Do u think PBR is a dissapointment compared to stadium?

[CrimsonEdge]

Bold 1
-Well, please, be my guest to defend the majority of Wii games that are awful only because of the Wii Remote. The PS3 only doesn't sell in comparason to the computer and the gimmic box, but it is far from a rut.

Bold 2
-Zelda is a port, as is RE4, said games, Mario, Metroid, Pokemon, and most games on the Wii that are not complete garbage, and some that are, are also sequel. The term is sequel.

Bold 3
-Not true, MGS4, Ratchet and Clank+Sequel, Resistance+Sequel, FFXIII, FFXIII VS, Folklore and quite a few others are exclusives. And now the new Dev kit is cheaper, more devs are using the ps3. Also, ALL 360 titles that are exclusives, except DOA, end up on the PC anyway. Not exactly exclusive, especialy when the PC version is much cheaper.

Bold 4
-Please, come out of the US where the 360 titles start at the same price as PS3 and also, aquaint yourself with the prospect of saving money. The PS3 isn't that expencive, it is relitively close to the opening price of the PS2 and has had the same bumpy start, the only difference being the competition.

Bold 5
-Blu Ray allows the devs to make games longer if needed, MGS4 for example requires 2. For movies, DVD is fine imo.

Bold 6
-Lullergasms. Every game console with exception of the Wii and the Virtual Boy as usage for this argument.

You call Nintendo on being sequal heavy when six out of the 8 games you list are sequels in pre-existing franchises...yes I counted those "sequel"s as well I'm pretty sure anybody who has an unbiased viewpoint can tell you...the PS3 is a in a flaming hellhole of a rut....it's being outsold by EVERY console out there handhelds included... Granted the Wii doesn't have many stellar titles I think it has FAR more potential and IS and will continue to dominate the market. If you're wii-mote challenged just fess up to it and move along... Just because you have wii-mote trouble doesn't mean the console itself is bad. Not to freaking mention that as all those consoles you use in your argument are OLD and NOT next gen.....do you think the industry would continue to live if it stayed stagnant? With games like Brain Age and Big brain Academy on the DS and Wii as well as Wii Sports and Wii fit coming soon clearly the shift is successful. I can still play my Zelda game but now mom or dad can play wii sports or do their daily brain age session. The shift in gaming that Nintendo is bringing has been nothing but successful...Wildly so

 

[Skaterzpenguin]

The only thing I was mad about that there was no cups/gym leaders and couldn't rent every single pokemon.:\

 

[Faltzer]

Well, I haven't played Battle Revolution yet, but from everything I know about it I'd say Stadium 1/2 are better. D:

Colosseum and Gale of Darkness were utter garbage in comparison. :x Different styles of game, I know, but in terms of console games, I just think Stadium and Stadium 2 were the best, I'd like them revisited on the Wii, myself.

Expect it to probably come out on VC sometime.

Why the heck are you guys doing bringing Sony and PS(1-3) into this discussion? Graphics have nothing to do with how great the game can be, it's the game play that matter. This is why many Sony fans completely dislike Nintendo games, because they're so used to the awesome realism. If I wanted realism, I'd go outside and move on with my life.

 

[sims796]

Why? Simple. If PBR is NOTHING but battling, which is what Diamond/Pearl is for, than they better have some top notch graphics. Honestly. PBR has nothing else to offer at all. No minigames, no storyline. So if its only something to look at, it better look good.

Graphics are very important for games. Just like food. If the food looks like crap, no matter how good it might taste, you won't eat it, if it looks disgusting.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

I have a small correction to make. Kingdom Hearts III (for lack of the official title) will be on the PS3, so it has three games to look forward to and one good game (Sonic the Hedgehog), and that's it. The Wii wipes it out anyway.

Anyway, I'm not disappointed with Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics. I think that it's about darned time that the Pokémon actually approaches the enemy to perform a physical strike. Give me this over the bad graphics of Pokémon Pearl and Diamond Versions any day. And did you see Dialga and Palkia in Pokémon Battle Revolution? They look awesome! And this is coming from a guy who has played Final Fantasy XII.

Anyway, unless they make a new Wii Classic Controller that has a Transfer Pak slot or something, I wouldn't expect Pokémon Stadium or Pokémon Stadium 2 to return. We have almost double of what we used to, so the Stadium games are no more than mere memories now. Plus, what good would they be, since the old games can't communicate with the new? Nintendo would have to fix that if they're going to bring the Stadiums back.

 

[Faltzer]

Why? Simple. If PBR is NOTHING but battling, which is what Diamond/Pearl is for, than they better have some top notch graphics. Honestly. PBR has nothing else to offer at all. No minigames, no storyline. So if its only something to look at, it better look good.

