no issues per-say with the addition of the help system, the battle tutorial and the Teachy TV, since it helped ease brand new players into the game. Considering that the games are designed to be playable for children of 3-10 years, it was slightly baffling that something like this hadn't been introduced before. I think they may have gone a little overboard, and they obviously reigned it back in later releases, but it's by no means a game breaker because, as a veteran player, you can just switch them off. It also meant that you didn't have to buy a strategy guide or look through the manual as a first-time player - by providing an easy-to-understand all-digital in-game help system, it was arguably ahead of its time.

Despite lack of gameplay features compared to RSE, they were still the second best-selling games of all time for the Gameboy Advance behind Emerald, and they also received a Player's Choice edition (a distinction not shared with RSE), suggesting that they did at least do something right.

In any case, I regard FRLG as a vital first step - testing the waters (including wireless play). Players were more than receptive of the remakes, the additional features that were present and were hungry for more, and it gave Game Freak the confidence to make more remakes with even better features and additional plot extras that we've all come to enjoy.

BettyNewbie February 9th, 2015 4:20 PM

Very interesting post, Kip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kip (Post 8613074)
I think it's possible we're looking at these games with the benefit of hindsight. The games were released almost 11 years ago and we've had two quite impressive remakes since which have set a precedent. We mustn't forget these were the very first Pokémon remakes, and there was no precedent set. It was a different time. What do you do? Do you try and stay as faithful as possible to the originals or do you add features, regions and plot to bring it in line with the current generation? The risk with the second strategy is that you may end up diluting and ruining the experience.

If the FRLG remakes were proposed to me right now after HGSS and ORAS, I would say yes, absolutely add the extra features and plot additions we've come to love because I know that it's possible to add them and still stay faithful to the originals, that'd be fantastic. But back in 2004, I would've err'd on the side of caution. This was RBY we were talking about. This was genesis. This was hallowed ground. I would have been very nervous that it would be ruined by Hoenn Pokémon or different plots arcs or characters, etc.

It could be said that FRLG were made under very different (and rather unfortunate circumstances) compared to HGSS and ORAS. The later remakes were mostly made as a favor to veteran fans and because the then-current handhelds could no longer play the originals, with the DS killing GB/C compatibility and the 3DS (well, technically, DSi) killing GBA compatibility. Both the GSC and RSE cartridges also suffered from battery issues that made them difficult to play (especially in the case of the former), an unfortunate side-effect of both games having a clock before their respective handhelds were really capable of supporting the feature.

With FRLG, it was different. RBY could still be played on the GBA, they weren't plagued with dead batteries, and the games were only 5-6 years old--out of print, but not terribly hard to find for a reasonable price.

Instead, the only real issue was Ruby and Sapphire. They couldn't trade with the earlier Generations, and they only had 200 of the 386 total Pokémon, leaving a whopping 186 completely MIA. Many people feared that the franchise had been rebooted for real and that those "missing" Pokémon were gone for good, along with the regions and characters from RBY/GSC (as Ruby and Sapphire contained few to no references to Kanto/Johto).

So, thus, FRLG could be seen as a last-ditch attempt on GF's part to win back the people repelled by Ruby and Sapphire and bring back those "missing" Pokémon. There's just no other way to explain why the games were rushed out so early, years before they should've been made, IMO. If it hadn't been for Ruby and Sapphire's hard reboot, we probably wouldn't have gotten FRLG until well into the DS era, at the earliest.

Things have changed since then. Now, both RBY and FRLG are 10 or more years old, neither of which can be played on a 3DS. Age has also finally started to catch up to RBY's cartridge batteries (since they lacked a clock, they took longer to die than GSC and RSE). And, both versions of Gen 1 are long out of print and are literally selling for a fortune on sites like eBay. ($900 for a 15 year old Pokémon game, whoo-hoo!) And, if it's any cheaper than an arm and a leg, it's probably a bootleg.

And, most importantly, GF has learned how to make remakes since then. These are all reasons why Gen 1 could use another go and get its own HGSS or ORAS. Give the original games the remakes they deserve, not the remakes another pair of games need.

ST2111 February 10th, 2015 6:41 PM

I remember when FireRed and LeafGreen were announced Pokemon fans everywhere were happy they were going to get to play the remakes of Red and Blue for the Gameboy Advance.

It seems to me that since that people's expectations have grown along with the franchise. I enjoy FireRed/LeafGreen because they didn't deviate too much from what made their predecessors so successful. It wasn't about having a Night/Day system or any of the bells and whistles R/S/E had. So when compared to HGSS or ORAS, FRLG are going to pale in comparison, however I don't believe it was the goal of GameFreaks to remake Red/Blue to begin with.

Their premise was simple...recapture the novelty and creativity of catching Pokemon in the GameBoy Advance era. With the releases HGSS and ORAS people's expectations are much more strict than it was when FRLG were first released.

CoffeeDrink February 10th, 2015 7:38 PM

Well, suffice it to say that Fire Red and Leaf Green don't deserve the ridicule that they're seeing here.

Hey You Pikachu! This. This game. What went wrong with Hey You Pikachu!? Everything. Worst Pokémon game ever. But I digress. . .

It's astonishing that these games receive tons of heat for just existing, but this is beyond ridiculous at how they've become attacked and nitpicked to the point where I have to stop and scratch my head. For me, Kanto is better than Hoenn so it automatically has favor behind it, but that aside why continually permeate the area with tiny little nitpicks about the game?

What's that? You don't like the Fame Checker or the Teachy T.V.? Well bully for you! That's like going to the grocery store and hating on all the grapefruits. Can't reach the bananas without passing the grapefruits so I suggest getting over the fact that there are items in the game that are 'useless' and don't add any significance to the game. You don't have to buy or eat the grapefruits and the same can be said about the Teachy T.V. Or maybe you're concerned that the addition of grapefruits in the produce section retracts from the experience of picking out potatoes.

mew_nani February 10th, 2015 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8614583)
Well, suffice it to say that Fire Red and Leaf Green don't deserve the ridicule that they're seeing here.

Hey You Pikachu! This. This game. What went wrong with Hey You Pikachu!? Everything. Worst Pokémon game ever. But I digress. . .

It's astonishing that these games receive tons of heat for just existing, but this is beyond ridiculous at how they've become attacked and nitpicked to the point where I have to stop and scratch my head. For me, Kanto is better than Hoenn so it automatically has favor behind it, but that aside why continually permeate the area with tiny little nitpicks about the game?

What's that? You don't like the Fame Checker or the Teachy T.V.? Well bully for you! That's like going to the grocery store and hating on all the grapefruits. Can't reach the bananas without passing the grapefruits so I suggest getting over the fact that there are items in the game that are 'useless' and don't add any significance to the game. You don't have to buy or eat the grapefruits and the same can be said about the Teachy T.V. Or maybe you're concerned that the addition of grapefruits in the produce section retracts from the experience of picking out potatoes.

It's not so much pure hatred for FR/LG. It's a decent game, it works pretty glitch free, and it is a wonderful port of Pokemon Red and Green. It's just that we have HG/SS, which not only brings back what we loved in Gold and Silver but adds to it in such a way that it enhances it and makes it even better than the game it was based off of. Especially concerning Kanto; all the changes made to Kanto are still there, but many of the things people missed like Mewtwo and the legendary birds being missing and Viridian Forest were returned, and all kinds of awesome crap was added like the Pokethelon and Johto's very own Battle Frontier and even a Safari Zone that let you customize which Pokemon you ran into. Compared to those games, which are even better than the originals, FR/LG are quite bare bones. There's no real way of getting berries outside of Berry Forest, there's no weather, there's no breeding until post game, and while the Sevii Islands were great and there was more of a post game added, the game could still have been made better than it was. How awesome would it have been for the Sevii Islands to be their own region, and for a Battle Frontier to have been added instead of the Trainer Tower, or having Pikachu be able to follow the trainer and have the surfing minigame available, or simply even being able to evolve Pokemon without the aid of the National Dex? Blissey and Crobat are unobtainable until after you beat the game, and it sucks for your beloved Chansey or Golbat to be barred from their final stage of evolution because they're not in the Regional Dex even though they should be. And then there's the long quest of making long distance trades possible, which shouldn't have been so complicated.

Nobody is saying they're the worst remakes ever, and they were adequate for reliving our memories in Kanto. But they could have been on the same tier as HeartGold and SoulSilver, and that's what we're discussing here.

