I'd like to discuss Pokemon and "re-hashing".

The 100 Mega Shock said:
You're missing the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Well when you put it that way, I see the error of my ways. Thank you for your eloquent, well-worded rebuttal that took my facts and blew them out of the water.

As far as the mainstream RPG games, they still make money because people that have played every single game still enjoy them. They haven't gone stale to many people, especially considering the excess of side games to satiate the desire for innovation. People enjoy them, plain and simple. If you personally don't enjoy the RPG games but enjoy the idea of Pokemon or the universe, there are plenty of other games to play which provide the innovation, which was the point I was trying to make in my last post. Maybe instead of asking for drastic changes to a formula that a massive amount of people enjoy, you should be suggesting a new innovative game?
 
Toujours said:
There have been 7 non-RPG games in the past 3 years though. o-o; The Ranch thing, a Mystery Dungeon sequel, and a Ranger sequel in 2008, a Ranger sequel, Pokemon Rumble and PokePark Wii: Pikachu's Adventure in 2009, and another Ranger sequel in 2010. I'm not sure how you can claim they're not making any non-RPG games anymore just because they're not making the ones you liked.

Granted, I loved TCG, and Snap, and Hey You Pikachu!, but I can understand that they're trying different things, that cater to the different technology nowadays.
Click to expand...
And which of those were games that looked like they took their time to make good? And why haven't they made sequels of the old branch games that were of obvious quality? The answer to both questions is because fanboys don't like them. Fanboys like same old, same old, they won't invest money unless there's some tie-in to the current generation that they can benefit from. I had friends who only bought Ranger because of the legendary they could get. I thought that was the most asinine thing ever. That kind of behavior is the reason we haven't seen sequels to some of the most interesting games in the series and why, instead of a really good 3D Pokemon game, we got Battle Revolution. Whoop-de-doo, a game that's arguably worse than the earliest decade-old entry in the 3D Pokemon series (Stadium).
 
twocows said:
And which of those were games that looked like they took their time to make good? And why haven't they made sequels of the old branch games that were of obvious quality? The answer to both questions is because fanboys don't like them. Fanboys like same old, same old, they won't invest money unless there's some tie-in to the current generation that they can benefit from. I had friends who only bought Ranger because of the legendary they could get. I thought that was the most asinine thing ever. That kind of behavior is the reason we haven't seen sequels to some of the most interesting games in the series and why, instead of a really good 3D Pokemon game, we got Battle Revolution. Whoop-de-doo, a game that's arguably worse than the earliest decade-old entry in the 3D Pokemon series (Stadium).
Click to expand...

I think we're arguing two different things here. I'm saying that the normal RPG games should stay the way they are and keep the innovation to the side games, while it seems like you're arguing that they need to increase the quality of the side games.

I would like to point out, however, that I've never met a fan of Pokemon who disliked Pokemon Snap or Hey You, Pikachu!. Both of those games received 4 star reviews on Gamespot, and 7.8 and 6.0 respectively on IGN. I understand the low rating for the second one, as voice recognition was frustrating at that time and it made the game difficult - I enjoyed it, but often Pikachu was throwing out a vegetable I was having trouble finding because it couldn't understand my "yes". I just can't subscribe to the "fanboys hate it" when I've never met a person who have hated those games in particular. Most of them haven't played the more recent side games, except my best friend enjoys Battle Revolution and another one of my friends enjoys PokePark Wii.
 
If the side games don't perform as well, it stifles the incitement to innovate in the main series of games - something that Pokémon suffers from a dreadful lack of when compared to it's contemporaries.
 
The 100 Mega Shock said:
If the side games don't perform as well, it stifles the incitement to innovate in the main series of games - something that Pokémon suffers from a dreadful lack of when compared to it's contemporaries.
Click to expand...
Can you expand a bit more? Your one-sentence replies don't really say enough to actually understand your opinion. I'm assuming you're replying as short as possible to be snappy and witty, but it just makes me wonder what point exactly you're arguing. Are you actually arguing for drastic changes within the RPGs of the franchise, or are you arguing for more innovation in the side games that are made specifically to be different from the RPGs?
 
I'm arguing that the main series of Pokémon games suffers form a terrible lack of innovation compared to many of its peers in long-established RPG franchises (and many other long-established series throughout video games), and I'm also partly expressing twocows' views that a lot of the fanbase seem to be reluctant to embrace a great deal of change within the series.

(and sorry if you took it that way but i'm not posting anything long because I'm tired and it's not worth posting giant tl;drs on this matter)
 
The 100 Mega Shock said:
I'm arguing that the main series of Pokémon games suffers form a terrible lack of innovation compared to many of its peers in long-established RPG franchises (and many other long-established series throughout video games), and I'm also partly expressing twocows' views that a lot of the fanbase seem to be reluctant to embrace a great deal of change within the series.

(and sorry if you took it that way but i'm not posting anything long because I'm tired and it's not worth posting giant tl;drs on this matter)
Click to expand...
I guess because I enjoy Pokemon the way it is and don't want it to change, I can't understand your point of view. I like the games because they change just enough for it to be new, but not enough that I can't adapt easily to the new games. Some pull it off better than others (Never could get into Diamond/Pearl, but love Black/White), but in general I enjoy the way they handle the change and lack of change in their RPGs. I'm happy to leave the drastic changes to the side games, which I would agree could be released less often and with higher quality, but I still disagree on the fanbase and change, just based on my own experience.