You would believe the better the realism the better it will sell? In this ever changing and advancing world of games and game development we are reaching the tip of "realistic graphics". This is where Sony and Microsoft have been competing for... because of this people put Sony and Microsoft as the best console and game designers. But look at it this way with Nintendo and their "simple" graphics and easy game play many people say that their console is for a young (children) / old (60+) audience. This is false, Nintendo has realized that sooner or later everyone will have realistic graphics and is focusing now on innovation (ds & Wii).

In addition as many know PS3's and 360's are breaking quite often, because the tech they use are so advanced and thrown together that the systems can fully handle is. Where if you look at Nintendo very very few have broken. Look at NES; heck, I'm sure all of our NES's still work. That is because Nintendo knows how the game industry should be, they know how games and consoles need to be. Sony and Microsoft do not compare to Nintendo in the knowledge regarding the gaming industry. Imagine that on the 360/PS3, there is some "ultra-great" high definition tennis game, with almost flawless graphics.
Now, compare it to the simplistic art style and fun game play experience of Wii Sports.

The winner would most likely be Wii Sports, simply because the game is actually FUN and doesn't need graphics to attract people to it.
Not saying the other tennis game automatically sucks, but we've been moving control sticks and mashing buttons for years.... The new innovation of the Nintendo Wii draws crowds to it, and this is why it has surpassed the 360 in total sales, and with games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers Brawl, I don't think there's a way to stop the Wii's success until the next Nintendo console.

Graphics are very important for games. Just like food. If the food looks like crap, no matter how good it might taste, you won't eat it, if it looks disgusting.

Graphics are add-ons, what makes food so similar? Food is required automatically.
I'm sure many of you have played Pokemon Red and Blue versions, no? They're one of the best selling video games of all time. Did they have great graphics? No, they obviously didn't. I can understand where you are coming from, but graphics isn't everything in gaming. If you want realism, you're better off playing Halo 3. For that matter, have you ever played a fun game that doesn't have realistic graphics?

 

[sims796]

You would believe the better the realism the better it will sell? In this ever changing and advancing world of games and game development we are reaching the tip of "realistic graphics". This is where Sony and Microsoft have been competing for... because of this people put Sony and Microsoft as the best console and game designers. But look at it this way with Nintendo and their "simple" graphics and easy game play many people say that their console is for a young (children) / old (60+) audience. This is false, Nintendo has realized that sooner or later everyone will have realistic graphics and is focusing now on innovation (ds & Wii).

In addition as many know PS3's and 360's are breaking quite often, because the tech they use are so advanced and thrown together that the systems can fully handle is. Where if you look at Nintendo very very few have broken. Look at NES; heck, I'm sure all of our NES's still work. That is because Nintendo knows how the game industry should be, they know how games and consoles need to be. Sony and Microsoft do not compare to Nintendo in the knowledge regarding the gaming industry. Imagine that on the 360/PS3, there is some "ultra-great" high definition tennis game, with almost flawless graphics.
Now, compare it to the simplistic art style and fun game play experience of Wii Sports.

The winner would most likely be Wii Sports, simply because the game is actually FUN and doesn't need graphics to attract people to it.
Not saying the other tennis game automatically sucks, but we've been moving control sticks and mashing buttons for years.... The new innovation of the Nintendo Wii draws crowds to it, and this is why it has surpassed the 360 in total sales, and with games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and Smash Brothers Brawl, I don't think there's a way to stop the Wii's success until the next Nintendo console.

Ah, well the PS3 & 360 are nowhere near being out of the race. Like it or not, they are getting a growing fanbase. The thing is, games evolve. In every way. To see the game take a step back this way is appauling. Did you see the graphics on Twilight Princess? On Brawl? On Galaxy? Beautiful. If what you are saying is true, then Nintendo is abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back.

Graphics are add-ons, what makes food so similar? Food is required automatically.

This isn't really an arguement-heck, it shouldn't have been said. You should have gotten my analogy. Sure, food is reqiured, but that being, we could stuff our faces with anything. We do not do that. When we go to a restaraunt, a four star restaraunt, we expect fine food, in every ssense.



I'm sure many of you have played Pokemon Red and Blue versions, no? They're one of the best selling video games of all time. Did they have great graphics? No, they obviously didn't. The thing is, Red/Blue was made SOOOOO FAR BACK, this isn't really a valid arguement. Graphics were still primative, & programming weren't as developed as today. Let that be the case, should we revert back to Atari times?

