Gaming Is Pokemon really fun, or just compulsive?

[Latiken]

I think pokemon is fun but not really. I mean its not mean to be a hard game.
Its not exactly fun but its not boring. Its just a game to clear your boredom.

 

[Foxi4]

Compulsive, and I refuse to say othewise until the franchise receives the make-over it desperately needs. It floats on brand loyalty alone as of today and simply does not reach the standards of a contemporary video game.

Nintendo showed that they can make graphically-impressive and advanced games in the "Pokemon Format", even on the limited DS - they proved it with Fossil Fighters. I have no idea why that game was "not Pokemon" - its formula features just about anything the Pokemon franchise is currently lacking. For all intents and purposes, the current Pokemon games look and feel like they belong in the early DS era, not "today" - implementing full 3D view in both exploration *and* battle mode would greatly benefit the game. Stale story aside, Pokemon is just "stale at its core" and Nintendo refuses to experiment with the franchise. They are yet to release a 3DS version of the game - if I see the same old top-down view with sprites, if I see the same, uninspired battle system screen with two flat Pokemon that are occasionally animated, if yet again, exploration will take place not in three, but in two dimensions (aka, no jumping, crouching, looking for tiny caverns and secret paths visible only from a certain angle etc.), I will be once again gravely disappointed.

 

[weavile001]

yeah idk how it's named in english...let's google it...

"Battle Institute"

where you can test your skills after beaten the elite four and the champ
aka
the place who kicks the crap out of you with not-very-effective attacks -_-'
gotten alot harder since B/W...the first 3 battles are fairly easy, but then it hits you with pokemon on super steroids which one-hits you with the weakest attack
but mostly they throw the best possible combination of types against you or sometimes even legendaries
either way ---> one hit K.O.
oh and you have to prevent as many K.O.'s as possible...
and they still hit you with blizzard after 6x Flash AND 6x Double Team @_@

:a
i´m going to try it out now.

 

[hack_ziro]

Compulsive, and I refuse to say othewise until the franchise receives the make-over it desperately needs. It floats on brand loyalty alone as of today and simply does not reach the standards of a contemporary video game.

Nintendo showed that they can make graphically-impressive and advanced games in the "Pokemon Format", even on the limited DS - they proved it with Fossil Fighters. I have no idea why that game was "not Pokemon" - its formula features just about anything the Pokemon franchise is currently lacking. For all intents and purposes, the current Pokemon games look and feel like they belong in the early DS era, not "today" - implementing full 3D view in both exploration *and* battle mode would greatly benefit the game. Stale story aside, Pokemon is just "stale at its core" and Nintendo refuses to experiment with the franchise. They are yet to release a 3DS version of the game - if I see the same old top-down view with sprites, if I see the same, uninspired battle system screen with two flat Pokemon that are occasionally animated, if yet again, exploration will take place not in three, but in two dimensions (aka, no jumping, crouching, looking for tiny caverns and secret paths visible only from a certain angle etc.), I will be once again gravely disappointed.

complete makeover? not a simple task in a franchise like pokemon

about graphics: i guess they'll NEVER make a classic pokemon game completely w/o 2D sprites...that's just part of the deal
but hey, even 2D sprites can be advanced (just look at the PS3 version of blazblue for example)
some people just don't like pixelsprites tho

about gameplay: like any classic franchise, pokemon is developing after every generation while keeping it's classic style of gameplay
more things are added/removed after every new release - like pokestar studios - but that's a mixed opinion kind of thing

there are enough pokemon spin-offs such as conquest to target other palyers...

conclusion:
the classic "poket monsters"-handheld games became a full-fledged franchise and will get nintendo a crapload of money as long as they periodically release new versions
it worked the past 16 years, so it will do the next 16 years
i must admit, i'm suprised that this game is still fun for me even it's more like a moneymilking cow by now
such as many, many other franchises such as zelda, mario and final fantasy...
so i'm pretty sure nobody have to worry about the death of classic pokemon games that soon

 

[suppow]

both!
the main difference i see with grinding in pokemon than in other traditional rpgs,
is that in pokemon aside from grinding to get a certain ability,
when you grind your pokemon and level it up enough you basically get a whole new pokemon, and it completes your pokedex a bit more,
instead of just griding for stats, or spells or to reach the requirements for an item in regular rpgs.

and i feel it takes less time in pokemon.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Compulsive, and I refuse to say othewise until the franchise receives the make-over it desperately needs. It floats on brand loyalty alone as of today and simply does not reach the standards of a contemporary video game.