CoffeeDrink February 11th, 2015 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8614684)
It's not so much pure hatred for FR/LG. It's a decent game, it works pretty glitch free, and it is a wonderful port of Pokemon Red and Green. It's just that we have HG/SS, which not only brings back what we loved in Gold and Silver but adds to it in such a way that it enhances it and makes it even better than the game it was based off of. Especially concerning Kanto; all the changes made to Kanto are still there, but many of the things people missed like Mewtwo and the legendary birds being missing and Viridian Forest were returned, and all kinds of awesome crap was added like the Pokethelon and Johto's very own Battle Frontier and even a Safari Zone that let you customize which Pokemon you ran into. Compared to those games, which are even better than the originals, FR/LG are quite bare bones. There's no real way of getting berries outside of Berry Forest, there's no weather, there's no breeding until post game, and while the Sevii Islands were great and there was more of a post game added, the game could still have been made better than it was. How awesome would it have been for the Sevii Islands to be their own region, and for a Battle Frontier to have been added instead of the Trainer Tower, or having Pikachu be able to follow the trainer and have the surfing minigame available, or simply even being able to evolve Pokemon without the aid of the National Dex? Blissey and Crobat are unobtainable until after you beat the game, and it sucks for your beloved Chansey or Golbat to be barred from their final stage of evolution because they're not in the Regional Dex even though they should be. And then there's the long quest of making long distance trades possible, which shouldn't have been so complicated.

Nobody is saying they're the worst remakes ever, and they were adequate for reliving our memories in Kanto. But they could have been on the same tier as HeartGold and SoulSilver, and that's what we're discussing here.

I see, but look at it from the 'true' perspective and the purists. To change so much within the games such as adding breeding, berries, and a slew of other options may have detracted from that Blue/Red Experience you see. It's bare bones perhaps because it was bare bones to begin with. So, as the record stands, Leaf Green and Fire Red are closer to 'updates' than those of Gold and Silver. Sure, they could have been better, but then again when has that not been said about any video game? They removed several glitches in the game and it was a smooth transitioning experience. To rail on it like no tomorrow clearly shows, to me, that some can never be truly pleased no matter what. It felt like Kanto, and that's what it was supposed to do. Mission accomplished.

mew_nani February 11th, 2015 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8614795)
I see, but look at it from the 'true' perspective and the purists. To change so much within the games such as adding breeding, berries, and a slew of other options may have detracted from that Blue/Red Experience you see. It's bare bones perhaps because it was bare bones to begin with. So, as the record stands, Leaf Green and Fire Red are closer to 'updates' than those of Gold and Silver. Sure, they could have been better, but then again when has that not been said about any video game? They removed several glitches in the game and it was a smooth transitioning experience. To rail on it like no tomorrow clearly shows, to me, that some can never be truly pleased no matter what. It felt like Kanto, and that's what it was supposed to do. Mission accomplished.

Still HeartGold and SoulSilver had all the old Apricorn trees but allowed you to grow berries too. HeartGold and SoulSilver returned Viridian Forest from a path in a bunch of trees to a full on forest again, as well as restoring Seafoam Islands to their former glory. Gold and Silver didn't have the Unknown Dungeon, and HG/SS restored it. In short, it made the region better and more fleshed out than if it had just copied everything from Gold and Silver without improving on it.

The idea of a remake isn't just to copy over an old game and put a new coat of paint on it. The idea is to improve things that could have been made better, and make it a more compelling experience. FireRed and LeafGreen were good but they weren't as good as they could have been. Maybe they didn't need a lot of bells or whistles, but they still could have added some things Red and Blue lacked while keeping the feel of the region. As they are, they're alright, but they could have been made the best freaking remakes of Red and Blue EVER. After all, the originals will always be there. If you enjoy the simplicity and maybe the numerous glitches you can always play the old games. You don't need to just do a copy paste and add virtually nothing, and unfortunately that's what FR/LG is. A copy paste with better graphics and layouts from Pokemon Red and Green.

mew_nani February 11th, 2015 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TISSUEPAPERGHOST (Post 8615355)
I don't particularly like or dislike FRLG as a whole. They're just "eh" for me. But, here are some thoughts.

-the help system, teachy tv, and battle tutorial didn't bother me. I haven't played Red/Blue since 2000 or 2001, so I kind of automatically assumed those were in the originals because I forget small details like that.
-I liked the design of the water
-Hearing the same trainer theme 95% of the time got really old. I don't know why they didn't at least use an updated version of the Team Rocket battle theme. It's just anticlimactic when your rival (before champion) and Giovanni (first 2 battles) have the same theme as regular trainers. On a positive music note, I liked the Champion theme.
-the Sevii Islands themselves were short, but I liked the added sidequests with Lostelle and Team Rocket.

These are personal things that I can't fault the games for; it's just who I am/how I feel as a player.
-I didn't like the "catch x amount of Pokemon, get reward" because catching Pokemon is just tedious and boring for me. I didn't get Flash and just went through Rock Tunnel without it because of this, even though the required amount was only 10. I only got to Four Island onwards on 1 or 2 files, because catching 60 Pokemon felt like doing a 100 question assignment on things I already know: it's not hard, but it takes a long time and makes me feel like an empty worker drone
-The Kanto region doesn't excite me in general, other than Celadon City, the S.S. Anne, and the Power Plant. Unlike the other regions, there's not much backstory or history given to it, or epic evironments. For me, it was like two slices of bread with nothing in between.

The help system and Teachy TV were not originally in Red and Blue. I actually used Teachy TV because LeafGreen was my first Pokemon game and I had no clue how the mechanics worked. I thought it was fine, and it's way better than having your rival teach you how to catch Pokemon for the 15th time with no way to opt out of it. The requirements for catching Pokemon to get certain things I think were originally in Red and Blue with the exception of getting the National Dex, as... well.. there was no National Dex. 151 Pokemon were all there were, discounting the other 100 something glitches.

Cerberus87 February 11th, 2015 3:43 PM

All this talk about FRLG "forgetting" Yellow is funny, because ORAS also "forgot" Emerald, even going as far as cutting characters only introduced in Emerald (Juan and Scott), and reusing the inferior gym rosters from RS, yet ORAS is being praised for being a "proper" remake.

Let's not forget that the Delta Episode, which is NOT a nod to Emerald but an entirely new thing and a way to fit Rayquaza into the RS modified story, was where Pokémon pulled a Dallas with its "alternate timelines" story, which effectively renders all games from 3rd to 5th gen irrelevant.

So no, I definitely don't consider ORAS a "proper" remake.

I'll even go as far as saying the only reason they added so much stuff to HGSS is because the original game had a lot of things cut out from it, due to space, and the larger DS carts were more than enough to expand on the original regions. Also, GF addressed some fan issues with the games, namely the lack of Safari Zone.

Compared to Hoenn, the Johto/Kanto pair of GSC had much more room for improvement. What would they add to Hoenn, really? There was nothing, because the region was already "locked down". The only way they could expand it was to the sky, which they did with the soaring feature.

They could've added Johto to FRLG but it wouldn't work story-wise because Red is already supposed to be the "ultimate" trainer when he becomes Champion. What excuse would he have to go to Johto to earn more badges? GSC had an excuse: Red himself. But in FRLG there was no such further challenge.

Adding to what Kip said, another feature in FRLG that carried over to future games was E4 rematches. FRLG were the first games to have that.

Pendraflare February 11th, 2015 4:20 PM

As one who just recently completed Leaf Green for a challenge I did, allow me to state... Some people already mentioned, but as these games were meant to be remakes of the original RB, and not Generation I as a whole, I didn't mind that they left out things from Yellow. But in general, there was a lot about them I enjoyed - there were things about them left to be desired, but I don't mind playing them.

mew_nani February 11th, 2015 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8615389)
All this talk about FRLG "forgetting" Yellow is funny, because ORAS also "forgot" Emerald, even going as far as cutting characters only introduced in Emerald (Juan and Scott), and reusing the inferior gym rosters from RS, yet ORAS is being praised for being a "proper" remake.

Let's not forget that the Delta Episode, which is NOT a nod to Emerald but an entirely new thing and a way to fit Rayquaza into the RS modified story, was where Pokémon pulled a Dallas with its "alternate timelines" story, which effectively renders all games from 3rd to 5th gen irrelevant.