I can understand where you are coming from, but graphics isn't everything in gaming. If you want realism, you're better off playing Halo 3. For that matter, have you ever played a fun game that doesn't have realistic graphics? Sure I have. This isn't one of them

As I said, gaming is like fine dining. (If you don't get the OBVIOUS analogy I'm using, then debating is pointless. I know we MUST eat, but bear with me.)

When we go to a restaraunt, we expect the food to look good. After all, we're paying for it. It should be eye pleasing. No matter how good it is, we won't eat something that looks like it was scrapped from the bottom of the pot. Any real gamer could tell you that graphics are important. They are the results of the game designer time & comitment in making the game. PBR, however, is ONLY ABOUT WIFI BATTLING IN 3D! If that's ALL it offers, it should look eye pleasing. Its the EXACT SAME THING as Diamond/Pearl, but less. They just got lazy this time.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

 

[sims796]

I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

Thank you. To say graphics aren't is pretty short sighted. Sure, we used to play Re/Blue, but I'll be damned to reuse those old graphics nowadays. To the casual player, who cares, but to the real players, they are very much important.

 

[Faltzer]

I think I can sum this up in one or two sentences.

For video games, graphics are just as important as control. If a game has excellent controls, but you can't tell the difference between your character and your girlfriend's butt, then it's just not a good game (this is assuming your character is not your girlfriend's butt).

Runescape is the worst game, because it doesn't have a full blown asset of graphics at it's disposal in order to properly entertain it's users. I must wonder why it has over 1,000+ players and the graphics are really bad.

Thank you. To say graphics aren't is pretty short sighted. Sure, we used to play Re/Blue, but I'll be damned to reuse those old graphics nowadays. To the casual player, who cares, but to the real players, they are very much important.

'short sighted'? This is coming out of the one who expects graphics to magically bring entertainment to a game. Real players are those who actually focus on the enjoyment of the game, and not the looks. Why are you struggling to not understand this? Graphics are not everything in a game. Graphics are just a typical add-on made to enhance the visual interface of the game itself. Think of it as makeup. I would much prefer playing Pokemon Stadium 1 than I would Halo 3.

Ah, well the PS3 & 360 are nowhere near being out of the race. Like it or not, they are getting a growing fanbase. The thing is, games evolve. In every way. To see the game take a step back this way is appauling. Did you see the graphics on Twilight Princess? On Brawl? On Galaxy? Beautiful. If what you are saying is true, then Nintendo is abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back.

This growing fanbase you speak of is mostly composed of biased people who think graphics are every aspect of them, and consider Nintendo a bad company. Nintendo is the leading industry, why would they be abandoning their loyal fanbase by going back just because they don't provide the graphics you expect them to provide? Now answer me this on those three games. Were they 'fun', or did you just spend an hour looking at the TV screen and admiring the landscape?

This isn't really an arguement-heck, it shouldn't have been said. You should have gotten my analogy. Sure, food is reqiured, but that being, we could stuff our faces with anything. We do not do that. When we go to a restaraunt, a four star restaraunt, we expect fine food, in every ssense.

Sure I have. This isn't one of them

I'm sorry you hated the graphics. You get what you pay for. Should have given it a little more thought by checking up on some demonstrations/screenshots if you were to primarily rate upon graphics. I imagine that's why some reviewers put videos up for. So players can see how the game is actually like.

As I said, gaming is like fine dining. (If you don't get the OBVIOUS analogy I'm using, then debating is pointless. I know we MUST eat, but bear with me.)

When we go to a restaraunt, we expect the food to look good. After all, we're paying for it. It should be eye pleasing. No matter how good it is, we won't eat something that looks like it was scrapped from the bottom of the pot. Any real gamer could tell you that graphics are important. They are the results of the game designer time & comitment in making the game. PBR, however, is ONLY ABOUT WIFI BATTLING IN 3D! If that's ALL it offers, it should look eye pleasing. Its the EXACT SAME THING as Diamond/Pearl, but less. They just got lazy this time.

I'd be assuming that you'd prefer getting a good looking and disgusting meal than a plain meal that tastes delicious? Come on, you really have to agree that plain, good food is much better than good looking bad food. I can't imagine you agreeing that the second option would be better, just to keep your dignity and not admit that looks can be deceiving, or 'You don't know what's good unless you tried it'.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

Runescape is the worst game, because it doesn't have a full blown asset of graphics at it's disposal in order to properly entertain it's users. I must wonder why it has over 1,000+ players and the graphics are really bad.

Because the graphics are good enough to actually be able to tell what's going on, and they are better than most for online MMORPGs. That's just one reason why it has over one thousand players. It has other things going for it as well, such as interaction with other people without having to worry if they're going to punch your lights out for saying something completely idiotic, such as, "RuneScape is terrible because the graphics are bad", or perhaps, "Pokémon Battle Revolution suchs because Mewtwo's paws don't look right".