Nintendo showed that they can make graphically-impressive and advanced games in the "Pokemon Format", even on the limited DS - they proved it with Fossil Fighters. I have no idea why that game was "not Pokemon" - its formula features just about anything the Pokemon franchise is currently lacking. For all intents and purposes, the current Pokemon games look and feel like they belong in the early DS era, not "today" - implementing full 3D view in both exploration *and* battle mode would greatly benefit the game. Stale story aside, Pokemon is just "stale at its core" and Nintendo refuses to experiment with the franchise. They are yet to release a 3DS version of the game - if I see the same old top-down view with sprites, if I see the same, uninspired battle system screen with two flat Pokemon that are occasionally animated, if yet again, exploration will take place not in three, but in two dimensions (aka, no jumping, crouching, looking for tiny caverns and secret paths visible only from a certain angle etc.), I will be once again gravely disappointed.

I hope you realize sprites are a stylistic choice and not the result of technical limitations. Personally, I hope they never change to a full-3D graphical style as the current style adds charm (for lack of a better word) to the games.

As for the so-called "uninspired" battle system, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you take issue in the fact that there are only two Pokemon battling at a time, well say hello to Double and Triple Battles. The system has been fine-tuned over so many generations that it's pretty much perfect. The animated sprites that were added in Black and White are just the icing on the cake.

 

[Black-Ice]

There can hardly be a normal conversation on Pokemon here.
Its either the Poke-Nazis who blindly hate everything or Poke-Tards who blindly obsess over everything.
Then you have the middle guys like me who are hated by both

 

[Foxi4]

I hope you realize sprites are a stylistic choice and not the result of technical limitations. Personally, I hope they never change to a full-3D graphical style as the current style adds charm (for lack of a better word) to the games.

As for the so-called "uninspired" battle system, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you take issue in the fact that there are only two Pokemon battling at a time, well say hello to Double and Triple Battles. The system has been fine-tuned over so many generations that it's pretty much perfect. The animated sprites that were added in Black and White are just the icing on the cake.

I was *mostly* talking about stylistic issues, such as backgrounds and sprites. At this point in time, there's no reason not to go a step further, and I do not think that it is a "stylistic choice" - it's a limitation of the old engine that Nintendo refuses to scrap. Pokemon Stadium 1, 2, Battle Revolution and Pokemon DX showed that the battle system works just fine in three dimensions and can be far more spectacular than it is on portable devices. Nintendo does not "choose" to use sprites, they "choose" not to create a new engine for the game which will support 3D objects on the battle screen.

The way I see it, during a battle, the player *should* see the two trainers, the battling Pokemon, whatever amount there may be within a given mode and the specific environment in which the battle is taking place. I'm not getting that, and I'm not digging lazyness.

 

[gamefan5]

I think pokemon was able to, because it's pokemon. And probably because of the following reasons:
- graphics improve a bit by region. drawing kids new to the series into pokemon and not feel like they're playing an old game.
- each region has different pokemons, and some of us have completionist instincts like they're some sort of achievements/trophy.
- it being portable, you could bring it almost anywhere and doesn't need much focus while playing.

That and the fact that it is aimed by kids. As the population grows, Pokemon will be here to stay in order to enslave little kiddies into it's world XD. Some may stay in this world for eternity, others will have enough willpower to get out. That loss is usually insignificant because it will draw new kids in. XD

 

[Hyro-Sama]

There can hardly be a normal conversation on Pokemon here.
Its either the Poke-Nazis who blindly hate everything or Poke-Tards who blindly obsess over everything.
Then you have the middle guys like me who are hated by both

You forgot about guys like Foxi4 and soulx who make logical arguments and don't spout conjecture.

