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)

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".


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.