 

[Sasuke_Uchiha]

Graffics...Not Really Important

Graffics arent that important....Whats important is the story line or if you enjoy playing it.....NOt the grffics. Yeah graffics make the game intersting but its not that important....

 

[Faltzer]

Because the graphics are good enough to actually be able to tell what's going on, and they are better than most for online MMORPGs. That's just one reason why it has over one thousand players. It has other things going for it as well, such as interaction with other people without having to worry if they're going to punch your lights out for saying something completely idiotic, such as, "RuneScape is terrible because the graphics are bad", or perhaps, "Pokémon Battle Revolution suchs because Mewtwo's paws don't look right".

PBR is no exception to this, which further extends my point. PBR's graphics are acceptable enough. Who cares if Mewtwo's paws don't look right? Did you actually enjoy the game, or did you throw a hissy fit because Mewtwo's paws
actually have a different look?

 

[Waker of Chaos]

PBR is no exception to this, which further extends my point. PBR's graphics are acceptable enough. Who cares if Mewtwo's paws don't look right? Did you actually enjoy the game, or did you throw a hissy fit because Mewtwo's paws
actually have a different look?

Again, I love the game. I think the graphics are just fine. Had you read my first few posts here, you'd have known that.

My point is that graphics are important, but don't make or break the game except in extreme circumstances.

 

[sims796]

Oh boy. Like it or not, graphics are an important part of games. Saying that all PS3 & 360 players only care about graphics is still short sided. Speaking of reviewers, maybe you should look at them. Watch X-Play. Read Game Informer. Even they say that graphics are an important part of the game. Along with great graphics, those games were also fun. I find it highly offensive to categorize me like that, because I own both Wii & 360. I play 360, enjoy the graphics, & the games are amazing They aren't just playing the game because of graphics-they are damn well fun. But the graphics enhance the play. Don't believe me-check the scores. Video games are an art form. Yes, good graphics does not make a good game. I NEVER said that. A game can be good with bad graphics-PBR is not one of them. But graphics still play a part in the game. As I said, any real gamer can tell you that.

As for the food comment, you are still not getting my point. If it looks like crap, I won't eat it. If it taste like crap, I won't eat it. It should both look & taste good. I don't see why you seem to think that if the graphics are good, that = bad game.

Also, I RENTED the game, & found it bad. So don't cross any personal lines, & keep this on topic.

EDIT: Plus, as I said, PBR is ONLY ABOUT 3D BATTLING. IT IS JUST EYE CANDY. So it should at least looks good.



This is an excert from the Game Informer review:


5.75

CONCEPT:
Pokémon battle other Pokémon! Yeah, that's it


GRAPHICS:
Bleh...


SOUND:
The announcer may have only two phrases for every action. "The red trainer has only one remaining Pokémon"


PLAYABILITY:
Don't worry about getting confused. There is actually a mini tutorial that teaches you how to point the freaking Wii remote. Fantastic!


ENTERTAINMENT:
Not a whole lot of value here. Only the hardest of the hardcore Pokéfreaks will find this entertaining for long...or for short, even


REPLAY:
Low

 

[Faltzer]

Oh boy. Like it or not, graphics are an important part of games. Saying that all PS3 & 360 players only care about graphics is still short sided. Speaking of reviewers, maybe you should look at them. Watch X-Play. Read Game Informer. Even they say that graphics are an important part of the game. Along with great graphics, those games were also fun. I find it highly offensive to categorize me like that, because I own both Wii & 360. I play 360, enjoy the graphics, & the games are amazing They aren't just playing the game because of graphics-they are damn well fun. But the graphics enhance the play. Don't believe me-check the scores. Video games are an art form. Yes, good graphics does not make a good game. I NEVER said that. A game can be good with bad graphics-PBR is not one of them. But graphics still play a part in the game. As I said, any real gamer can tell you that.

It's a matter of fact true old-school gamers like me prefer the entertainment of the games, because that's what video games were made for. We never cared for 3D graphics before because video games used to serve their purpose back then. They were made for the purpose of having fun. Graphics are an add-on. Why did it take you this many posts to realize this? Sorry, don't watch X-Play. I have a tendency of not listening to what other Television shows say about what real gamers should consider. The Microsoft and Sony fan base makes it seem that way. Have a look at IGN for the numerous topics of users mentioning something similar about graphics sucking about such game and that such games characters face looks like the deformed face of Godzilla.

As for the food comment, you are still not getting my point. If it looks like crap, I won't eat it. If it taste like crap, I won't eat it. It should both look & taste good. I don't see why you seem to think that if the graphics are good, that = bad game.

