Greenlit: Unnecessary features

[bobandbill]

What do you mean by 'unnecessary', to begin with? The word 'unnecessary' has a negative connotation to it, but I'd say that why you don't need a PokeWalker to play HGSS (and you don't), it's actually a really fun add-on imo that a lot of people enjoyed.

If you mean to say 'these features are bad because ___' then unnecessary is possibly an alright naming scheme (but idk about best), but if it's to talk about them in general (so examining the feature, the cons and the pros) then it definitely needs a naming scheme.

Could it be an extremely personal point of view, or written as an open debate?

I am unsure; depends on your answer to the above I suppose. If as an open debate, one can make discussion threads on the topic in respective sections beforehand.

I was also thinking of talking about plot inconsistencies or unnecessary, like "Someone's PC".

Plot inconsistencies is less of a feature so perhaps would be something to talk about outside this series. Sentence here is a bit confusing admittedly.

 

[illumine]

This sounds like it might be meant partly humorously, so in that sense the PokéWalker probably has a lot of humorous material to offer, if that were of interest. In any case, elaborating on that would be up to the article's writer, it seems like the concept of the article is more what's being suggested than that any consensus is needed upon its content being accurate. I'm taking it that 'unnecessary' add-ons to a game would be relative to the game and game-play, not to whether or not audience members enjoyed it, which they could do even for bad additions, obviously.

It sounds like a decent alternative point of view to promotion of the series and all of its games, etc., and in that sense if it's just presented as a bunch of people discussing whether a feature in Pokemon is unnecessary (and there might be some resistance there given the nature of the board), rather than a discussion of a feature the author views as unnecessary, then it might get watered down slightly, and as such it might be better to keep it as a 'personal' piece in order to avoid that. The 'capturing Feebas' line makes sense - presumably in reference to the convoluted methodology added to hide this line - but as that is only tangentially a 'feature,' you might want to go for more in that direction of 'things which were unnecessary frustrations in the game' to shore that point up, as it were. Be aware that if it's made too open, you might be writing to a default response on the board of 'No,' or 'That is inexplicable,' and as such it would have to be fairly firm in its stands, although that could vary depending.

You could perhaps comment on the Cinnabar Islands being unnecessary in G/S/C because there was no Missingno. (well, there was Blaine missing, but that's just as much a concession, they're just Blaine), but given that the more recent gens are known to add features and Pokémon for their own sake, you should at least have plenty of material.

 

[bobandbill]

Let's see: Considering the time and work that takes to make each game and the best they could come up with, was a device that you were forced to carry every second of every day just to unlock some courses? No thanks, I'll stick with my Tamagotchi. Tasks that instead of requiring to skill to achieve, requires time is a sad tactic to make the people play the games much more time that it was meant to be played. The EV and IV system was good only because it could make the difference in battles and allowed infinite options of trading/battling etc.

Question: In order to get the greenlit I must convince you that these things were unnecessary? And by unnecessary I mean that the games would still be good without these features, if not better. If this is what I have to do, I can go on for hours about the PokéWalker haha.

First the series needs to be greenlit, we can worry about individual articles later. =p Granted, not everyone likes the Pokewalker, but it's a surprising one to pick if I had to name three examples (e.g. I'd place Musicals in there personally, or at least higher than the PokeWalker). Each to their own. [That said, I don't think it required time, more just 'walk around with it', and I never minded just slipping it into my pocket. It wasn't heavy or anything, haha).

But I digress. What I wanted to establish more is what you would be writing, and in what tone.

Early days but another Daily staff member feels that while the idea at its core is good, they 'think perhaps a series of articles questioning if the features were really that well used and/or liked (which we can gauge from threads we can post!) would be better'. I'm inclined to agree. You'd want to be sure that the article isn't just a big whinge; explaining the feature, having some balance to it and offering ways it could be improved would be more interesting to read too imo. If you intend it to be humourous like illumine mentioned, then it's more a matter of making that clear in the article itself.

Articles in this series could be written from your point of view (or anyone else who may do other entries), welcome to more input on this however. It would be useful to try discussion threads beforehand in the relevant forum section though, as a) points may be raised you may not have considered, and b) you could include other people's views as well (which could help allow the article to have some balance).

PS: Although I do think these features were unnecessary, I have no problem using another title.

Any ideas for other titles, everyone? I am not that keen on 'Unnecessary features' myself... 'Features to Improve', 'How [Feature] could be Improved/better', 'Improving on [feature]'... That's a lot of improves, admittedly. =p

 

[illumine]

As said, the point of this seems more to be making observations about the games and the players' relation to it, than making suggestions for its developers to alter these things. In that sense it might be strange to use such euphemisms there. It is about the features, rather than about the details of such. There's no necessary direction in which they would like to take the features, necessarily, which could perhaps be taken in multiple directions opposed to their point when implemented, but rather about describing these features in the context of the game.

I think I'm gonna make that thread in PG now :P

You could probably get some responses there, yes.

 

[illumine]

With euphemisms you meant 'unnecessary' ?

Nah, don't worry, that wasn't about your suggestion. I was responding more to the attempts to formulate it in different terms, which seemed mostly an attempt at watering it down.

 

[bobandbill]

Could I approach the articles from different points of views? I could write an article about the PokéWalker in a humorous approach, and make others with a thorough review and explanation of the feature; suggesting ways to improve them.

I think that will be fine. One thing we need to consider is if different tones of such articles are part of the same series. I think they can, but it just needs to be made clear at the start of the article whether this specific one is serious or just more silly. Alternatively, split the silly ones from the more balanced ones with some variant of the naming scheme or how it is written (ala Blaine or Medium Martha being used for other articles - that could be fun).

I'm okay with those titles suggestions. Although I could go with something like 'Features that could've been better

Maybe 'Features that could be better' just to avoid the contraction (could've) in the series name.

Nah, don't worry, that wasn't about your suggestion. I was responding more to the attempts to formulate it in different terms, which seemed mostly an attempt at watering it down.

Not following on how having some articles (not all need to be balanced if the humourous approach is taken) having more details and a more balanced view is 'watering it down'. Your previous post is, again like others, somewhat confusing to really understand what you are trying to say, so I find it hard to comment on as well...

 

[Dragon]

Yeah the method of capturing Feebas is pretty pointless. x:

Anywho, I think it'd be best if you approach it from different views yes, and make your points alongside those sort of quotes and ideas the different members have. This can be fun if structured well enough!

 

[bobandbill]

The general article series is approved for now with that name (although maybe a better one can still be thought for).

That said, perhaps splitting the humorous articles from that series name would be best, and more discussion can be had on how it should be written (suggestions, anyone?), along with a different series title. At any rate, pitch individual articles in new threads, and we'll approve those from there. General discussion on the series or new subseries can meanwhile continue here. =)