Why Generation 5 Isn't As Bad As People Think! (Thoughts on generations)

[CoffeeDrink]

Well if we're talking about numbers no gen did hot compared to gen I and II. But then again, why are we using sales to compare gens?

We wouldn't have to, koff~

The problem is that opinions clash and we wouldn't get too far. So I enjoy going by the numbers on most things, just to avoid stubborn arguments. Some people desire a third Generation remake, and I'd tell them that it wouldn't be feasible or very profitable for them to do so. Besides, I don't think it's been long enough for them to rehash that thing. And even if they did, it wouldn't be the same game that you remember. They may remove certain things that were in the original game and replace it with something else entirely.

Besides, I think the reasons in the video (he didn't delve into game mechanics at all) compared Pokemon V designs to Pokemon III designs better than just leveling every minute detail side by side. You may enjoy the third generation as it may have been the first one you got into, and no amount of arguments (arguments are forms of debates mind you, not fights) can convince you otherwise. So that's why I bring up numbers. Generation III was the least profitable. It undersold Generations IV and V (main games), and the heat it receives in certain aspects is well deserved in my opinion (fishing for example, was bad).

However, that isn't to say that Generation V does not have it's own short comings. I can't grow berries in Generation V. That bugs me the most out of everything else. The idea that I would not encounter any old Pokemon was quite refreshing, as I have run into too many shiny Zubats throughout my Pokemon career; it sounds laughable, but once you've seen your eighth shiny Zubat they lose all that 'special' feel to them. So that may be one of the reasons why I enjoy Generation V over Generations III and IV.

I enjoyed seeing what was new, and believe it was really well done. It forced them to make the extra effort to figure out how to populate caves, grass, water, and other such areas, and not just throw several Geodudes and Golbats into caves and call it good. I also believe that Generation III brought with it several 'curses'. For example: Pokemon that get more than one 'form' (Deoxys), the Fire/Fighting starter typing has plagued us for an additional two games because so many people liked Blaziken. Clamperal and it's own items, which it doesn't deserve, which cursed other Pokemon to evolve this way. The 'Legendary Dragons' stage it brought with it; again, so many people enjoyed Rayquaza, they ran with the idea.

Generation five pushed out more Pokemon than the other Generations. Even if one does not like the Klink or the Ice cream cone family, there is another 150 to choose from; more options and choices are always a plus for me, koffi~

 

[Darkwing Ducklett]

Of all the generations, Gen V is easily my least favourite, and it isn't just because I didn't care for most of the Pokemon designs. Playing Pokemon Black was a chore a lot of the time. The random encounter rate was unbalanced, the story was underwhelming - despite claims from all corners that there actually was a substantial story this time around - and the new features felt like random gimmicks introduced for the sake of it, rather than gameplay-changing features. Rotation and Triple battles received barely any attention and, for what has always been a single player experience, there seemed to be far too much focus on the lacklustre C-Gear features; a poor man's multiplayer mode. Gen V wasn't bad, just very, very underwhelming.

My favourite Gen thus far is the fourth, although this was coming from Gen III - which took me a long time to warm up to - and before Gen V, so I'll admit that I'm more than a little biased; it's a good generation between two less than brilliant ones for me. Part of Gen V's problem, at least for me, was that it seemed to be trying to "reset" the franchise, having no connection whatsoever with anything that had come before. It was a standalone Generation, and the designs just didn't cut it for me.

In every Generation, the first included, there are Pokemon I don't like. The fifth just had the most of them, and when that was combined with the immense aggravation I had when playing Black in particular, it makes it my least favourite. There are a lot of factors that make the designs poor, and I can see the point that if they were introduced earlier or later it may have affected my view of them, but I don't think so somehow. A bad design is a bad design, no matter when it is released. I have fond memories of the first generation, but I'm not going to make excuses for the designs of some of the Pokemon contained in it. The first isn't always the best - in fact, this is rarely the case, as developers learn over time and improve upon the base the original provided. Look at it from a gameplay standpoint and it's easy to see how far Pokemon has come. When it comes to something as aesthetic as design, it's just personal preference.

On a side note, I think that drawing attention to all the monkey Pokemon we've had over the years would have been a far better way to illustrate just how re-used concepts in Pokemon are...although that would have detracted from the author's point about Gen III apparently being the worst, because it was the only Gen not to have a monkey Pokemon. Guess that explains that...

 

[Ari Niko]

Uhhh

I really disagree with him.

I mean his points are all valid, but Gen III was by far my favourite. It was the most enjoyable for me and provided my favourite Pokémon of all time.

V on the other hand I found really boring and slow. The Pokémon didn't impress me, and the graphics were way overrated.

 

[Spinosaurus]

We wouldn't have to, koff~

The problem is that opinions clash and we wouldn't get too far. So I enjoy going by the numbers on most things, just to avoid stubborn arguments. Some people desire a third Generation remake, and I'd tell them that it wouldn't be feasible or very profitable for them to do so. Besides, I don't think it's been long enough for them to rehash that thing. And even if they did, it wouldn't be the same game that you remember. They may remove certain things that were in the original game and replace it with something else entirely.

I agree that gen 3 doesn't need a remake, but only because it's the last one that could use it. R/S/E/FR/LG are the best Pokemon games, technically speaking. D/P/Pt could use a remake and fix the obnoxious frame rate and rough 3D polygons. Same for B/W.

As for sales, piracy started being a thing at that time. Loads of people opted for pirating the games instead of buying it because GBA emulation was damn near perfect. In fact, people are STILL pirating R/S/E/FR/LG. If you take the number of copies pirated into consideration, then gen 3 easily win this numbers race. R/S/E/FR/LG are the most pirated games.

You may enjoy the third generation as it may have been the first one you got into, and no amount of arguments (arguments are forms of debates mind you, not fights) can convince you otherwise.

But it's not the first I got into.

So that's why I bring up numbers. Generation III was the least profitable. It undersold Generations IV and V (main games), and the heat it receives in certain aspects is well deserved in my opinion (fishing for example, was bad).

What aspects though? All the hate I see for gen 3 are completely minor. Water is just as bad as caves, which R/S/E had a shortage of (bar the victory road which has never been good, ever). I don't see gen 4 getting hate for the abundance of its caves, same for gen 1. Gen 2 also had an obnoxious water segment, and gen 5 was just barren overall. All these are easily fixed by using a repel anyway.

People tend to exaggerate R/S/E's shortcomings. It doesn't change the fact they are the most well designed and cohesive games in the series. Now, does that mean all other generations are bad? Not at all, but I don't see what's wrong in people finding gen 3 to be the best. It's not nostalgia, or something. Gen 1/2 are bigger victims of that if you wanna go there. I can see some of the reasons why people didn't like it, since Game Freak took big risks with it and changed a lot of things. Sure, I get that, no problem. But calling them bad games? A bit hyperbolic, if you ask me.