Also, I RENTED the game, & found it bad. So don't cross any personal lines, & keep this on topic.

I'm sorry you're so used to getting what you always want, but it's not always that way. Then I wasn't the only one that was not getting the point. Since when did I say good graphics make a bad game? I even

EDIT: Plus, as I said, PBR is ONLY ABOUT 3D BATTLING. IT IS JUST EYE CANDY. So it should at least looks good.

We don't always get what we want, but sometimes we just have to deal with it if it doesn't fit out personal preference.

 

[sims796]

It's a matter of fact true old-school gamers like me prefer the entertainment of the games, because that's what video games were made for. We never cared for 3D graphics before because video games used to serve their purpose back then. They were made for the purpose of having fun. Graphics are an add-on. Why did it take you this many posts to realize this? Sorry, don't watch X-Play. I have a tendency of not listening to what other Television shows say about what real gamers should consider. The Microsoft and Sony fan base makes it seem that way. Have a look at IGN for the numerous topics of users mentioning something similar about graphics sucking about such game and that such games characters face looks like the deformed face of Godzilla.
What do you mean "Why did it take me this many post to realize this"? As I said, DON"T insult me again. YOU bought up the senerio of using reviews. You are critisizing people for there preferences. Don't watch X-Play. But watch your tone. If you like to stick to the old school, so be it. Go right ahead & stay there. I'd like to evolve with the times. Those people that you are critisizing ar right to feel that way, because those two particular games are crap.





I'm sorry you're so used to getting what you always want, but it's not always that way. Then I wasn't the only one that was not getting the point. Since when did I say good graphics make a bad game? I even

I should report you for insulting me like this, at a simple debate. I can show you multiplle times where you implied that good graphics can't equal good games. What the hell do you mean, "used to always getting what I want?" One more reply like that, & I'm reporting. I know not all games are up to my standards. Hence why I am not buying it. I don't have the right to say "I dislike this game"? Thats what this thread is about. I'm being a baby for complaining? Also what this thread is about.



We don't always get what we want, but sometimes we just have to deal with it if it doesn't fit out personal preference.

As I said, this thread is about stating your enjoyment or dislike over the game, not critisizing people for their reasons of not liking it. And I can show you the post that you did.

 

[Faltzer]

What do you mean "Why did it take me this many post to realize this"? As I said, DON"T insult me again. YOU bought up the senerio of using reviews. You are critisizing people for there preferences. Don't watch X-Play. But watch your tone. If you like to stick to the old school, so be it. Go right ahead & stay there. I'd like to evolve with the times. Those people that you are critisizing ar right to feel that way, because those two particular games are crap.

No, you're just merely misunderstanding the what makes a good game, and what doesn't. Me, being a game developer myself, and being an old-school gamer since 1994, I know the basic elements of what a good game is composed of. I mentioned graphics don't make a good game, it's the entertainment. I never mentioned that good graphics are a bad game.

 

[sims796]

Once again, you are critisizing my choices. You don't have the right to say what makes a game good. Even if you make them. Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony can tell you that even they have no place to say what makes a game good. Its the people who plays them. They would be nothing without their costumers. They know that. Which is why Nintendo is constantly updating Smash Bros.com. Which is why Nintendo finally [apparantly] shown initiative (excuse my spelling) towards wifi. Miyamoto made this statement once before for the GameCube-People don't care about online play. They don't want to pay the fees. Boy, did Xbox prove them wrong.

So please, don't come here off your high horse to tell me that I'm misunderstanding what makes a game good. I don't care how long you've been playing. I've been playing since 1992-does that mean I have the right to critisize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people atg IGN do. But you are the one critisizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gamming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunatley, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

Once again, you are critisizing my choices. You don't have the right to say what makes a game good. Even if you make them. Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony can tell you that even they have no place to say what makes a game good. Its the people who plays them. They would be nothing without their costumers. They know that. Which is why Nintendo is constantly updating Smash Bros.com. Which is why Nintendo finally [apparantly] shown initiative (excuse my spelling) towards wifi. Miyamoto made this statement once before for the GameCube-People don't care about online play. They don't want to pay the fees. Boy, did Xbox prove them wrong.

So please, don't come here off your high horse to tell me that I'm misunderstanding what makes a game good. I don't care how long you've been playing. I've been playing since 1992-does that mean I have the right to critisize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people atg IGN do. But you are the one critisizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gamming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunatley, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

*Apparently, gaming, criticizing, unfortunately, at, you're, and criticize are misspelled. Everything else is fine, since you asked. I bolded them for you.