So no, I definitely don't consider ORAS a "proper" remake.

I'll even go as far as saying the only reason they added so much stuff to HGSS is because the original game had a lot of things cut out from it, due to space, and the larger DS carts were more than enough to expand on the original regions. Also, GF addressed some fan issues with the games, namely the lack of Safari Zone.

Compared to Hoenn, the Johto/Kanto pair of GSC had much more room for improvement. What would they add to Hoenn, really? There was nothing, because the region was already "locked down". The only way they could expand it was to the sky, which they did with the soaring feature.

They could've added Johto to FRLG but it wouldn't work story-wise because Red is already supposed to be the "ultimate" trainer when he becomes Champion. What excuse would he have to go to Johto to earn more badges? GSC had an excuse: Red himself. But in FRLG there was no such further challenge.

Adding to what Kip said, another feature in FRLG that carried over to future games was E4 rematches. FRLG were the first games to have that.

Well... there WERE some places near Hoenn like Faraway Island.... maybe expand on that? Or they could have a huge cave system underneath the sea a la Final Fantasy IV. Or an underwater kingdom. Heck have them version exclusives for Ruby and Sapphire respectively. But that's beside the point. (To be honest I don't really consider them remakes either. They're what if scenarios at best; I refuse to think of them as proper remakes.)

I doubt we could really go into Johto in FR/LG, as we'd just be seeing the region in a beta state, but the Sevii Isles could use some expansion. The idea they had behind them was to make them bigger, and I'd love to see them bigger with maybe even some Hoenn Pokemon like Wingull available, seeing as how Sevii is pretty far out at sea like Hoenn.

Cerberus87 February 11th, 2015 6:55 PM

A remake doesn't really need to add much to the original game. Star Fox 64 3D was criticized for being too similar to the N64 original. But I think the criticism is baseless, because the game was already pretty solid from the get go, and adding more would make it worse.

SF643D is worth it because:

- Graphics. The 3DS shits all over the N64 graphics wise, and it also has the 3D effect which I found good.
- Portability. 3DS is portable, so you can play the game everywhere, unlike the N64.
- Hiscore mode. This is a BIG plus that's often overlooked. For hardcore players, it's a great feature, because it means you don't have to play the story to try a high score on a specific level.
- Better multiplayer. It only works locally but it's far more varied than on the N64. We lost Landmaster and on-foot characters, sure, but those were vastly inferior to the Arwing anyway, and the new power ups make up for it.

Voices aren't the same, which is a bummer, but they had to change them because of rights issues.

I had a blast playing through SF643D, even though it was just the same game I owned on the N64 with a new coat of paint.

I also disagree that FRLG were "rushed". I could say the original Red and Green were "rushed", too, because of the incredible amount of glitches in those games, but there's no direct correlation to being "rushed". Games are usually planned at least 3 years before their release. It's quite possible GF made Ruby and Sapphire already with the idea they'd remake 1st gen some time later.

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

Finally, I never use the Teachy TV, to the point of not even knowing it's there sometimes, and the battle tutorial only lasts during a single battle at the very beginning of the game, so it's not a big issue, especially when a lot of modern games have amounts of handholding that far exceed what's in FRLG, and especially modern Pokémon games tend to have forced Pokémon catching tutorials.

Chronosplit February 12th, 2015 11:25 AM

FRLG is good, it does everything it set out to do. Good remake, fixes every single bug with the original thanks to the Gen 3 engine, contributed some code to Emerald, made Pokemon available that weren't before, manages to look better and be better built than Ruby/Sapphire, and added a decent island postgame. It's a great game that... I don't understand the opinions in this thread about.

There is one thing I find went wrong with it though: though it succeeded in making Kanto feel like Kanto, it stuck too close. You have Pokemon in Gym Leader's teams for no reason other than because it was there in the originals, completely screwing up why they were there in the first place (Sabrina's Venomoth, Blaine's pre-evolved Pokemon, Bruno's Onix). You have the trainer fixed in facing just because they did it in the originals (though it's long been fixed, thanks Jambo51). Limited evolutions while a decent idea to preserve Kanto, end up more annoying than anything when only seven (five when taking complete lack of RTC into account) actually needed to be barred and could be easily incorporated in later teams because breeding and trading to other versions never happened until post-game (fixed without needing the National Dex). Some movesets, while improved over the originals later in the game, aren't very imaginative compared to their Hoenn counterparts (Lt. Surge, Blaine, Giovanni as leader). While it's true that the game didn't add too much and I'm more than fine with that approach, they went out of their way to replicate things long fixed.

Nowadays we've easily hacked out these annoyances that were created for first-time players. Help was always able to be turned off, Oak tutorials are easy as whiting out six bytes, remove the intro/journal if desired, etc.. I get why they were there, but why didn't they do this with Ruby/Sapphire instead? The intended audience is people who played before obviously, so they don't need this stuff. The biggest crime about this however is twofold: in the beginning of the game, where before Brock the Nidorans are replaced with Yellow's Mankey making it about as easy as "Low Kick everything" as opposed to thinking around it with discovering what Nidorans/Butterfree/your starter learns, and SelfDestruct is removed from almost every trainer that can use it. Check the trainer data, it proves it via custom movesets.

But hey, we've long since ironed these out. This is a good remake. I just hope later when they revisit they'll be ironed out officially.

BettyNewbie February 12th, 2015 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8615586)
Also, the timing of their release makes sense because they're remakes of Red and Green, which were released in Japan in 1996. FRLG were released in 2004, that's 8 years later, which is a lot of time.

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

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

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

Mega_Kris February 12th, 2015 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616366)
Technically, even 8 years is still less than the gaps that separate HGSS (10 years) and ORAS (12 years) from their respective originals. To remake Red and Green in 2004 was literally akin to what Diamond and Pearl remakes would've felt like in 2014.

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

Quote:

And, the 8 years only applies to Japan, mind you. The rest of us got RBY in 1998-99, only 5-6 years before FRLG (technically, slightly less than 5 years in the case of Yellow). For most of us, the originals were still as fresh then as HGSS and BW are to us now... You don't see many people calling for remakes of either of those games, do you?
considering we saw 2 generations on the same video game console (DS), asking for remakes for those games isn't going to much. the difference is between two generation of consoles.
Quote:

Searching around YouTube, I found a very good review of FRLG. She does a good job of explaining everything that's wrong with these games... Namely, what few good things you can say about them also apply to the originals. She also had a very good point about GF using these games to try to replace Pokémon's original fanbase (as opposed to embracing them like GF did with HGSS and ORAS) with all of the excess handholding and tutorials.
i agree with half of it. but there are some things just felt "wrong". The first minute although praises the game for being a remake, criticizes it as well for being one as well. i understand exactly that she wants to see something new, just not something "completely" new. now i do admit, FRLG definitely needed improvements, but one of the examples such as companion, she even justifies for possibly having too little room for it. Some features of yellow could've been welcomed...but considering i don't believe yellow is canon, it tells me a lot.
i agreed with her reasoning, but overall when she said there was no need for a remake, that was when it just clicked "then don't play it". or don't ask for one. Or at least: when a remake is made, don't hate on it for not having use or being a faithful, standard remake.

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

Cerberus87 February 12th, 2015 7:16 PM

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

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

BettyNewbie February 12th, 2015 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8616599)
considering we saw 2 generations on the same video game console (DS), asking for remakes for those games isn't going to much. the difference is between two generation of consoles.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8616599)
i agree with half of it. but there are some things just felt "wrong". The first minute although praises the game for being a remake, criticizes it as well for being one as well. i understand exactly that she wants to see something new, just not something "completely" new. now i do admit, FRLG definitely needed improvements, but one of the examples such as companion, she even justifies for possibly having too little room for it. Some features of yellow could've been welcomed...but considering i don't believe yellow is canon, it tells me a lot.
i agreed with her reasoning, but overall when she said there was no need for a remake, that was when it just clicked "then don't play it". or don't ask for one. Or at least: when a remake is made, don't hate on it for not having use or being a faithful, standard remake.

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

Cerberus87 February 12th, 2015 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616740)
RBY and GSC were also made for the same handheld, you know. (The GBC was an upgraded rerelease akin to the DSi and New 3DS, rather than a completely separate line like the GBA.) In fact, FRLG were made so soon after RBY that they're the only remakes that can be played on the same handheld as their original counterparts (albeit without trading compatibility).

