Do u think PBR is a dissapointment compared to stadium?

[Faltzer]

Who cares about what IGN thinks about PBR? IGN is just a gaming web site that has gaming content, and game reviews. IGN is not the authority on video gaming. You're basically just sticking to what IGN says with their view of the game. That's not your opinion, that's just indecisive siding with another gaming companies review.

 

[sims796]

And again, you completely missed the point of my post. I mentioned IGN because YOU mentioned IGN

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.

The post was about you saying that I'm misunderstanding what makes a good game. How you have no right to say that. How you completely missed that to come to the conclusion that I'm a IGN clone is beyond me. I never even been there before.

Plus, even if I side with that, I have that right, & you have no right to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Forest Grovyle]

Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

 

[Waker of Chaos]

Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

Thank you for that.

Who cares about what IGN thinks about PBR? IGN is just a gaming web site that has gaming content, and game reviews. IGN is not the authority on video gaming. You're basically just sticking to what IGN says with their view of the game. That's not your opinion, that's just indecisive siding with another gaming companies review.

I'd like to point out that IGN hires people to review video games, and more than one person (at least three, if I remember correctly) has to review it. They have to do a good job, too, and that means playing through the entire game.

In the case of Pokémon Battle Revolution, IGN's reviewers didn't really like much about it. Had I reviewed it, I'd have given it a higher score, because I know what role the game is meant to play: It's just like Pokémon Stadium, but with Gear for your Trainer and Battle Passes instead of minigames and playing your Diamond/Pearl game on the Wii.

In my opinion, that's an improvement.

 

[sims796]

Okay people, I've had reports about this thread and looking at it, I can see it's going nowhere but flaming at this point. Although it's not quite there yet, if it continues this way I can see it developing into a flame war. If this thread doesn't get back on-topic without the need for personal attacks, I'm going to have to lock it.

Remember that one of our rules is to respect all members, and their opinions.

--FG

Gets ya wondering why there isn't a mod round here. I'll PM an Admin.

Thank you for that.



I'd like to point out that IGN hires people to review video games, and more than one person (at least three, if I remember correctly) has to review it. They have to do a good job, too, and that means playing through the entire game.
I get what your saying. Its not one person reviewing, its multiple opinions.

In the case of Pokémon Battle Revolution, IGN's reviewers didn't really like much about it. Had I reviewed it, I'd have given it a higher score, because I know what role the game is meant to play: It's just like Pokémon Stadium, but with Gear for your Trainer and Battle Passes instead of minigames and playing your Diamond/Pearl game on the Wii.

In my opinion, that's an improvement.

Meh. If only the game was cheaper. Then it would be worth my time. Ah well.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

Once again, you are criticizing 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 [apparently] 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 criticize people for not understanding what makes a game good? That is all relative to the person. You don't care about graphics. Those people at IGN do. But you are the one criticizing them as if you have the right, as if your the God of gaming. They dislike it for the disgusting graphics. So do I. And unfortunately, Majority rules. Entertainment is the main factor in gaming, (two M's or one?), I agree, but graphics are still an important factor.

A good game has a balance of sufficient visuals and game play.... I'm sure many games would BENEFIT from better graphics why wouldn't they? The fact is a lot of more seasoned gamers agree it's the game play that makes or breaks the game....it's called GAME play for a reason, if the game plays well it's a good game! I'm not here to make an argument against Sony or M-soft. If you enjoy a game it's a good game right? At the end of the day your money is best spent on something you'll enjoy to play. There are standards visually for each console out there and as long as the visuals aren't below that standard the graphics are FINE!



By the way sims....I'd check my spelling more if I was you.... Well articulated and correctly spelled arguments garner more respect.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

Meh. If only the game was cheaper. Then it would be worth my time. Ah well.

I got mine for $10. :P

But yeah, this is a great game for its role. On its own, not really, but that's not the purpose it's meant to serve. As was posted by another person earlier, it's basically an extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions simply for battling and getting items you otherwise would only have one of.

Keep in mind that is IGN's opinion about the game. Doesn't mean that they're complete facts. Its what they think about the game. They hire people to review games, yes. But look at this: They hire people to what they think would give good reviews, to something that would influence the reader and probably make them consider what IGN thinks.