However, that isn't to say that Generation V does not have it's own short comings. I can't grow berries in Generation V. That bugs me the most out of everything else. The idea that I would not encounter any old Pokemon was quite refreshing, as I have run into too many shiny Zubats throughout my Pokemon career; it sounds laughable, but once you've seen your eighth shiny Zubat they lose all that 'special' feel to them. So that may be one of the reasons why I enjoy Generation V over Generations III and IV.

I enjoyed seeing what was new, and believe it was really well done. It forced them to make the extra effort to figure out how to populate caves, grass, water, and other such areas, and not just throw several Geodudes and Golbats into caves and call it good.

I don't get this though. I got tired of seeing the same Woobats and Roggenrolas quickly. It's pretty much the same annoying crap we've been through, just with different (and worse, might I add) Pokemon.

I also believe that Generation III brought with it several 'curses'. For example: Pokemon that get more than one 'form' (Deoxys), the Fire/Fighting starter typing has plagued us for an additional two games because so many people liked Blaziken. Clamperal and it's own items, which it doesn't deserve, which cursed other Pokemon to evolve this way. The 'Legendary Dragons' stage it brought with it; again, so many people enjoyed Rayquaza, they ran with the idea.

It just shows how well founded Gen 3 was that they tried (and mostly failed) to replicate these ideas. Just for an out of the blue example for comparisons sake, is Resident Evil 4 (often regarded as a masterpiece, and for good reasons) a curse for populating the shooting genre and was the reason we got the abundance of of them in the last generation of gaming? Maybe, but it doesn't change how perfectly designed Resident Evil 4 is.

Generation five pushed out more Pokemon than the other Generations. Even if one does not like the Klink or the Ice cream cone family, there is another 150 to choose from; more options and choices are always a plus for me, koffi~

Yeah, sure. Design is subjective anyway. It's just a shame that all the good Pokemon are found much later, a design problem only shared by gen 2.

 

[CeeëX]

To be honest out of all the pokémons that exist, my favorite is one from the 5th generation? xP

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I agree that gen 3 doesn't need a remake, but only because it's the last one that could use it. R/S/E/FR/LG are the best Pokemon games, technically speaking. D/P/Pt could use a remake and fix the obnoxious frame rate and rough 3D polygons. Same for B/W.

As for sales, piracy started being a thing at that time. Loads of people opted for pirating the games instead of buying it because GBA emulation was damn near perfect. In fact, people are STILL pirating R/S/E/FR/LG. If you take the number of copies pirated into consideration, then gen 3 easily win this numbers race. R/S/E/FR/LG are the most pirated games.

But it's not the first I got into.

What aspects though? All the hate I see for gen 3 are completely minor. Water is just as bad as caves, which R/S/E had a shortage of (bar the victory road which has never been good, ever). I don't see gen 4 getting hate for the abundance of its caves, same for gen 1. Gen 2 also had an obnoxious water segment, and gen 5 was just barren overall. All these are easily fixed by using a repel anyway.

People tend to exaggerate R/S/E's shortcomings. It doesn't change the fact they are the most well designed and cohesive games in the series. Now, does that mean all other generations are bad? Not at all, but I don't see what's wrong in people finding gen 3 to be the best. It's not nostalgia, or something. Gen 1/2 are bigger victims of that if you wanna go there. I can see some of the reasons why people didn't like it, since Game Freak took big risks with it and changed a lot of things. Sure, I get that, no problem. But calling them bad games? A bit hyperbolic, if you ask me.


I don't get this though. I got tired of seeing the same Woobats and Roggenrolas quickly. It's pretty much the same annoying crap we've been through, just with different (and worse, might I add) Pokemon.

It just shows how well founded Gen 3 was that they tried (and mostly failed) to replicate these ideas. Just for an out of the blue example for comparisons sake, is Resident Evil 4 (often regarded as a masterpiece, and for good reasons) a curse for populating the shooting genre and was the reason we got the abundance of of them in the last generation of gaming? Maybe, but it doesn't change how perfectly designed Resident Evil 4 is.


Yeah, sure. Design is subjective anyway. It's just a shame that all the good Pokemon are found much later, a design problem only shared by gen 2.

I don't really think you fully understood, koff~

I don't believe you actually read much into what I said, if you did, you may not have replied this way. You brought up piracy as numbers. Why? You know what that means from a business stand point? Nothing. It means dropped sales, nothing more. Ghost sales for pirated films are not taken into account on to how 'good' a movie is. I placed these numbers as a matter of fact, not as an overall view. Numbers can go both ways (Starwars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but I happen to believe the numbers are right on the money this time around. It also should be noted that you made the point that piracy was heavy at the time. I almost hate to say it, but piracy is larger now than it ever was ten years ago, so the entire point of 'the most pirated games' is moot. There is no way to calculate these numbers, so there is no way to actually verify if this statement is true or not. Even if they were pirated, more often than not it seems to me that they'll be used as a template for a modded game, thus making the entire point irrelevant.

Also, I was not taking Pokemon Fire Red Version or Leaf Green Version into account much, as they are not the main-stay games in the series. It would be unfair for me to compare Hoenn to Kanto side by side. Besides, should the Hoenn region not exist, Kanto would not have seen any of Emerald's (and it's family) Pokemon. It should also be noted that several gaming mechanics were removed from Fire Red and Leaf Green that were present in the other Generation III games. Whether or not they were good features is a matter up for debate.

A small tag note: The reply "But it's not the first I got into." Is not only vague, but it really is unwarranted because of the notes I've made to avoid such replies (may have, maybe, could have, if, etc.). It's almost as if I could reply the same to any statement made that included these forms of definitive questioning with "But it's not". It's not only snide in actual conversation, but rude. It also doesn't help the debate along any further. Imagine two guys going at it on stage and one of them says "But it's not." as a retort and just leaves it at that. You think that guy got more votes? I don't.

The curses I brought up are still viewed as curses in my mind. You might think that they were so good that they tried to replicate them. I believe that they were so bad that they tried to fix them; and it's always bad to try and fix burnt toast. I think that some of these curses are just now dying off finally.