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

Mega_Kris February 12th, 2015 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616740)
RBY and GSC were also made for the same handheld, you know. (The GBC was an upgraded rerelease akin to the DSi and New 3DS, rather than a completely separate line like the GBA.) In fact, FRLG were made so soon after RBY that they're the only remakes that can be played on the same handheld as their original counterparts (albeit without trading compatibility).

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


Quote:

Her main point was that just about everything that FRLG could be praised for also applied to the original RB, so the games don't really have many merits of their own. And, she is 100% correct.
Because they weren't trying to have any merit of their own, and no one should've expected such significant changes for the first remake EVER in Pokemon. If it was very faithful remake, why complain?

Quote:

What exactly did FRLG bring to the table? What makes them stand out from the other Pokémon games, including their original counterparts? (Aside from being a great base for ROM hacks, that is, LOL.)
you're clearly missing the point, ro refuse to accept it.....FireRed, and LEafGreen weren't designed to expand all that much, it was a very traditional remake. ANd considering that the remake amp'd up the graphics, that is still a good feature.

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

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

Cerberus87 February 12th, 2015 10:03 PM

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

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

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

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

BettyNewbie February 12th, 2015 10:08 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8616753)
But the lack of trade was an important technological gap, IMO. If they, like, released Sinnoh remakes on the New 3DS in 2018, it would still make sense because you can't use the 4th gen games with Pokémon Bank despite the fact they're playable on the New 3DS. Besides, all the 4th gen games are out of print and the boxed copies you can find are too expensive.

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

Mega_Kris February 12th, 2015 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616863)
I'm really getting tired of arguing about this over and over with you, Shiny Unown. Look, if you want to spend money on the exact same game over and over again, go knock yourself out, but don't whine and argue when people have the nerve to expect more than that.

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

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

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

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

And, it was a technological gap that could've been handled better. Why didn't Ruby and Sapphire have a second postgame region for all of the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex? Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.
First things first, software capabilities could be the biggest reason why. For example: When FF1, 2, and 4 were remade onto Wonderswan (and later ported to GBA), FF3 was too big to be remade. took too much time to code, and overall were understaffed (similar to Gamefreak's situation) that was because when it was on NES, the game already packed so much. FF 1 and 2 could fit in one NES cartridge combined, but FF3 took up all of it. The game wasn't properly remade until the DS.

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

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

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

Unown Seer February 12th, 2015 11:41 PM

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Cerberus87 February 12th, 2015 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616863)
And, it was a technological gap that could've been handled better. Why didn't Ruby and Sapphire have a second postgame region for all of the Pokémon missing in the Hoenn Dex? Or, why couldn't they have just given us a RBY/GSC sequel that was set in Kanto and Johto? Mediocre remakes weren't needed.

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

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

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

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

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

Unown Seer February 12th, 2015 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8616919)
All the GBA Pokémon games are on 16MB carts.

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

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8616888)
I'm getting tired that you feel so entitled that every pokemon game has to be made for you in specifically, and if it doesn't meet your standards, its no good (and your standards is that it automatically has to have the latest features, which shows me you don't know the benefits of remakes)....

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8616888)
if you still own REd/Blue...you still play the crap out of it. and you enjoy every little bit...then go right ahead and not play FRLG....but for those who hate the sprites on them, found the original very Jarring to play with its color limitations. then FRLG is perfect for them......

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8616919)
Hoenn is quite large compared to Johto. Of course, half of it is water, but large patches of aquatic nothingness take space, too, and there are the Dive areas to take into account. Another region may have required a bigger cart.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8616912)
I personally didn't even know what to expect when FRLG were announced. Just the existence of the Sevii Islands was a surprise for many, and even though they could have been fleshed out, I give FRLG credit for being the only remakes with a decent number of new areas. After I had played the games I wanted Game Freak to develop a 10th anniversary title focusing on Mew and Mewtwo, which is what FRLG were truly missing. But that didn't happen, nor has anything in that vein happened ever since. That doesn't make me want another set of remakes, though.

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8616912)
That's ironic coming from someone who has been saying that they should re-remake the games rather than give sequels a try.

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

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616947)
What are your thoughts on ORAS? Unlike FRLG and even HGSS, ORAS was treated more like a reboot instead of a remake, so it expanded on its original games' story by a lot. (Granted, it's a story and setting that I've never been a huge fan of, but I can respect what ORAS did with it.)

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

You need a prequel before you can have a sequel. Neither GSC or HGSS (Gen 1's actual sequels, BTW) exist in the current timeline, so sequels are pretty much out of the question.
The distinction between the timelines is only important if Game Freak choose to make Mega Evolution prominent in Kanto's story, which they shouldn't (if only for the fact that they've already done with it Hoenn). Origins has already shown us that the Kanto story isn't supposed to be much different even with Mega Evolution involved. Sure, you can argue that Game Freak would do it differently, but nothing says that they will or should. It baffles me that you're using Mega Evolution as an excuse for not actually doing something new and unique with Kanto.

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

CoffeeDrink February 13th, 2015 4:14 AM

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

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

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

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8617102)
And the split between Special and the change from Poison being Super Effective against Bug types is enough to actually say with certainty that "This isn't exactly the same".

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

Abilities were a big deal, too.

Chronosplit February 13th, 2015 8:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8616925)
The Japanese versions of Ruby and Sapphire used 8MB cartridges. I doubt that Emerald's data took up the entire 16MB allotted to it.

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

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

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 9:05 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8616982)
The distinction between the timelines is only important if Game Freak choose to make Mega Evolution prominent in Kanto's story, which they shouldn't (if only for the fact that they've already done with it Hoenn).

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8616982)
Origins has already shown us that the Kanto story isn't supposed to be much different even with Mega Evolution involved.

Origins is not canon.

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617339)
Well, surprise, surprise. Guess who it is?

I was really pleased to find you here, too.

Quote:

That's why they reset the timeline with ORAS, to explain why Megas and Fairies existed in Hoenn, but not Kanto, Johto, Sinnoh, and Unova.
To conclude from this that every single generation needs to be remade to account for Mega Evolution is nothing short of grasping at straws.

Quote:

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

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617516)
It's ridiculous to discount the previous games just because they lack Mega Evolution.

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

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

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

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617540)
You don't get it, the previous timelines aren't GF's concern anymore. Yes, they still exist, but they're old, closed timelines. Just like Paramount isn't rushing to make a new spinoff of Star Trek: TNG, GF isn't rushing to make a new sequel to GSC or HGSS. It's a dead timeline that they've moved on from.

No, you don't get it. We have no evidence that the distinction between the timelines is even important when it comes to Kanto. It is only an issue if Game Freak choose to make it so.

Quote:

Well, you can't so easily do that with a sequel, because both GSC and HGSS already established that the two regions were closely connected and shared a League.
Things can change over time, you know. Even real-life countries can change their relationships.

Quote:

The older games went down in a way that prevents all of these from happening, so a sequel wouldn't fix these problems at all without completely violating previously established continuity.
Wrong. Game Freak can choose to flesh out whomever they like via sequels. Even Leaf and Kris may exist even though we never saw them in HGSS, which was actually implied for Kris by way of Elm's third starter being given to an unseen trainer.

Also, it's fairly naive to believe that everything you didn't like about the previous games would be fixed in a new continuity. Learn to accept that Game Freak's job isn't to cater to your specific desires.

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617550)
No, you don't get it. We have no evidence that the distinction between the timelines is even important when it comes to Kanto. It is only an issue if Game Freak choose to make it so.

Well, clearly it IS important to GF if they went through the trouble of establishing a brand new timeline in ORAS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617550)
Game Freak can choose to flesh out whomever they like via sequels.

GSC and HGSS effectively finished Team Rocket's story, however unsatisfactorily it was handled for many people. There just isn't anything further that could be done with them without hitting the reset button and telling their story better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617550)
Even Leaf and Kris may exist even though we never saw them in HGSS.

No, they can't. Kris' role was effectively replaced by Lyra, and Green/Leaf was never established to exist separately from Red.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617550)
Learn to accept that Game Freak's job isn't to cater to your specific desires.