True indeed, but may I remind you that I never claimed what IGN thinks is fact, not opinion? Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[sims796]

A good game has a balance of sufficient visuals and game play.... I'm sure many games would BENEFIT from better graphics why wouldn't they? The fact is a lot of more seasoned gamers agree it's the game play that makes or breaks the game....it's called GAME play for a reason, if the game plays well it's a good game! I'm not here to make an argument against Sony or M-soft. If you enjoy a game it's a good game right? At the end of the day your money is best spent on something you'll enjoy to play. There are standards visually for each console out there and as long as the visuals aren't below that standard the graphics are FINE!



By the way sims....I'd check my spelling more if I was you.... Well articulated and correctly spelled arguments garner more respect.

Well, at least I was close. I'm feeling very sick today, so you'll have to excuse my errors. I can't seem to concentrate. At least I'm not some mindless drone of a noob, just posting crap LIEK TIS!!!!!!

But you hit what I meant. The visuals are very important, but I never said that it is the sole defining factor.

 

[Deleted member 12729]

Keep in mind that is IGN's opinion about the game. Doesn't mean that they're complete facts. Its what they think about the game. They hire people to review games, yes. But look at this: They hire people to what they think would give good reviews, to something that would influence the reader and probably make them consider what IGN thinks.

Thank-you for bringing in some sense into this thread.

I find the fact that people are comparing opinions with IGN laughable. IGN is composed of people like us.

A game reviewer is NOT an expert at every aspect of gaming, nor are they some sort of superhuman who loves every type of game. You're always going to see a bias, no matter how much you agree/disagree with a reviewer.
This guy is my supreme idea of a good Reviewer, without regard for his job, he has consistently reviewed games as he sees fit. Do they agree with majority opinion? Maybe not, but that's not the freakin' point of a Game Reviewer is it?

IGN's opinion can differ from ours due to this. It's not the general mainstream media opinion that makes this game good, it's the consumer's. Seeing as we all have different opinions as well, most of us find this game mediocre.

 

[sims796]

Thank-you for bringing in some sense into this thread.

I find the fact that people are comparing opinions with IGN laughable. IGN is composed of people like us.

A game reviewer is NOT an expert at every aspect of gaming, nor are they some sort of superhuman who loves every type of game. You're always going to see a bias, no matter how much you agree/disagree with a reviewer.
This guy is my supreme idea of a good Reviewer, without regard for his job, he has consistently reviewed games as he sees fit. Do they agree with majority opinion? Maybe not, but that's not the freakin' point of a Game Reviewer is it?

IGN's opinion can differ from ours due to this. It's not the general mainstream media opinion that makes this game good, it's the consumer's. Seeing as we all have different opinions as well, most of us find this game mediocre.

Meh, I never said that IGN is the ultimate in opinions. Not one post did I say that I value their opinion. Heck, its a bit disheartening that ya said he bought sense in this thread, as ONLY ONE PERSON actually used their opinion. And he used it in a bad light.

Regardless, I do feel this game mediocre.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

I just said keep in mind. Never said you DID say it.

Yeah, that's true.

As far as Pokémon Battle Revolution goes, I love it. I'm obese, so I'm jealous of the Cool Guy you can have on your Battle Pass. That might be enough incentive for me to start working out. Yes, I did just admit that. :P

On a more serious note, battling was always my favorite thing about Pokémon anyway. It's like a form of art, like swordplay is.

And the graphics are just FINE! Keep in mind that this game's not meant to stand on its own, it's meant to be a pretty extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions for battling, and it fulfills that role perfectly, graphics and control included.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[sims796]

Yeah, that's true.

As far as Pokémon Battle Revolution goes, I love it. I'm obese, so I'm jealous of the Cool Guy you can have on your Battle Pass. That might be enough incentive for me to start working out. Yes, I did just admit that. :P

On a more serious note, battling was always my favorite thing about Pokémon anyway. It's like a form of art, like swordplay is.

And the graphics are just FINE! Keep in mind that this game's not meant to stand on its own, it's meant to be a pretty extension of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions for battling, and it fulfills that role perfectly, graphics and control included.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

This is where I disagree with you. Respectfully, of course. If its JUST an expantion, then it should look gorgeous. To me, & possibly omachaw, they just slapped Pokemon on the title, & waited for the fans to come.

It's a bit disheartening that people don't read my posts throughly.

This was for omachaw's post, not yours.