You also mentioned that "I don't get this though. I got tired of seeing the same Woobats and Roggenrolas quickly. It's pretty much the same annoying crap we've been through, just with different (and worse, might I add) Pokemon." in reference to running into new Pokemon in caves. Again, you seemed to bypass the main point I brought up. Zubat. Zubat doesn't deserve all the hate it receives; yes, it's a good Pokemon, but I've probably seen more of these in my Pokemon career than any other Pokemon, and they get tiring quick. Not because they are a bad Pokemon, but I've seen the thing in every generation except V. They (the Pokemon series) have given me more shiny Zubats than I can have in a party, and the first time I see one in a cave my response is this: "Oh, one of these caves". Giving me a break (and a million others who feel the same way about Zubat as I do) from Zubat was a huge deal for me. And even if I was to use a repel (on a game with new and old Pokemon in the same cave) I'd miss out on all the new Pokemon that were in the caves even as I avoid all the Zubats, and that's not okay. That doesn't make sense to me that they couldn't find any other Pokemon to shove in caves. It's easy to drop a million Zubats in a cave, not to say lazy.
So like I said, they finally took the time to populate caves with something else other than Geodudes and Zubats. I would hazard a guess that you don't use either of those families. Not very many people do, so I think it'd hurt more Pokemon players to have the same old Zubats and Geodudes wandering around in caves. It can't hurt to have new Pokemon that you won't use in a cave. Some other players use the new Pokemon, while you personally will not.

You also brought up Generation II faults (compared to III). Pokemon Versions Silver and Gold hold the key to the city for a lot of people. If you're trying to lay out the faults of a Gameboy game compared to a Gameboy advance game, you're going to find quite a few. The problem (Generation III) is that it's supposed to be 'advanced' and doesn't have the same restrictions held over the Gameboy and Gameboy color. It also does not hold the home advantage of Kanto. The fact that these are the only games that allowed us to travel to Johto and Kanto and go through 16 Gymleaders was (and is) a big deal. The faults of Generation II can mostly be overlooked due to all the innovations they pushed out. I'll rattle a few off the top of my head:

Berries are introduced
Special Pokeballs are introduced
Pokemon breeding
Dark and Steel types
Times of day and days of the week
Pokemon that evolve through friendship
Splitting the special stat into two groups, Special attack and Special defense
'Wandering' Pokemon (this could be considered a curse)
Pokemon 'Contests'
The ability to take Pokemon from past games with you
The ability to customize your home
The ability to battle trainers again

In comparing the innovations of Pokemon Versions Gold and Silver to Pokemon Versions Ruby and Sapphire, the third Generation seemed to fall flat. If I remember correctly, time of day was removed as well as the day of the week (or I could just be thinking of Fire Red and Leaf Green). Cutting such a key feature was detrimental, as it has since been brought back in every other game in the series.

That's about it for now, koffi~

 

[Spinosaurus]

I don't really think you fully understood, koff~

I don't believe you actually read much into what I said, if you did, you may not have replied this way. You brought up piracy as numbers. Why? You know what that means from a business stand point? Nothing. It means dropped sales, nothing more. Ghost sales for pirated films are not taken into account on to how 'good' a movie is. I placed these numbers as a matter of fact, not as an overall view. Numbers can go both ways (Starwars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but I happen to believe the numbers are right on the money this time around. It also should be noted that you made the point that piracy was heavy at the time. I almost hate to say it, but piracy is larger now than it ever was ten years ago, so the entire point of 'the most pirated games' is moot. There is no way to calculate these numbers, so there is no way to actually verify if this statement is true or not. Even if they were pirated, more often than not it seems to me that they'll be used as a template for a modded game, thus making the entire point irrelevant.

I read somewhere that they are the most pirated games, but maybe it lost its credibility now. It doesn't change anything about your point. ""Not very profitable"? Leaving that aside, for the moment, remakes' purposes are to update classics to fit with modern game design, or to fix some design choices to make it a masterpiece. This is what pretty much every remaked game ended up being. (Final Fantasy 4, Wind Waker, FR/LG...) On the other hand, there is nothing inherently wrong with R/S/E's design. The only way an update could do is to fix the special/physical split, but that doesn't warrant it. Not to mention R/S/E are the only Pokemon games to run at on a 60 frames per second framerate and the last to use full 2D pixel art, making a remake where it's 30fps on the 3DS with rough 3D ploygons (since game freak are technically incompetent) would only serve as a huge downgrade. Hence why R/S/E are the last games that need a remake.
Back to the profitable point, come on now. I don't need to explain why a main Pokemon game, regardless of being a remake, would be very profitable...

I also have the need to mention that GBA emulation was super easy to do. Emulating games and using flash carts are too much of a hassle for a lot people, not to mention the abundance of anti-piracy methods during that time.

A small tag note: The reply "But it's not the first I got into." Is not only vague, but it really is unwarranted because of the notes I've made to avoid such replies (may have, maybe, could have, if, etc.). It's almost as if I could reply the same to any statement made that included these forms of definitive questioning with "But it's not". It's not only snide in actual conversation, but rude. It also doesn't help the debate along any further. Imagine two guys going at it on stage and one of them says "But it's not." as a retort and just leaves it at that. You think that guy got more votes? I don't.

Jesus, don't get too fixated on a single comment to correct your assumption. (How was that vague) That's just sad.
This is your quote:

You may enjoy the third generation as it may have been the first one you got into,

I could make a whole paragraph about how anyone could interpret that as "gen 3 was probably youre first game so youre biased but it's ok!" so don't talk about unwarranted, snide and/or rude comments. Of course you could say I'm reading too much into your comment, but you did the same thing just now. Just please, don't be sensitive over little things.

The curses I brought up are still viewed as curses in my mind. You might think that they were so good that they tried to replicate them. I believe that they were so bad that they tried to fix them; and it's always bad to try and fix burnt toast. I think that some of these curses are just now dying off finally.

You also mentioned that "I don't get this though. I got tired of seeing the same Woobats and Roggenrolas quickly. It's pretty much the same annoying crap we've been through, just with different (and worse, might I add) Pokemon." in reference to running into new Pokemon in caves. Again, you seemed to bypass the main point I brought up. Zubat. Zubat doesn't deserve all the hate it receives; yes, it's a good Pokemon, but I've probably seen more of these in my Pokemon career than any other Pokemon, and they get tiring quick. Not because they are a bad Pokemon, but I've seen the thing in every generation except V. They (the Pokemon series) have given me more shiny Zubats than I can have in a party, and the first time I see one in a cave my response is this: "Oh, one of these caves". Giving me a break (and a million others who feel the same way about Zubat as I do) from Zubat was a huge deal for me. And even if I was to use a repel (on a game with new and old Pokemon in the same cave) I'd miss out on all the new Pokemon that were in the caves even as I avoid all the Zubats, and that's not okay. That doesn't make sense to me that they couldn't find any other Pokemon to shove in caves. It's easy to drop a million Zubats in a cave, not to say lazy.
So like I said, they finally took the time to populate caves with something else other than Geodudes and Zubats. I would hazard a guess that you don't use either of those families. Not very many people do, so I think it'd hurt more Pokemon players to have the same old Zubats and Geodudes wandering around in caves. It can't hurt to have new Pokemon that you won't use in a cave. Some other players use the new Pokemon, while you personally will not.

Whatever you say. We'll just go back and forth with this, but good to see someone very passionate about little, minor things. I guess.