Says the person who expects GF to stop making remakes altogether and try to fix things THEY don't like in sequels. :rolleyes2:

CoffeeDrink February 13th, 2015 1:04 PM

I think this thread turned into a 'No, You' bout. . . I'll be in my ready room drinking coffee when we're all ready to talk sense again.

And yes, a larger pool of moves and abilities (Levitate much?) really blew a lot of the potential difficulty out the airlock. Rock and Ice types were destroyed with Steel Wing and Dark ruled the Psychic domain and there wasn't so much that could be done about it.

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 1:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617562)
Well, clearly it IS important to GF if they went through the trouble of establishing a brand new timeline in ORAS.

I wasn't aware that a single line of text was considered much effort these days. Not to mention that Zinnia only mentioned the existence of a different Hoenn.

Quote:

GSC and HGSS effectively finished Team Rocket's story, however unsatisfactorily it was handled for many people. There just isn't anything further that could be done with them without hitting the reset button and telling their story better.
Good. I don't want to see the organization again, but that doesn't mean that Giovanni and possibly the admins can't be given closure in another way.

Quote:

Kris' role was effectively replaced by Lyra, and Green/Leaf was never established to exist separately from Red.
Just because they were never established to exist separately from their male counterparts doesn't mean that they couldn't possibly still exist behind the scenes and become important later. But I am not going to dwell on this, because it's silly to pretend that any character should determine Game Freak's projects. Sadly, we may never see Kris or Leaf again regardless of what Game Freak choose to do with their regions.

Quote:

Says the person who expects GF to stop making remakes altogether and try to fix things THEY don't like in sequels. :rolleyes2:
When did I say any of these things? I expect DP to be remade around 5 five years from now, but that doesn't mean that there should be even more remakes before then. And I don't want sequels to be about "fixing" things so much as doing new (not semi-new) things with familiar characters. Based on my experience with B2W2, I'm fully aware that sequels don't necessarily have to be amazing, but at least they're more innovative than remakes.

mew_nani February 13th, 2015 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8617584)
I think this thread turned into a 'No, You' bout. . . I'll be in my ready room drinking coffee when we're all ready to talk sense again.

And yes, a larger pool of moves and abilities (Levitate much?) really blew a lot of the potential difficulty out the airlock. Rock and Ice types were destroyed with Steel Wing and Dark ruled the Psychic domain and there wasn't so much that could be done about it.

Yeah... In general there wasn't too much difficulty unless you had no clue what you were doing. One thing I DID like though, which was carried over from R/B, was the ability to challenge the gyms non-sequentially. The only ones you needed to do in order were the first, second, and eighth gyms, and the others you could do in whatever order you liked. I wish more games had that; Pokemon tends to be really linear, making you defeat the gyms in order, and the first gen was the only ones where this didn't apply. Can we have a Pokemon game where this is once again possible?

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
Not to mention that Zinnia only mentioned the existence of a different Hoenn.

And, I wasn't aware that Hoenn existed in a vacuum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
Good. I don't want to see the organization again, but that doesn't mean that Giovanni and possibly the admins can't be given closure in another way.

Yeah, screw all of those other fans who like Team Rocket, right? :rolleyes2:

What would be the point of bringing back Giovanni and the Admins if there's no Team Rocket? Their characters would be completely irrelevant to the main story, and their inclusion in the games would only feel forced and extraneous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
Just because they were never established to exist separately from their male counterparts doesn't mean that they couldn't possibly still exist behind the scenes and become important later.

No, it does. If the guys exist, then they don't exist, and vice-versa, and since GF decided to side with the guys, then they don't exist, period.

Lyra (love her or hate her), on the other hand, was established to exist separately from her male counterpart, so she's his equal in the same way as the later region female PCs are to their male counterparts. (Albeit, an equality that came at the expense of Kris' character.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
Sadly, we may never see Kris or Leaf again regardless of what Game Freak choose to do with their regions.

Which is absolutely tragic, IMO. What kind of message does that send to girls playing the games? -_-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
When did I say any of these things?

In your own words (bolded by me):

Quote:

After I had played the games I wanted Game Freak to develop a 10th anniversary title focusing on Mew and Mewtwo, which is what FRLG were truly missing. But that didn't happen, nor has anything in that vein happened ever since. That doesn't make me want another set of remakes, though.

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

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
I expect DP to be remade around 5 five years from now,

Gen 1 will likely be the next remake, like it or not. FRLG are the next oldest games after RSE, and Gen 1 is the only Gen that can't be played on current hardware (all of Gens 4 and later are compatible, and Gens 2 and 3 are via their respective remakes). If you don't want another remake, then nobody's forcing you to buy the games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617615)
And I don't want sequels to be about "fixing" things so much as doing new (not semi-new) things with familiar characters.

The familiar characters that return, that is. (Although, B2W2 were, at least, much better about this than GSC/HGSS were.)

I'd rather fix the older games' flaws before making any new continuations. There are many continuity holes between Gens 1 and 2, and certain characters were completely screwed over by the narrative. Plus, there's some gameplay-related elements I'd like to improve upon, as well. Then, after that, we can start talking about sequels.

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 2:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617657)
And, I wasn't aware that Hoenn existed in a vacuum.

It doesn't exist in a vaccum, but just because Mega Evolution altered its history doesn't mean that something similar happened in Kanto. Zinnia only referred to the history of Mega Evolution in Hoenn, and it was made abundantly clear that it wasn't something common.

Quote:

What would be the point of bringing back Giovanni and the Admins if there's no Team Rocket? Their characters would be completely irrelevant to the main story, and their inclusion in the games would only feel forced and extraneous.
There is such a thing called character development, which you may not care about. Both Giovanni and Archer disbanded Team Rocket and I would expect them to move on with their lives, despite Giovanni's relapse in HGSS.

Quote:

If the guys exist, then they don't exist, and vice-versa, and since GF decided to side with the guys, then they don't exist, period.
They don't exist as the PCs. That's all.

Quote:

Lyra (love her or hate her), on the other hand, was established to exist separately from her male counterpart,
So what? This doesn't preclude the possibility of Kris and Leaf existing in the HGSS continuity despite not appearing in those games. Being MIA doesn't necessarily mean not existing, which you know fully well considering your stance on Jessie and James in Generation II.

Quote:

In your own words (bolded by me):
So? I am not allowed to make an observation that the remakes haven't deviated much from the original stories? Even the ORAS additions revolved around Mega Evolution rather than plotholes from the original games.

Quote:

Gen 1 will likely be the next remake, like it or not.
This may come as a shock, but your thinking this doesn't make it true. Most fans don't share your opinion about the prospect of re-remakes.

Quote:

FRLG are the next oldest games after RSE, and Gen 1 is the only Gen that can't be played on current hardware
Which doesn't mean that a return to Kanto necessitates another set of remakes.

Quote:

I'd rather fix the older games' flaws before making any new continuations.
It isn't your call.

Quote:

Then, after that, we can start talking about sequels.
More like re-remakes of the other generations. No thanks.

I think I'm done derailing this thread. It was obvious that you started this thread just to promote your bias toward the "ultimate remakes" that only exist in your head, but you're going too far.

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
It doesn't exist in a vaccum, but just because Mega Evolution altered its history doesn't mean that something similar happened in Kanto. Zinnia only referred to the history of Mega Evolution in Hoenn, and it was made abundantly clear that it wasn't something common.

She only referred to Hoenn because that's the region ORAS was focusing on. It's silly to assume that just because she didn't mention the other regions (besides Kalos) means that Megas (and Fairies) don't exist there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
Both Giovanni and Archer disbanded Team Rocket and I would expect them to move on with their lives, despite Giovanni's relapse in HGSS.

Which is why there wouldn't be any reason to include them in sequels. They wouldn't have any relevance to the main story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
They don't exist as the PCs. That's all.

And, there's no other role they could possibly serve (because neither Crystal or FRLG gave them one if you played as the guy), so they don't exist period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
Being MIA doesn't necessarily mean not existing, which you know fully well considering your stance on Jessie and James in Generation II.

I would fully agree that Jessie and James don't exist in HGSS' timeline, because those are supposed to be sequels to FRLG, and FRLG never established them as existing. The original timeline is a different story.

Similar can be said for Kris and Green/Leaf. The former DOES exist in the RBY/GSC continuity, as her role as the female PC was not replaced by another character (and no sequel was made that established Gold as the canon PC). It's the FRLG/HGSS one where she doesn't, and that's because her role is filled by Lyra.