 

[sims796]

You quoted waka's post, saying that it's disheartening that I brought sense into this thread.

And since waka said "I'm the one that brought sense into this thread" well..

This is just advice, to prevent you from assuming my post is all insult:

Use proper wording next time so people won't misread your posts.

No, not YOU! I meant the person I was arguing with. Falthazer, or something. I was commenting that he said that you bought sense to this thread, because we didn't lose common sense-just lost sight of the topic.

That was my poor wording, excuse me.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

This is where I disagree with you. Respectfully, of course. If its JUST an expantion, then it should look gorgeous. To me, & possibly omachaw, they just slapped Pokemon on the title, & waited for the fans to come.

That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon.

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

 

[Deleted member 12729]

That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon.

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

I'm sorry but you must be confused or something because Twilight Princess wasn't exactly applauded for its graphics as much as Metroid Prime 3 or Galaxy were.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

I'm sorry but you must be confused or something because Twilight Princess wasn't exactly applauded for its graphics as much as Metroid Prime 3 or Galaxy were.

But the same can be said about Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption regardless.

 

[sims796]

That may be, but they didn't do horrendously with the graphics. They're really quite good.

Perhaps it's just that Nintendo didn't put as much effort as they could have in the Wii's graphics? Sure, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have great graphics for their styles, but Pokémon Battle Revolution also has good graphics for its own style. It's not like virtual reality, where you'd expect to see the fur on Infernape's back or just how shiny a Blastoise's shell can be. You're not meant to reach into the game and pat your Pokémon on the back for a job well done.

Like you said, it's eye candy, but it's also more than that. Pokémon Battle Revolution can allow you to get items you'd otherwise have to trade for (which in my experience can be far more difficult than putting up with a video game), and there's already been three hidden Pokémon for the Mystery Gift function as well.

I guess my point is simply that the Wii wasn't built for graphics, but rather innovation, so opinions such as yours are expected. Not wrong by any means, but certainly predicted. Pokémon Battle Revolution's graphics aren't meant to be it's strong point, either. Its strong point is getting items you'd otherwise only have one of, and the fact you can battle competitively on the Nintendo WFC without worrying too much about hacked Pokémon. But right there, you mentioned three games that looks amazing. Galaxy, Brawl, RE4, Twilight Princess, hell, even Rayman looks VERY good for Wii games. So being the Wii is no excuse. Quilava's fire looks like cheap cellophane. Grotyle's jaw is so squared, its like, WTF?

Sure, graphics are important, and Pokémon Battle Revolution doesn't disappoint, keeping in mind that the Wii wasn't made for graphics like the PS3 or XBox 360. Imagine if The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was on the PS3. It would look much more like Final Fantasy XII or something, don't you think?

AHA! Now this is turning into a real disscusion. Thank you, Waker.

Despite that, It can still make great looking games. You mentioned a few. Ever seen Metal of Honor on the Wii? Atrocious. Looks like it was on the N64. Not acceptable. So sure,, the Wii isn't a graphic powerhouse, but we shouldn't let that be an excuse.

EDIT: & omachaw, it was still credited for great visuals, although it was still critisized (yeah yeah, who cares) for not being "perfect" in a sense.

 

[Deleted member 12729]

But the same can be said about Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption regardless.

Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphicswhores and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

 

[Waker of Chaos]

Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphicswhores and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

I bolded the key part of your argument that furthers my point. There will ALWAYS be "a few" who are disappointed with a certain aspect.

Still, if we were to put games like those on the PS3, they'd likely look much better. The PS3's more geared up than the Wii for graphics.

As for MEDAL of Honor, no I haven't. I don't look at war games. Though, you bring up a good point here about the Wii's graphics capability. They could have done better, yes, but they also could have done much worse.

 

[sims796]

Wrong. While Twilight Princess disappointed a few visual-wise, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 have been favorites amongst graphicswhores and actually comparable to a HD-running game.

Oh, and sims, it's Medal of Honor.

Ok, we get the point. He was making a comparison about graphics on systems. Can we drop the Twilight graphics, please? We get it.

Besides, it was still credited on its visuals, despite it not being perfect. I would expect Galaxy & Corruption as being more appealing, as they were made later on, when they had the opportunity to advance.

Medal! Well, I'm sick. thats my excuse. So lets drop my spelling, shall we? Although that time, I thought it was Metal