You also brought up Generation II faults (compared to III). Pokemon Versions Silver and Gold hold the key to the city for a lot of people. If you're trying to lay out the faults of a Gameboy game compared to a Gameboy advance game, you're going to find quite a few. The problem (Generation III) is that it's supposed to be 'advanced' and doesn't have the same restrictions held over the Gameboy and Gameboy color. It also does not hold the home advantage of Kanto. The fact that these are the only games that allowed us to travel to Johto and Kanto and go through 16 Gymleaders was (and is) a big deal. The faults of Generation II can mostly be overlooked due to all the innovations they pushed out. I'll rattle a few off the top of my head:

Berries are introduced
Special Pokeballs are introduced
Pokemon breeding
Dark and Steel types
Times of day and days of the week
Pokemon that evolve through friendship
Splitting the special stat into two groups, Special attack and Special defense
'Wandering' Pokemon (this could be considered a curse)
Pokemon 'Contests'
The ability to take Pokemon from past games with you
The ability to customize your home
The ability to battle trainers again

In comparing the innovations of Pokemon Versions Gold and Silver to Pokemon Versions Ruby and Sapphire, the third Generation seemed to fall flat. If I remember correctly, time of day was removed as well as the day of the week (or I could just be thinking of Fire Red and Leaf Green). Cutting such a key feature was detrimental, as it has since been brought back in every other game in the series.

That's about it for now, koffi~

Solid game design is MUCH more important than innovation in the long run. Gen 2 innovated, which is probably why a lot of people remember it fondly, but it lacked in solid game design. Its shortcomings make it incapable of aging well (and it didn't, it's very archaic right now) compared to gen 3 which is timeless. And I'm not talking about hardware limitations, this is simply because gen 2 was not well designed. Johto is too small and underwhelming, it's designed that way to strengthen the impact Kanto will make, and it wasn't worth it. They could have expanded on the region but they relied on a simple novelty. The generation had lots of diffficulty spikes problem as well, on top of having a terrible roster and bad trainer/item placements where all the good Pokemon and items were available much later...as far as kanto, in fact. There's also the wild Pokemon problem where their levels were too low and having the kinds of Pokemon that don't offer a good EXP spread, making grinding hell. It ruined the game's pacing.

Now, out of all your list, these are the ones that were useful in the long run:
-Breeding
-Dark and Steel types
-Special split
-The ability to battle trainers again

Special pokeballs, home customization contests (but there weren't...) are just a novelty. They do not enhance the games. Wandering Pokemon and Pokemon that evolve through friendship are a complete hassle. Day and Night system is actually a bad design choice. It should not have returned. Awful feature.

But Gen 3 innovated and changed the mechanics in a much more effective way:
-EVs
-IVs
-Natures
-Abilities
-More that I'm SURE I'm forgetting... heh.

Now we can go back and forth on which one is more innovative, but gen 3 did not fall flat.


Ah, jesus, man. You made me lose track of time writing this reply. :lol

 

[Snowdrop]

Oo, discussion time!

Based on the main series games, I'd say no generation I've played is bad. At all. Diamond, SoulSilver, and White were great. I got 300+ hours from Diamond back in the day, and 150-200 in the others. But fun gameplay comes automatic because it's a main series Pokemon game.

Now, these games had Pokemon from other gens available. So I judge my favorite Gen mostly on designs, primarily the Pokemon designs but also on landscapes, themes, etc. So I'm gonna categorize! Everything I say isn't true or false but mah own opinion.

Character Design: This includes the Gym Leaders, protagonists, trainers, and all them. This is kinda hard/biased since I'm not really familiar with Gen 1 and 2's people all that much. This includes non main series games.

• 1st Place - Johto and Unova (tie) - This is kinda half-hazarded, because there's soooo many characters in each game it's tough to draw a winner. But I like the looks of Hilda, N, Bianca, Cheren, Prof. Juniper, and some of the Gym Leaders. But not so much the Gym Leaders in Gen 5. However, in Gen 2 it's reversed. I'm not so big on most of the regular characters except that kid with the radical red hair (he's fab), but all the Gym Leaders are pretty cool.

• 2nd Place: Hoenn and Kanto (tie) - Hoenn brought Flannery into being, and Kanto had some really cool leaders like Erika, Sabrina, Lorelei, and Agatha. But the designs for the Pokemon Rangers and the Go-Rock Squad were pretty cool, and so were the designs for the Pokemon XD and Colosseum games.

• 3rd Place: Sinnoh - Ehh. Cynthia was great, but nobody else really sticks out in my mind. Oh! Except Barry. He's nice (gotta think of something other to say than "pretty cool" lmao).

Landscape/Environment - Scenery, locations, all that good stuff. Includes non main series games of, course.

• 1st Place: Hoenn - This might be unfair, since I've played almost every spinoff from Gen 3 but not the others. I love the dungeons in Mystery Dungeon and the Friend Areas, and that alone is enough to score Gen 3 some serious points. Not only that, I really like some of the areas in Pokemon Channel despite it being a pretty bad game. After taking a glance at Hoenn's Bulba page a lot of their cities and locations look really cool, such as Seafloor Cave and Sky Pillar. So yeah, it's kind of unfair due to Mystery Dungeon.

• 2nd Place: Sinnoh - Sinnoh has another MD game. Sorry! D8) But I love the spooky mansion and the flowery field. The city where Maylene lived was interesting and I liked spending time in Hearthome, although to be honest the main games don't have oodles of good going for them. The Reverse World (or whatever it's called), however, that's a different story. Also, some of the arenas in Battle Revolution looks fantastic.

• 3rd Place: Johto - I haven't played any games from the second generation. No Stadium or Pinball or anything. But that SoulSilver? That was awesome. I loved traveling there. Every city had something really unique about it. I loved the park, the dome, the Seafom Islands, everything. It was great. For a main-series game, I would give it first place.

• 4th Place: Kanto and Unova (tie) - Both have their fair share of awesome going for them. N's Castle, Dragonspiral Tower, that one place with the graves, all of it was good in Gen 5. Not really as impressive as I wanted it to be, but still very good. Kanto was, too. I really liked Cinnabar Island and Viridian Forest.

Music: I'm not really gonna go into detail about this: 3rd and 4th gen had PMD which destroys any competition in the way of music. Nobody even comes close, so there's that.

Pokemon Designs - Has nothing to do with strength and battle, design and creativity exclusive.

Getting bored of typing and Breaking Bad's coming on, so I'm just gonna list the next ones in order from my favorite to least favorite...

Hoenn, Johto, Kanto, Unova, Sinnoh

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I would disagree, koff~

Now, I told you why in normal conversation, a small answer to a rhetorical question (statement) that holds no bearing on the debate, is fairly worthless.

Second, IVs and EVs have existed since the first Generation, however the third generation improved slightly on the overall system. It didn't create the idea in the first place.