Similar can be said for Green/Leaf. She doesn't exist if you play as Red, and vice-versa, and since HGSS are sequels to FRLG as played with the male PC, then Green/Leaf just doesn't exist, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
So? I am not allowed to make an observation that the remakes haven't deviated much from the original stories? Even the ORAS additions revolved around Mega Evolution rather than plotholes from the original games.

So long as you don't endlessly criticize and nitpick other people's observations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
Most fans don't share your opinion about the prospect of re-remakes.

Bulbagarden =/= the entire fandom. There's actually quite a bit of support for a new remake at this site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
Which doesn't mean that a return to Kanto necessitates another set of remakes.

Then, why didn't we get RSE sequels instead of ORAS? Many people want to be able to play through Gen 1's story on a 3DS with modern graphics and mechanics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
It isn't your call.

Just like sequels aren't your call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8617681)
It was obvious that you started this thread just to promote your bias toward the "ultimate remakes" that only exist in your head, but you're going too far.

I'm the biased one? Ha, ha! {XD} Who's the one who derailed the thread to promote his bias towards the "ultimate sequels" that only exist in his head?

mew_nani February 13th, 2015 3:19 PM

Good God you BOTH are derailing the thread. If you guys can't agree on the topics you're arguing over can't you just agree to disagree? Wanting remakes to follow closely to the originals isn't entirely wrong, and neither is wanting more things to be added or bringing back things that people really liked in the originals. I don't think there will possibly be a remake that will please everybody, given everyone's diverse tastes.

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617702)
She only referred to Hoenn because that's the region ORAS was focusing on. It's silly to assume that just because she didn't mention the other regions (besides Kalos) means that Megas (and Fairies) don't exist there.

I never said that they don't exist, but there is no reason to assume that their existence has changed the Kanto story in a notable way that requires more remakes.

Quote:

Which is why there wouldn't be any reason to include them in sequels. They wouldn't have any relevance to the main story.
They would. I don't see the point of discussing it with you here, though.

Quote:

And, there's no other role they could possibly serve (because neither Crystal or FRLG gave them one if you played as the guy), so they don't exist period.
I pity you if you think that the scope of Pokémon world is limited to the player's perspective in a given game. Did the B2W2 characters exist in BW? They did, but we simply didn't get to see them. HGSS even go as far as to pinpoint the existence of an unseen trainer with the third starter, so the theory that Kris still exists is hardly a stretch.

Quote:

Bulbagarden =/= the entire fandom. There's actually quite a bit of support for a new remake at this site.
This site =/= the entire fandom, and even here I see no sign of re-remakes being as well received as regular remakes. You're still arguing with people all the time.

Quote:

Then, why didn't we get RSE sequels instead of ORAS?
Because most fans wanted remakes and made it clear to Game Freak via social media.

Quote:

Many people want to be able to play through Gen 1's story on a 3DS with modern graphics and mechanics.
How many is many? It's just empty words without statistics.

Quote:

Just like sequels aren't your call.
They aren't. But I am not pretending that they're a necessary outcome or that I'm entitled to get them.

Quote:

I'm the biased one? Ha, ha! {XD} Who's the one who derailed the thread to promote his bias towards the "ultimate sequels" that only exist in his head?
I was just pointing out the irony of your complaint about FRLG replacing sequels.

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 4:32 PM

You say a lot of things, Silktree, yet you never provide the slightest bit of hard evidence to back up your claims (while expecting others to do so and getting angry when they don't). You make assumptions and put words into people's mouths, all for the sake of keeping the argument going. It's not even about the subject at hand, but instead, "winning," isn't it? Why else would you not just say "agree to disagree" and move on? Answer: You don't get an ego boost from it.

We disagree on many things, but one thing we do have in common is that we clearly aren't 100% satisfied with the current crop of games GF's putting out. Well, you joined the right site, then. Pokécommunity has a large ROM hacking community filled with talented hackers who can make games that are just as good (if not better) than GF. If you want a Gen 2 sequel so badly, then I recommend either Pokémon Christmas or Pokémon Bronze. Brown is also good if you want something a little different. Want a Mewtwo-centric game? Prototype and Dark Violet are worth supporting. There is a wealth of great games here.

CoffeeDrink February 13th, 2015 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mew_nani (Post 8617712)
Good God you BOTH are derailing the thread. If you guys can't agree on the topics you're arguing over can't you just agree to disagree?

Like I told you Nani, putting sugar and creamer in coffee is a huge crime! Why would you try and change the flavor of the coffee itself? The truth is that you don't even truly like the taste of coffee! You're more inclined to sweeteners and creams and milks (you milk drinker)! The beans have been roasted in such a way that has been a process that has taken years to perfect and you pouring two spoons of sugar in it is sickening! How many cups of 'coffee' would you be able to drink if you keep pouring milk up and down? Every frickin' time I swear, people don't realize that there is a limit to how much milk and creamer you can drink before you throw up and that is not only disgusting, it's not classy at all. And have you ever had to deal with someone who 'hid' or has forgotten their milk laden 'coffee' somewhere and you find it after that thing has festered for a day or two in the heat? Graah! All of you make me sick with your altering and defiling of the great natural flavor that has been provided for you! How would you like it if you made something that was perfect and someone went and ruined it, hm? Not very much I would like to believe. So next time you go to drink your coffee, don't pour a bunch of garbage into it capisce? Good. We understand each other.

wait. . . was this about remakes? Oh yeah, it was. Well I would totally argue that the original was so much better than the remake. I mean if you're going to remake something don't do it word for word, right? It's like they didn't even try to change it or even improve upon the original material! What's the point if it's all the same? You could just say I've already been to see that one before! If they really wanted to improve upon it, they shouldn't have. Carrie was a Brian de Palma film and it should have stayed that way. Freaking Hollywood. . .

Mega_Kris February 13th, 2015 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8616947)
Says the person who keeps on insisting that every remake should be a direct copy/paste because that's what they enjoy the most.

I'm getting tired of you intentionally misreading my point.

First off, copy and paste implies that they didn't rework anything. Pokemon FRLG were complete remakes, no matter how faithful they were, they were NOT copy/paste. Afterall, they had far less glitches than RB. What i'm insisting isn't a direct copy and paste. A remake depends on how much they rework from the ground up regardless if their aiming to make the exact same game. For example: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, was VERY faithful, but it was still remade from the ground up with all new code. And yes, expansion is welcomed, but expansion "meant' for the game of its time.

more minigames, new areas, or slight expansion to other areas already in existence for some overworld side quest. Considering Gen 2 was made before the remake, it definitely would've seen a post game linked to Gen 2. All that would be nice and not hurt the core of the game.

You constantly ignore this point of mine. Probably because you're dead set on wanting the things you want, regardless if its on-point with the main discusion. Which is fine, but this back-and-forth is because you "CHOOSE" to misinterpret.

SECOND: Its not because its what they want the most. its because, a remake is "DESIGNED" to be faithful to the original.....its' not designed to give a whoel new experience that you can't even call it one. Heck, a million pokemon fans can have a wrong idea of wahat a remake is and claim to want one, that doesn't mean they should complain when they actually get a real one.
Quote:

If ugly sprites are the biggest problem for you, then this patch should be enough.
I rather play an official game with reworked graphics rather than a fan patch. that's just the way i am. I enjoy fangames, but only as "fangames". SO directing me to a patch just feels like your hitting the bottom of the barrel. New fans especially back then probably didn't get the culture of fangames that pokemon community build. making an official remake was a good call. How they handled it? not the best, but not the worst either.

Quote:

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

To me, that's the kind of remake that I want to see more of, especially now that ORAS has officially established the existence of a new timeline. Give me more reboots!
I feel like you acknowledge the problem, but act like there's this gap of recognition. I mean....you just acknowledge these aren't remakes....and yet.....you complain about what made this particular remake wrong.
Quote:

Plus, Gen 1 still hasn't really been done "right," IMO, and I'd love to see it get its own ORAS-style reboot.
This to me is the BIGGEST issue....because it obviously needs "mega evolution" do be done "RIGHT"? (sarcasm) no.....it wont make Red/Blue any more "RIGHT" than it was before, in fact it's saying more of saying "Red and Blue was so wrong, there's no salvaging it". Yes, a reboot will make a whole new game...but it wont make Red/Blue anymore "Complete/right" than it is now....