Like I said in my previous post, I've never met anyone who disliked the games that people are claiming weren't remade due to people disliking them. I guess people disliked them in silence or something?
 
MartianOddity said:
Not everyone likes the same things, and it's not unfair that people like different things. If you don't like something you critisize it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but I was mainly talking about the people that go out of their way to tell you how bad the new Pokemon games are.

Me too. At least until Gen IV (Pearl was my last game).
Click to expand...

That's good.

What if you're not the kind to buy the new Madden or CoD every year? Some people just don't like games that are basically the same in their outermost core.
Click to expand...

Well, at another forum I post on people kept bashing Pokemon and saying bad things about people that like it but admitted to playing RBY etc. And I know for a fact many of these people buy rehashes of other series all the time since they talk about it. It's especially funny how many of them are WOW players.

I realized all the new additions but I didn't appreciate them. A few stood out, like the Vs. Seeker, new movepools, Special/Physical split and a few interesting new pokémon (IMO just about 5% in each new batch) but that isn't enough for me to enjoy a game. If I don't like the rest I won't keep on making the mistake of buying games which I enjoy less than the previous ones.
Click to expand...

Very few series of games try to branch out of to a new formula yet people still enjoy them.

Some people don't want to relearn everything again and again. While that'd be a fun thing for them, like 10 years ago, it doesn't appeal to them anymore. In my case I have a lot more important stuff to learn and too little time to sit down and "rehash" every 3-4 years. And that's a problem since I play my games thoroughly.
Click to expand...

That's good for you.

My solution was to stop buying the new games.
Click to expand...

Ok.

CoD is not for kids. It's for everyone 18 years and above.
Not saying that Pokémon is for kids or that the designs became kiddy. In my case it's that the new pokémon resemble Digimon too much IMO, and there is a reason to why I never liked Digimon, and that's because of the designs. And I don't like Gundam, Transformers and Thundercats because of the same reason, they don't appeal to me artistically.
Click to expand...

Oh come on! Yes CoD is more "mature" but you're still considered a nerd/geek if you play it, people shouldn't act like they aren't any less of a nerd/geek just because they don't play Pokemon.

It hardly has anything to do with "nostalgia goggles". Such generalizations are absurd.
Click to expand...

For some it does.

I understand that people do like the newer games and I even understand why. But I don't get upset because of the fact that someone has a different opinion than me. There are a fair lot of people bashing the older games too, and those of us in that group have to suffer to be called nostalgia freaks. That is unfair, if anything.
Click to expand...

I just get upset because people haven't even tried the new games yet bash them anyway. As I said, on the forum I go to where people were talking about it, most hadn't played any past GSC.


And this is what I wanted to get off my chest.[/QUOTE]

The Noob Hacker said:
Who are you to say that it is unfair to criticize Pokemon based on those things? What exactly makes it "unfair"? In fact, how can you tell if a criticism is fair or not? Is it not just as unfair to call an argument unfair as the argument in question?

It is said that it isn't "same old same old" because there have been changes. But keep in mind that the basic formula is exactly the same. Also keep in mind that most of the changes where mainly technical or otherwise don't leave much impact on the game as a whole. Really, just changes to graphics, music, and other such things, aren't enough to make me call the games "new" or "original". Playing baseball with a blue ball instead of a white one doesn't make it a new game, it's still baseball.

That's not to say that I don't like Pokemon, but I am not blind to the series' use of rehashing.
Click to expand...

It's unfair due to most of the people bashing it not even giving it a chance.
 
Whatever.

Like what you want to like, and don't let what people say get to you. Sadly, there is always gonna be people -no matter what your fandom is- who are gonna like the original best -- No matter what -- .
 
Well, in terms of re-hashing and the "same old same old", my only real complaint is the fire-starters. For three generations now the fire-starter has had a secondary fighting type when evolved. WHY? Surely there is something else that can be done...I mean, hell, even a pure fire type would be better. Making a fire/fighting chicken, fire/fighting monkey, and fire/fighting pig starter choices for three consecutive generations is re-hashing at it's worst imo. No wonder Tepig is so unpopular -_-

Yeah, Meganium and Septile were both pure grass starters back to back...but then they introduced Torterra which is grass/ground, so it wasn't so bad. At least it wasn't pure grass for three generations straight and the new typing was something new/interesting.

Some of the other pokemon concepts/designs are repeated in each generation too--namely birds, bugs, and fish--but I don't think those are so ridiculous. Each generation focuses on a different region of the Pokemon universe. In the real world, different regions of the earth have different species of the same kind of animal. The pokemon universe mirrors real life in many ways, which I personally think is awesome! Pokemon is wildly fantastical, yes, but it still holds to some basic logic.

Fans who complain about re-hashing may also be expecting too much. I mean, how many pokemon are there now? 650? There's only so much Nintendo can do without there being some repetition/re-hashing of pokemon concepts and designs.

What I find hilarious is they complain about pokemon re-hashing yet these same people buy every new Madden or Call of Duty every year which arguably goes through even less changes.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though I am sure that there are fans that complain about those games too. There will always be criticism like that. It's to be expected.

It is also to be expected that there will be people who think Pokemon is "kiddy" and that people who are 19 like me are too old for it. I grew up with Pokemon, though, and see no reason to "grow out of it" just because it would be more socially acceptable or whatever. I have no shame when it comes to this!
 
Well Pokemon seems to be in an never ending loop but the way you do it is different everytime I mean it's not like every game you start at kanto and it's not like everygame you battle the villainous in Mount Moon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top