Third, the FPS issue is relatively a small issue. Here's why: Would you rather play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night or Castlevania: Judgment? The FPS sure is great on that Judgment game isn't it? Judgment, however, absolutely blows chunks and should have never seen the light of day. The FPS issue is a poor argument, and you keep using it as if it was critical to the series on a whole! The games (Fifth Gen) runs just fine for me, and I haven't had any detrimental issues with the game. For instance, the Elder Scrolls games (III to V), however, have frozen up on me numerous times. Pokemon games have not done this to me, so the FPS issue is not that big of an issue for most people. I would hazard a guess and say it's hardly a noticeable issue for most children (who seems to be the main target) who couldn't care less as long as they enjoy playing the games.

Fourth, I did not assume anything. At all. You even found the quote for me. This is what I said: "You may enjoy the third generation as it may have been the first one you got into". May. You may like talking to Suzan, she's very pretty. You may like this chocolate icecream. You may put premium gas in your car because you care. May is one of those words that enable me to pour a glass of water and say "you might be dehydrated" without me having to deal with small comments that utterly dismantle the entire conversation. What was the point of actually taking the time to even make that statement? Why wasn't it fleshed out to help your own argument? You could have even stated: that while it was not the first game you got into, since you've been around since the first generation of Pokemon, the third gen is your favorite because you like mudkip. But you didn't, and you left me with a small "But it's not the first I got into". It leaves much to be desired and shows about how much time you put into this. It doesn't even make much sense when you lay it bare. 'You may enjoy Tropicana orange juice because it's the first orange juice you tried. . .' "but it's not". Would you actually respond to someone that way? Honestly? And how can my words be 'sad' when hundreds of English Professors would view that statement as an unfinished or incomplete thought? Why wasn't it the first game you played? Which game did you play first then? These questions give you the opportunity to round out your arguments and give yourself some backing and to show where exactly it is you're coming from. Instead, you seem to avoid explaining your thoughts.

Fifth, you may have to explain as to why you believe a remake of the third Generation of Pokemon would be profitable other than it will sell because it is a Pokemon game. If you say it'll sell as much as the original games because it's extremely popular (which I firmly believe it won't, as no reissue has done so) is a reason, albeit a rather bony explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. You also mentioned some potential issues a Generation III remake may face in the future. Do you think if they had to, that they could overcome their new 3D graphics (if they went that way) and still sell better than the other reissued Pokemon games?

Not explaining something in detail can really dampen your points and render them less useful than if you had just taken the time to explain why you feel that way. Also, piracy is still considered a big issue in the business circuit. It isn't shrinking, as there has been recent legislation to try and take control over the internet due to piracy. Piracy (in general) has not been diminished in the man's eyes as they still lose money to the pirates, and I'm fairly certain that they absolutely hate having their potential profits vanish into thin air. Piracy hasn't diminished and is still in heavy use. All Pokemon games have seen their fair share of Piracy. It's also safe to assume that since the advance games are older, they have been pirated more so than their newer cousins.

"Day and Night system is actually a bad design choice. It should not have returned. Awful feature."

Again, why? There isn't any context here at all! Example: "Crunchy peanuts in peanut butter is actually a bad product choice. It should not have happened. Awful idea." Why? Really, why? Why is the day and night feature awful? Why don't you explain anything? If this really doesn't matter to you, then why do you even have an opinion? How come you dislike the day and night feature? What about the days of the week? Surely you have something knocking around up there?

Questions are all I can offer for a man like you. . .

In all honesty I don't believe you'd make the debate team, koffi~

 

[Spinosaurus]

Second, IVs and EVs have existed since the first Generation, however the third generation improved slightly on the overall system. It didn't create the idea in the first place.

It didn't. But they changed it in a big way that could be considered to be innovative.

Third, the FPS issue is relatively a small issue. Here's why: Would you rather play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night or Castlevania: Judgment? The FPS sure is great on that Judgment game isn't it? Judgment, however, absolutely blows chunks and should have never seen the light of day. The FPS issue is a poor argument, and you keep using it as if it was critical to the series on a whole! The games (Fifth Gen) runs just fine for me, and I haven't had any detrimental issues with the game. For instance, the Elder Scrolls games (III to V), however, have frozen up on me numerous times. Pokemon games have not done this to me, so the FPS issue is not that big of an issue for most people. I would hazard a guess and say it's hardly a noticeable issue for most children (who seems to be the main target) who couldn't care less as long as they enjoy playing the games.

Yeah, this is just as bad as the "graphics aren't an issue in the long run." Moving on.

The 5th gen overworld is 30fps at most with numerous significant drops. But it "runs fine" so whatever you say.

Fourth, I did not assume anything. At all. You even found the quote for me. This is what I said: "You may enjoy the third generation as it may have been the first one you got into". May. You may like talking to Suzan, she's very pretty. You may like this chocolate icecream. You may put premium gas in your car because you care. May is one of those words that enable me to pour a glass of water and say "you might be dehydrated" without me having to deal with small comments that utterly dismantle the entire conversation. What was the point of actually taking the time to even make that statement? Why wasn't it fleshed out to help your own argument? You could have even stated: that while it was not the first game you got into, since you've been around since the first generation of Pokemon, the third gen is your favorite because you like mudkip. But you didn't, and you left me with a small "But it's not the first I got into". It leaves much to be desired and shows about how much time you put into this. It doesn't even make much sense when you lay it bare. 'You may enjoy Tropicana orange juice because it's the first orange juice you tried. . .' "but it's not". Would you actually respond to someone that way? Honestly? And how can my words be 'sad' when hundreds of English Professors would view that statement as an unfinished or incomplete thought? Why wasn't it the first game you played? Which game did you play first then? These questions give you the opportunity to round out your arguments and give yourself some backing and to show where exactly it is you're coming from. Instead, you seem to avoid explaining your thoughts.

Please dude, I didn't need to explain my comment. You know full well what I meant so don't throw random ass analogies at me.

Fifth, you may have to explain as to why you believe a remake of the third Generation of Pokemon would be profitable other than it will sell because it is a Pokemon game. If you say it'll sell as much as the original games because it's extremely popular (which I firmly believe it won't, as no reissue has done so) is a reason, albeit a rather bony explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. You also mentioned some potential issues a Generation III remake may face in the future. Do you think if they had to, that they could overcome their new 3D graphics (if they went that way) and still sell better than the other reissued Pokemon games?

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Not explaining something in detail can really dampen your points and render them less useful than if you had just taken the time to explain why you feel that way. Also, piracy is still considered a big issue in the business circuit. It isn't shrinking, as there has been recent legislation to try and take control over the internet due to piracy. Piracy (in general) has not been diminished in the man's eyes as they still lose money to the pirates, and I'm fairly certain that they absolutely hate having their potential profits vanish into thin air. Piracy hasn't diminished and is still in heavy use. All Pokemon games have seen their fair share of Piracy. It's also safe to assume that since the advance games are older, they have been pirated more so than their newer cousins.