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiny_Unown (Post 8618056)
This to me is the BIGGEST issue....because it obviously needs "mega evolution" do be done "RIGHT"? (sarcasm) no.....it wont make Red/Blue any more "RIGHT" than it was before, in fact it's saying more of saying "Red and Blue was so wrong, there's no salvaging it". Yes, a reboot will make a whole new game...but it wont make Red/Blue anymore "Complete/right" than it is now....

You have COMPLETELY misread that statement. (Yet, you accuse me of misreading you?)

RBY aren't bad games at all, but they are very incomplete games, almost to the point of feeling like an Obvious Beta for GSC. They are loaded with all sorts of glitches, a lot of attacks don't work properly (see Focus Energy), and type balance is so laughably off as to be non-existent. The story, while solid, is also very simplistic, even compared to Gen 2.

And, FRLG didn't really do that good of a job of "completing" Gen 1, IMO. Yes, the glitches and broken moves are obviously fixed, but on the other hand, you're still stuck with a tiny Dex that's...

21.9% Poison (33/151 Pokémon)
21.2% Water (32/151 Pokémon)
15.9% Normal (24/151 Pokémon)

and

2% Ghost (3/151 Pokémon)
2% Dragon (3/151 Pokémon)
1.3% Steel (2/151 Pokémon)
0% Dark (0/151 Pokémon)

Type balance, what's that?

And, FRLG still lacked features that had become standard in the games starting with Gen 2, such as a cell phone and a clock. And, the story wasn't a whole lot more fleshed out than it was in RBY.

mew_nani February 13th, 2015 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 8617822)
Like I told you Nani, putting sugar and creamer in coffee is a huge crime! Why would you try and change the flavor of the coffee itself? The truth is that you don't even truly like the taste of coffee! You're more inclined to sweeteners and creams and milks (you milk drinker)! The beans have been roasted in such a way that has been a process that has taken years to perfect and you pouring two spoons of sugar in it is sickening! How many cups of 'coffee' would you be able to drink if you keep pouring milk up and down? Every frickin' time I swear, people don't realize that there is a limit to how much milk and creamer you can drink before you throw up and that is not only disgusting, it's not classy at all. And have you ever had to deal with someone who 'hid' or has forgotten their milk laden 'coffee' somewhere and you find it after that thing has festered for a day or two in the heat? Graah! All of you make me sick with your altering and defiling of the great natural flavor that has been provided for you! How would you like it if you made something that was perfect and someone went and ruined it, hm? Not very much I would like to believe. So next time you go to drink your coffee, don't pour a bunch of garbage into it capisce? Good. We understand each other.

wait. . . was this about remakes? Oh yeah, it was. Well I would totally argue that the original was so much better than the remake. I mean if you're going to remake something don't do it word for word, right? It's like they didn't even try to change it or even improve upon the original material! What's the point if it's all the same? You could just say I've already been to see that one before! If they really wanted to improve upon it, they shouldn't have. Carrie was a Brian de Palma film and it should have stayed that way. Freaking Hollywood. . .

I'd argue with this, but I tend to dislike coffee because I can't take large amounts of caffiene without bouncing all over the walls. My maximum tolerance level is half a small cup. XD

As for FR/LG being copy pasted, in a technical sense they were. It was Pokemon Red and Green translated, ported on the AGB engine, with some new areas and NPCs added. Obviously they weren't copy pasted like Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis was (thank God,) but most if not all the dialog in R/B were pretty much kept with the exception of some things which were nerfed or removed, like Gambler just being changed to Gamer. If you play through the game and then compare playing through Sevii Isles the NPCs treat you much differently than they do in Kanto. In Kanto you're only noticed if you walk into a trainer's line of sight or you're talking to a gym leader or Giovanni. Your character doesn't really move or is involved in anything until the Lostelle sidequest, where your character is spoken to and acknowledged like May and Brendan are in Ruby and Sapphire. You the player are the one initiating things and involving yourself in the plot, while in the other games the NPCs interact with you and get you to do things for them. The game I think is more of a port of Red and Green with a few bonus places added as opposed to a true remake, but the game being more like a Gen 1 game than a Gen 3 game isn't entirely a bad thing. It certainly makes it different than the other games in Gen 3, and it was still fun to play. I still miss Missingno. though.

Mega_Kris February 13th, 2015 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8618093)
You have COMPLETELY misread that statement.

s far you didn't say i was wrong.

Quote:

(Yet, you accuse me of misreading you?)
i clarified a dozen times what i expect and what the norm of remakes are....

Quote:

RBY aren't bad games at all, but they are very incomplete games, almost to the point of feeling like an Obvious Beta for GSC. They are loaded with all sorts of glitches, a lot of attacks don't work properly (see Focus Energy), and type balance is so laughably off as to be non-existent. The story, while solid, is also very simplistic, even compared to Gen 2.

And, FRLG didn't really do that good of a job of "completing" Gen 1, IMO. Yes, the glitches and broken moves are obviously fixed, but on the other hand, you're still stuck with a tiny Dex that's...

21.9% Poison (33/151 Pokémon)
21.2% Water (32/151 Pokémon)
15.9% Normal (24/151 Pokémon)

and

2% Ghost (3/151 Pokémon)
2% Dragon (3/151 Pokémon)
1.3% Steel (2/151 Pokémon)
0% Dark (0/151 Pokémon)

Type balance, what's that?

And, FRLG still lacked features that had become standard in the games starting with Gen 2, such as a cell phone and a clock. And, the story wasn't a whole lot more fleshed out than it was in RBY.
Considering games had color limitations, i don't necessarily have a strong belief that internal clock was meant for gen 1. Same with phone calls. The phone feature has always felt a way to promote the interconnectivity with a real phone back for japan. Whether it's a standard feature now in the series isn't really the main point.

Considering Dark/Steel was introduced/reworked in Gen 2...i don't think its a huge issue. Look how long it took for "Fairy" pokemon to be used. Personally, dark wasn't that great of a feature. Psychic Type were difficult, but some of that is part of its charm. But regardless, Still, there are other ways to working with it. Not only that, but i've managed to beat Psychic pokemon WITHOUT dark type.

able to carry items i believe is definitely something i thought was meant for Gen 1, and berries as well. breeding, day/night features....considering gameboy color...not that much.

Unown Seer February 13th, 2015 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8617796)
If you want a Gen 2 sequel so badly, then I recommend either Pokémon Christmas

I'd sooner compare that to a third version. I tried it but the fact that history repeated itself gave me a headache.

Quote:

or Pokémon Bronze.
I am not familiar with this one. The new sprites aren't good (relative to the Generation II sprites), but I can overlook that if the game makes up for it.

Quote:

Brown is also good if you want something a little different.
Aren't all the important characters in that game lookalikes of Kanto characters with different names? I don't want to criticize an individual person's continuous work (I have a lot of respect for that alone), but I don't see the appeal of this mishmash.

Quote:

Want a Mewtwo-centric game? Prototype
This one looks interesting, but there is no indication of when it's going to be done; the problem is that I may forget about it. I also don't see the point of completely tweaking Kanto's map to the point of making it unrecognizable on the Town Map alone. Pallet Town's new theme has nothing to do with the original one, nor is it better in my opinion. It's a shame that these changes delay the hack's release and are unlikely to make me like it more. Here's a novel idea: If you want to do new things with Kanto, add new locations to it while fleshing out the original ones. If any cities need new themes, it's the ones that lack their own unique ones.

I will say that I see no need for Team Rocket to be linked to Mewtwo. It wasn't implied in the games and after seeing it done in other media, it would be refreshing for Game Freak to do something else. The only character with established ties to Mew and Mewtwo is Mr. Fuji, and any good story should involve him in a big way. I give credit to Origins for being the first adaptation to reinforce Fuji's history (the regular anime's Dr. Fuji was a completely different character).

Quote:

and Dark Violet are worth supporting.
Dark Violent has been discontinued and I have issues with the suggested plot outline (it has too much to do with a certain "twist" than anything of actual substance).

