![]() |
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 Granted, the Even Better Sequels eventually superseded Gen 1 as my favorite Gen, but old-school Red, Blue, and Yellow still rank pretty high in my book.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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. [/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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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 |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
(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:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
(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:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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 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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's how Bulbapedia defines game canon: Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.) |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Their absence in FRLG and HGSS doesn't mean anything, as those games take place in a different timeline than RBY and GSC. Quote:
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Here are some other posts you've made elsewhere in the forum: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, can we please get back to the topic of the thread? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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) |
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. |
Very interesting post, Kip.
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? 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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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:
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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". |
Quote:
Abilities were a big deal, too. |
Quote:
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. |
Well, surprise, surprise. Guess who it is? :rolleyes2:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. . . |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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) 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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:35 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.