I'm not here to take lessons about piracy because of an irrelevant post I made to throw you off, thank you.

"Day and Night system is actually a bad design choice. It should not have returned. Awful feature."

Again, why? There isn't any context here at all! Example: "Crunchy peanuts in peanut butter is actually a bad product choice. It should not have happened. Awful idea." Why? Really, why? Why is the day and night feature awful? Why don't you explain anything? If this really doesn't matter to you, then why do you even have an opinion? How come you dislike the day and night feature? What about the days of the week? Surely you have something knocking around up there?

I'll just avoid all these analogies you seem to love so much and ask a simple question.

What did the day and night system bring to the game design?

Questions are all I can offer for a man like you. . .

In all honesty I don't believe you'd make the debate team, koffi~

Damn, debating champion, you seem mad. I could explain everything I say, but I don't have to and I don't want to. But just to humor you I'll explain why is that, and it's because I don't wanna write walls of irrelevant texts (like what you love to do) since we'll just go back and forth on this small issue. All I want is a simple discussion about comparisons of generations without all these analogies and "Serious Debating 101" crap you're pulling out. I can easily explain my reasonings. But I don't want to. Not with you, since you're boring to debate with. (Do you want me to explain that too?)

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I can easily explain my reasonings. But I don't want to. Not with you, since you're boring to debate with.

Sure you can, koff~

Because you can. And you don't want to. "I can tell you what that means. But I don't want to (and I can't) because I don't understand." Keep on chugging my friend, because I don't know how much it would hurt to always be out to lunch. Also, the day and night feature added a sort of in-depth pseudo realism. You got to walk around in the tall grass and encounter Pokemon that would be labeled as nocturnal in their entries. Wouldn't make much sense to come across barn owls in the middle of the day now would it?

One more thing: Graphics aren't that big of deal in the long run kid (if you actually like playing good videogames) if the game sucks. Take Galaga as an example. Or Tetris. Pac-Man, Dig-Dug, Turtles in Time, Sunset Riders, F-Zero, Super Mario Bros, Battletoads, Space invaders, Missle command, this list goes on by the way. These games can all be considered to have 'bad graphics' and 'low FPS' but you know what? I'm pretty sure that more people would rather play Pole Position over Super Big-Rig truckers, or Duke Nukem 3D over Duke Nukem Forever, and just in case you think I'm selecting poor examples: I'd rather play 1000 hours of Tetris, than 10 hours of The Last of Us. I'm sure we could make a pole about which games should have better FPS rates, but Pokemon and the first handful of Final Fantasy games (and hundreds of other RPGs I might add) would probably stay off the list. It's not a critical error to walk a bit slower than it is to be unable to select which attack you would like to use in a timely manner, and guess what? I don't see any critical errors made on behalf of Game Freak. Going on and on and on about how FPS rates make or break a game is dull. Calling me boring? Geez Louise, take a look at yourself man. Your thoughts may sound good in whatever box you have shaking up in there, but on paper they leave much to be desired. I could explain that easily. But I don't want to. Just because. Boring to debate with? Laughable, since you'd never even make the team anyway. Your guess work is so shoddy, they probably wouldn't put you in charge of the artillery any time soon. I could explain that too. You need an explanation? Oh yeah, the huge block of intimidation "Didn't read and 'lol'. That's an acceptable response, right?". Protip: just tackle one sentence at a time until you reach the end, really helps with books too. Also, back to the FPS rates: would you believe that most of the target audience wouldn't notice? Probably not, but it is true. I'll sit here while you explain to a five year old why the bad FPS rate hurts the game in a big way. Some people equate the 'poor FPS' to bad design flaws. Maybe they just didn't know that they're going up a fu#king hill? We've had hills since the first Generation of Pokemon games, and so far the first generation remains the buggiest game in the series (and a really low FPS rate, I'm sure), but still remains a favorite among many fans. God knows why with that terrible FPS rate. Pack your FPS bags kid, you're going home, koffi~

I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated. Why would I shave seconds off my lifespan even trying to get you to understand? I wish you luck in life (my luck is actually piss poor, but what the hell?) because you may need it more than I. Cheers.


Also back on topic: I think another reason why people don't enjoy the fifth generation as much as they did with the fourth is because the Unova region lacked their favorite Pokemon? It might have helped if they let people take Pokemon with them (from past games) sooner rather than later. I for one was thankful not to run into any Geodudes!

 

[LusoTrainer]

I only like the first two generations (FR/LG included). From then on, even Tajiri stopped being as involved as he was on the games. Not to mention that as far as design goes, the originality has in my opinion started to decrease from the 3rd Gen onwards. E.g:

->

->

->

I mean, with so many animals for inspiration, why repeat concepts over and over?

 

[Elaitenstile]

Well... let's just say a fully biased opinion on this matter is very different from another fully biased opinion. There is no "argument", just a personal preference. In all honesty though, I should say all the generations were thoroughly entertaining, especially Gen III and before. They have all their unique qualities, and no matter how much you diminish them based on a certain opinion, you cannot deny that the argument stands: all the generations were thoroughly entertaining. It's just that they were, for different reasons that, and it's based on personal preference from here.

A synopsis of all five generations (my biased opinion, don't think I'm making many general statements):

Gen I: Undoubtedly the fist experience of playing a Pocket Monsters game, I should say that RBGY were pretty much the Pokémon games back then. For good reason, these games were enjoyable and did not filter out for clarity, so the original experience could only be preserved by playing these games first. A game with not much insight on the strategies and metagame, true, but grant a remark they had a very good step first. Even looking at Gen VI, they haven't innovated much that was out of this game's reach. The Pokémon seen in this generation were very basic, and the general theme was just simple monsters.

Gen II: Another experience not to be forgotten. A dire good addition, though they may have made a mite tumble by "continuing" the sequence of Gen I. It's arguable that due to this they had not many good story sequences or much innovation, but this can be given extra points due to the fact that they did what Gen I couldn't and they did better. So a good honour for correcting many of the mysteries of Gen I, such as Pokémon Gender and breeding. The mechanics of the game was similar to the first generation, but not without improvements, the major being introduction of two new types. Pokémon here are characterized by traditional outlooks, and most of them generalizing around myths and lores.

Gen III: This was the most comprehensive boost to the games, but sadly this may be the start of the "decline" of the franchise as well. The game itself was revamped into something that you would feel like experiencing more, but that's not the whole reason why this generation was very amazing. It should be noted that this generation started to have a more RPGish game, with a good, strong storyline which served as a heavy base for the later generations. The story itself was rather original and the mechanics caught most gamers off-guard. The whole system expanded and there came the staple region. The maps here characterized natural beauty much more than all of the other generations, so that's more bonus points given. I need not say much about the graphics, since I'm not some diehard fan for the best graphics in the world. The Pokémon here start to look really exotic, and there's a lot of insight in their designs. There's a major shift of styles, and a few cool designs as well.