Quote:

There is a wealth of great games here.
That depends on what you're looking for. It's much easier to find a good fan-made remake than a sequel; I'm replaying FireRed right now using Throwback's GB Player patch (since I like the original music) and Evolution's overhaul of the available Pokémon (386+30 cross-generational relatives), mechanics from all generations (save for Mega Evolution, which doesn't bother me in the slightest), base stat and learnset upgrades, and revamped trainer teams (the bosses all provide a decent challenge with full rosters and good movesets). There are no changes to the story (other than the addition of Proton, Petrel, Ariana and Archer), but I can live with that as I accept the original story for what it is and want to see it expanded via sequels.

BettyNewbie February 13th, 2015 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
I'd sooner compare that to a third version. I tried it but the fact that history repeated itself gave me a headache.

Did you play the 2014 version? It plays out a lot differently from the 2012 one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
I am not familiar with this one. The new sprites aren't good (relative to the Generation II sprites), but I can overlook that if the game makes up for it.

Well, I played it, and I thought it was a good game. It was designed with the intention of being a direct sequel to GSC in the same way that GSC was a direct sequel to RBY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
Aren't all the important characters in that game lookalikes of Kanto characters with different names? I don't want to criticize an individual person's continuous work (I have a lot of respect for that alone), but I don't see the appeal of this mishmash.

They aren't supposed to be, going by his GBA sequel, Rijon Adventures. Not as much is known about Gen 1 hacking as there is Gen 3 hacking, especially when Brown was first made, so it's possible that he didn't know how to change the Gym Leader sprites. You'd have to ask him, though; I don't know. *shrug*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
Here's a novel idea: If you want to do new things with Kanto, add new locations to it while fleshing out the original ones. If any cities need new themes, it's the ones that lack their own unique ones.

Again, there's only so much you can do with a Gen 1 base, and there just isn't as much Gen 1 hacking knowledge going around, in general. It's changing, but it's still nowhere near as accessible or widespread as Gen 3 hacking. (I guess, you could argue that he should've just used a FireRed base, instead, but maybe he preferred the look of the older games?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
I will say that I feel no need for Team Rocket to be linked to Mewtwo. It wasn't implied in the games and after seeing it done in other media, it would be refreshing for Game Freak to do something else. The only character with established ties to Mew and Mewtwo is Mr. Fuji, and any good story should involve him in a big way. I give credit to Origins for being the first adaptation to reinforce Fuji's history (the regular anime's Dr. Fuji was a completely different character).

I think one reason a lot of people want Team Rocket to be linked to Mewtwo is not just because of the anime, but because it would make them darker and more interesting as villains. They're the only Evil Team that isn't linked to a Legendary Pokémon, after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
Dark Violent has been discontinued and I have issues with the suggested plot outline (it has too much to do with a certain "twist" than anything of actual substance).

If you read the post, you'd see that he's planning a new hack that's similar, although I have no idea when he'll get started. You'd have to ask him about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
That depends on what you're looking for. It's much easier to find a good fan-made remake than a sequel

True, but a lot of that is because good sequels are just harder to make, period. TV Tropes even has a name for it.

While it's technically a remake, have you given Liquid Crystal a try? It adds far more new areas and story elements than HGSS did, so you might be something you'd be interested in.

There's also Pokémon Glazed, which positions itself as a GSC-style sequel to Gen 2. You can visit Johto in the postgame with a new story and new areas. (They even give it its own separate League from Kanto.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unown Lord (Post 8618114)
I'm replaying FireRed right now using Throwback's GB Player patch (since I like the original music) and Evolution's overhaul of the available Pokémon (386+30 cross-generational evolutions), mechanics from all generations (save for Mega Evolution, which doesn't bother me in the slightest) and trainer teams (the bosses all provide a decent challenge with full rosters and good movesets). There are no changes to the story (other than the addition of Proton, Petrel, Ariana and Archer), but I can live with that as I accept the original story for what it is and want to see it expanded via sequels.

Well, if you're going to play FRLG nowadays, that would probably be the way to do it. :P

One hack I'm following right now is Red++. It's an overhaul of old school Red with nicer graphics and tons of new features like gender selection, a P/S Split, Fairy typing, new moves, new Pokémon, several bugfixes, and so much more. There's also a possibility for added story elements and even the Orange Islands as a postgame area. No, it's not the same as a modern 3DS remake, but it's a new enough way of experiencing Gen 1 (and making it more "complete") for me, which is what matters the most. Plus, I happen to enjoy the old school 8-bit games (much more than the GBA ones, in fact).

CoffeeDrink February 13th, 2015 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8618093)

21.9% Poison (33/151 Pokémon)
21.2% Water (32/151 Pokémon)
15.9% Normal (24/151 Pokémon)

and

2% Ghost (3/151 Pokémon)
2% Dragon (3/151 Pokémon)
1.3% Steel (2/151 Pokémon)
0% Dark (0/151 Pokémon)


You uh. Missed a few types there.

12% Flying (18/151 Pokémon)
9.2% Grass (14/151 Pokémon)
9.2% Ground (14/151 Pokémon)
9% Psychic (14/151 Pokémon)
7.9% Fire (12/151 Pokémon)
7.9% Bug (12/151 Pokémon)
7.2% Rock (11/151 Pokémon)
5.9% Electric (9/151 Pokémon)
5.2% Fighting (8/151 Pokémon)
3% Ice (5/151 Pokémon)

I go all the way. And technically, there shouldn't have been any dark types to begin with due to original Super Effective mapping. I think there is also the fact that Bug was effective against Poison and vice-versa.

Unown Seer February 14th, 2015 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyNewbie (Post 8618137)
Did you play the 2014 version? It plays out a lot differently from the 2012 one.

I downloaded it around a week ago, so yes. I've also read enough about it to know that the story is still mostly a rehash. Am I missing something?

Quote:

Well, I played it, and I thought it was a good game. It was designed with the intention of being a direct sequel to GSC in the same way that GSC was a direct sequel to RBY.
I'll have to give it a try.

Quote:

They aren't supposed to be, going by his GBA sequel, Rijon Adventures. Not as much is known about Gen 1 hacking as there is Gen 3 hacking, especially when Brown was first made, so it's possible that he didn't know how to change the Gym Leader sprites. You'd have to ask him, though; I don't know. *shrug*
Has he ever designed unique sprites for these new characters? The artwork is nice and all, but we don't get to see it while playing. Rijon Adventures hasn't been touched in 6 years, apparently.

Quote:

Again, there's only so much you can do with a Gen 1 base, and there just isn't as much Gen 1 hacking knowledge going around, in general. It's changing, but it's still nowhere near as accessible or widespread as Gen 3 hacking. (I guess, you could argue that he should've just used a FireRed base, instead, but maybe he preferred the look of the older games?)
He basically created a brand new region despite calling it Kanto. How is that simpler than working with the actual Kanto as a base? It's just his preference: "Yeah, I've thought about this alot. I don't want to rename the region and towns because I don't want the players to be unable to connect with the world. I want them to walk into a new town and say "Ahhh, Celadon (:" Otherwise it will be a game with a bunch of ambiguous names to which the player doesn't have any attachments."

Quote:

I think one reason a lot of people want Team Rocket to be linked to Mewtwo is not just because of the anime, but because it would make them darker and more interesting as villains. They're the only Evil Team that isn't linked to a Legendary Pokémon, after all.
I think that most people just lack imagination, although Game Freak haven't proven to be much better. Legendaries being manipulated by villains is a tired plot.

Quote:

If you read the post, you'd see that he's planning a new hack that's similar, although I have no idea when he'll get started. You'd have to ask him about that.
Given his track record, it will never be completed and who knows if it will be better than what DarkViolent would have been.

Quote:

While it's technically a remake, have you given Liquid Crystal a try? It adds far more new areas and story elements than HGSS did, so you might be something you'd be interested in.
Having watched a few videos, I don't like any of the plot deviations. Why make all the legendaries relevant to Johto's story? Team Saturn look like an attempt to mimic Team Galactic.

And no Crystal remake can be considered complete without Eusine having a unique sprite, or with certain Johto themes being replaced by Kanto ones.

Quote:

There's also Pokémon Glazed, which positions itself as a GSC-style sequel to Gen 2. You can visit Johto in the postgame with a new story and new areas. (They even give it its own separate League from Kanto.)
See above.

Quote:

Plus, I happen to enjoy the old school 8-bit games (much more than the GBA ones, in fact).
Which is pretty weird. You want 3D graphics but you dislike more modern 2D games? I can understand preferring 8-bit music, but how is Kanto more interesting to explore in GB/C graphics?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:35 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.