Gen IV: The games were alright, they did quite a few things to improve Gen III and also came up with nice innovations, but scarce compared to the shift of Gen III. However, it's not ruling out on the new style of DS gaming as well as a ton of new features to boot. The re-introduction of the Day & Night system was to ensure a more natural effect and more nocturnal Pokémon. Luckily, (other than Rotom) nothing important was connected with Day & Night, so it didn't affect the gameplay much. Happy to say I was also cool with this generation. The genre started shifting as a more of a mix between the older and the newer games, like an equalizer. The new metagame was an unprecented amazing style, with boosts everywhere on the items, moves, abilities, etc. and the main being the Physical/Special split. This actually made Pokémon like Gyarados forces to be reckoned with, as the shift of water attacks was very useful. The Pokémon here are more detailed, but mostly they are just extensions of older Pokémon.

Gen V: A standoff generation, they may have pissed us off at first but they made it up with B2W2. The new serious remake of Gen I, we'd call it. Gen V did a lot to improve the games overall, and it wasn't unnoticed. Many saw this as big boost to the Pokémon games, and I cannot but agree. This is the one that gave a gratified look to sorry faces at the disappointment they may have felt throughout the last two generations. Aaand they had a good storyline, but they ruined it at the end. One theme they introduced here was to respond against animal cruelty, but at the end they just started the old system again. How typical. It's just a game, so I'm not too concerned about that. The new metagame was improvements of the Gen IV one, but with the new Dream World concept almost everything changed, as old Pokémon got dream abilities that they couldn't have gotten before. The Pokémon here are more back-to-the-past type, they try to take back inspiration from Gen I and mix it with the new design shift.

Overall I should say that I'm quite happy with the progress so far. The generations have been progressive and there has been a lot of different genres throughout. I wouldn't like to point out that any generation was bad.

 

[Clark]

I only like the first two generations (FR/LG included). From then on, even Tajiri stopped being as involved as he was on the games. Not to mention that as far as design goes, the originality has in my opinion started to decrease from the 3rd Gen onwards. E.g:

->

->

->

I mean, with so many animals for inspiration, why repeat concepts over and over?

There are 2700 species of snakes, 9,200 species of bivalves, and 160,000 species of moths. Isn't it only fair and right that Pokemon should reflect the massive variation within different groups of animals? I think it'd be pretty boring if we just had one dog, or one bird, or so on. Each region has its own interpretations of certain "repeat" animals, and it makes perfect sense, since each part of the world has its own endemic species of birds, insects, sea life, etc. In fact, if you look up the origins behind Pokemon that seem similar you can often find that they're deliberately based on different species.

Gen 5 is fine. I've been playing since GSC, and Gen 5 is by far my favorite in all regards, but especially Pokemon design. The design style has changed over time, but if anything I'd argue it's gotten more original and inventive than it was to begin with.

 

[LusoTrainer]

There are 2700 species of snakes, 9,200 species of bivalves, and 160,000 species of moths. Isn't it only fair and right that Pokemon should reflect the massive variation within different groups of animals?

Strawman. Nobody is arguing that there aren't different species of a certain type of animal. What I'm arguing is that with so many animals there were never adapted to the franchise, why repeat concepts that are already done?

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Strawman. Nobody is arguing that there aren't different species of a certain type of animal. What I'm arguing is that with so many animals there were never adapted to the franchise, why repeat concepts that are already done?

I would suppose they're hard pressed to actually find animals that they haven't touched, koff~

They're slowly burning through the main species of animals we have on the planet, and there are indeed going to be some 'repeats' mainly due to the fact that life gives us so many repeated animals and so on and so forth. They have centipedes, spores, mushrooms, birds, bees, fish, tuna fish, gold fish, eagles, vultures, mice, field mice, rats, owls, spiders, lady birds, whales, sharks, lions, tigers, clams, bears, seals, ghosts, dharma statues, cacti, moths, radioactive sludge, etc. There is a lot of Pokemon ideas out there, but I can understand that due to the restraints of technology and the fact that they have to drag every single Pokemon that they created through the rest of the series. . . I can see several members of Gamefreak getting little to no sleep. Give them some more time, as I'm sure they'll keep coming up with new ideas for Pokemon, koff~

 

[Spinosaurus]

Sure you can, koff~

Because you can. And you don't want to. "I can tell you what that means. But I don't want to (and I can't) because I don't understand."

Oh I understand completely man (except the analogies), but your points are just so off-track it's not even funny. I'm not compelledabout replying to analogies either. I already explained my reasoning in not replying properly, dude.

You're taking this too seriously, man. Chill a bit.

Also, the day and night feature added a sort of in-depth pseudo realism. You got to walk around in the tall grass and encounter Pokemon that would be labeled as nocturnal in their entries. Wouldn't make much sense to come across barn owls in the middle of the day now would it?

Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.

Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.

Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.

Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.

OK I want you to repeat that, get it into your head, and then add to it in the end "especially when the only thing it does it set a limit."

One more thing: Graphics aren't that big of deal in the long run kid (if you actually like playing good videogames) if the game sucks.

You do not know what you're talking about

Take Galaga as an example. Or Tetris. Pac-Man, Dig-Dug, Turtles in Time, Sunset Riders, F-Zero, Super Mario Bros, Battletoads, Space invaders, Missle command, this list goes on by the way. These games can all be considered to have 'bad graphics' and 'low FPS' but you know what?

You REALLY do not know what you're talking about.
This is what I got from your post
"let's make everything look like tetris it should be ok! graphics don't matter!"

I'm pretty sure that more people would rather play Pole Position over Super Big-Rig truckers, or Duke Nukem 3D over Duke Nukem Forever, and just in case you think I'm selecting poor examples: I'd rather play 1000 hours of Tetris, than 10 hours of The Last of Us.

Sure but what's that got to do with graphics or frame rates? The games you mentioned (except The Last of Us, dude no) suck. Why are you using them to prove a point?
All I'm getting out of you is that it's ok for a game to have ****** frame rate and to look like shovelware, just as long as it's good. (And don't give me decade old games for examples for the love of god, consider their age.)

I'm sure we could make a pole about which games should have better FPS rates, but Pokemon and the first handful of Final Fantasy games (and hundreds of other RPGs I might add) would probably stay off the list. It's not a critical error to walk a bit slower than it is to be unable to select which attack you would like to use in a timely manner, and guess what? I don't see any critical errors made on behalf of Game Freak. Going on and on and on about how FPS rates make or break a game is dull.

OK, you don't care about frame rate, that's fine. You don't make a compelling point though.
Here's an analogy you love so much: I like hamburgers. I ordered the new one with cheese and tomatoes. I took out the cheese and tomato because I don't care for them, and just ate the hamburger with meat. People complain about the cheese and tomato. I complain to them "hey dick the meat is still good stop complaining the cheese and tomato arent important in the long run stop whining!"

Calling me boring? Geez Louise, take a look at yourself man.

Dude, you're being so serious about a small topic and started giving me a lecture on how to debate or some crap with some obscure ass analogies that no one will understand. You ARE boring.

Your thoughts may sound good in whatever box you have shaking up in there, but on paper they leave much to be desired. I could explain that easily. But I don't want to. Just because. Boring to debate with?

"I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated."

Laughable, since you'd never even make the team anyway.
Your guess work is so shoddy, they probably wouldn't put you in charge of the artillery any time soon. I could explain that too.

What is this debate team anyway? The "let's throw random points and analogies at people just to sound smart" club? No thanks I'd rather join the swimming team or something.

You need an explanation? Oh yeah, the huge block of intimidation "Didn't read and 'lol'. That's an acceptable response, right?". Protip: just tackle one sentence at a time until you reach the end, really helps with books too.

"I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated."

Also, back to the FPS rates: would you believe that most of the target audience wouldn't notice? Probably not, but it is true. I'll sit here while you explain to a five year old why the bad FPS rate hurts the game in a big way. Some people equate the 'poor FPS' to bad design flaws.

Damn, you got me. Because most people don't notice it it's OK to let it go.
It's time for ANALOGIES
OK here's this government. OK? They're doing bad things secretly. OK? That means we should complain about it....nah man no one notices it anyway.

Maybe they just didn't know that they're going up a fu#king hill? We've had hills since the first Generation of Pokemon games, and so far the first generation remains the buggiest game in the series (and a really low FPS rate, I'm sure), but still remains a favorite among many fans. God knows why with that terrible FPS rate.

Gee dude, nostalgia? Also gen I was smooth 30fps with no drops. No complaints from me....well in that department anyway.

Pack your FPS bags kid, you're going home, koffi~

"I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated."

I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated. Why would I shave seconds off my lifespan even trying to get you to understand? I wish you luck in life (my luck is actually piss poor, but what the hell?) because you may need it more than I. Cheers.

I dunno man you seem happy wasting time writing irrelevant walls of text, trying to sound smart with head scratching analogies and then trying to make a legitimate complaint seem irrelevant. So might as well go there, you know? Sorry about your luck in life, or something. Actually is that what you meant because I really didn't understand that.

And now I leave this thread satisfied. Thanks for the fun man.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

You seem to think all's well fine and dandy in that pretty little skull of yours don't you, koff~

I seem to have missed the part where you actually didn't grow up with several of the games that I did, so now that I have that information I feel like a dolt for trying to be rational with a person with the mentality of a five year old.

"Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.
Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.
Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary.
Don't apply realism to game design when it's not necessary."

Really? This is going to be relevant how? And what's more, you just repeated the same thing four times. This is how you behave? One sentence is all you needed. If you were better at English, you might have known that. Instead, you go with the 'loud' defense.

"What is this debate team anyway? The "let's throw random points and analogies at people just to sound smart" club? No thanks I'd rather join the swimming team or something."

Which is why you should never reproduce.

and why would you equate a statement with nostalgia on my behalf? You want the forms but can you even read? I keep telling you, 'may, might, maybe, perhaps, etc.' are not all definitive. I can see why you might feel that way, but they do not function the same as 'is, are, will, does, etc.'

Also, at what point does the night and day feature a 'limit' besides the obvious switching of the day and night? And like I said before, since they have nocturnal Pokemon, it wouldn't make sense to catch them during the day. Don't argue with me, bring it up with whoever wrote the 'Dex entries.

Oh, and you're actually really bad about analogies by the way. For one, your hamburger already came with the stuff, you're the one complaining about FPS rates, and 'surprise' most Hamburgers come that way standard (onions, lettuce and what not) the analogies I used were to equate how poor your responses were, which apparently I can't nail through your iron-class skull. Your analogy was pretty useless on hand. It can't even be compared to what you're arguing. You bought the 'new' hamburger (the new Pokemon game I assume) and tell others to stop crying and complaining about it, even though you're the one who forgot their binkie?

Great Scott! Did you really not understand how ridiculous the peanut butter sentence was? You said it word for word (albeit with far less flavor) on how the day and night features are awful. Further more, you act as if you've explained yourself clearly, which you have not by far, and act all high and mighty because you can type a few jumbled words together.

My luck in life is bad, yes. But I look at my lot number and then yours, see? Mine is bad, but you; yours is just absolutely abysmal. Does that help you? Can you understand that now? Hm? Find yourself a dictionary or a book.

Another point: you take things out of context. Congratulations, you can skim text.

And you speak of 'bad' games. I forgot that I left Megaman off of that list. I'm 100% certain that he's withstood the 'timeless' status that you spoke so highly of before. What about other series that have been around longer and have more staying power? It's an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Last of Us was a one time game. That's it. It's not fun, unique or challenging. The AI is shoddy and the game is repetitive.


One last thing I'll pull apart for you:

"I hope you enjoyed not reading. No, I'm not mad or even irritated. Why would I shave seconds off my lifespan even trying to get you to understand? I wish you luck in life (my luck is actually piss poor, but what the hell?) because you may need it more than I. Cheers."

this is what I wrote. It basically means you should shut your face because what's pouring out of it is so putrid, bizarre, and so rancid that it could make a hooker gag at 50 feet. Now I'm irritated, because you saw fit to dredge up the conversation even after it was all said and done. So instead of being constructive to the actual thread, you had to be a Cofagrigus (use your imagination, if you have any) and interjected with past information that was already irrelevant. I moved the thread along and you came and ruined that for everyone else. You reward yourself with pat on the back and a gif. file of some (unknown to me) show. The gif. is annoying (rude, we can't forget rude), and can be equated with waving your genitals at traffic (what does that mean? It means it's useless. And stupid). What does this all mean? It means I'm finished. I'm done discussing things with you. It's more of me talking to a dull brick and less of an engaging conversation. There's little to be received from going back and forth with you, and more chances for me to hone my wit.

And how do you like that? gif.-less. Protip: if you reply, you must have wax in your ears. Quit being a furry hoop, clam up your Methodist preacher mouth and drop it. It's done. It's over. There is no longer a debate, you should study, stay in school, don't do drugs, wear sunscreen, and all the kind loving things you hear from everybody else. Your little Clefairy routine is painful to watch.

I should give out points to anyone who figures out anything, koffi~

Apologies to anyone who has to follow this drivel. Please ignore the two posts above you and continue the thread as you would normally. Thank you for your time.