 

[Black-Ice]

You forgot about guys like Foxi4 and soulx who make logical arguments and don't spout conjecture.

But seriously, I think if people had their way, pokemon would become something its not.
They are doing well and making improvements every game. I enjoyed B&W and B&W2
People may not agree but I like that they are putting effort into story line rather than just random occurrences

 

[Fishaman P]

I enjoy Pokemon not for the story or experience, but just the battles. Therefore, I am not opposed to legal hacks, and I even use Pokecheck and Pokegen myself. You should try a simulator like pokemonshowdown.com

 

[Deleted_171835]

I was *mostly* talking about stylistic issues, such as backgrounds and sprites. At this point in time, there's no reason not to go a step further, and I do not think that it is a "stylistic choice" - it's a limitation of the old engine that Nintendo refuses to scrap. Pokemon Stadium 1, 2, Battle Revolution and Pokemon DX showed that the battle system works just fine in three dimensions and can be far more spectacular than it is on portable devices. Nintendo does not "choose" to use sprites, they "choose" not to create a new engine for the game which will support 3D objects on the battle screen.

"For the Pokémon characters, one of the reasons we use sprites, at least currently, is because we like to have more of a comical kind of look, like an animation. This kind of visual style is what we want to do for the Pokémon games," he said.

"If we were able to take that style we have now and have it translate into 3D with no problems; that is definitely something we would be into."

Masuda also seemed concerned with how Pokemon's accessibility would convert in 3D. "It's not just about the visual appearance either," he went on. "The feeling and the control of the character is also very important to us. There is definitely a certain feeling you have when you control these 2D characters. It may be different if we switched over to 3D."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/368932/pokmon-would-lose-its-way-if-it-went-3d-producer/

So yeah, they do choose to use sprites.

Pokemon Stadium and Battle Revolution's battle system is vastly inferior to the one in Black/White. The full 3D battle system featured there is much slower than the 60FPS system in the portable entries.

And using sprites instead of 3D models is not just laziness on their part. In fact, it would take less work to simply use 3D models of Pokemon.

Breaking up 649 (male/female/shiny) sprites and animating each part takes time and effort.

 

[chyyran]

Compulsive for me all the way.

 

[Foxi4]

So yeah, they do choose to use sprites.

Pokemon Stadium and Battle Revolution's battle system is vastly inferior to the one in Black/White. The full 3D battle system featured there is much slower than the 60FPS system in the portable entries.

And using sprites instead of 3D models is not just laziness on their part. In fact, it would take less work to simply use 3D models of Pokemon.

Breaking up 649 (male/female/shiny) sprites and animating each part takes time and effort.

Or so they say, and animating objects consisting of several sprites is *infinitely* easier than animating 3D models (it has been done in earlier generations, for example on the NES, SNES and the GBA to get over the size limit of sprites those respective systems had. In fact, I've even seen *backgrounds* working in conjunction with sprites to create massive full-screen objects, but that's besides the point), especially on a limited device such as the DS. A sprite cluster which animates in such a fashion is only animated in two spatial dimensions, a 3D object has to be animated in three, including any possible transformations, not to mention particle effects which would have to be employed to create various attacks.

The true reason is that the engine simply wasn't made to do that and it would require either major reworking or complete scrapping, I'm sure you understand that.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Or so they say, and animating objects consisting of several sprites is *infinitely* easier than animating 3D models (it has been done in earlier generations, for example on the NES, SNES and the GBA to get over the size limit of sprites those respective systems had), especially on a limited device such as the DS. A sprite cluster animates in such a fashion is only animated in two spatial dimensions, a 3D object has to be animated in three, including any possible transformations, not to mention partical effects which would have to be employed to create various attacks.

The true reason is that the engine simply wasn't made to do that and it would require either major reworking or complete scrapping, I'm sure you understand that.

With the DS being a tad bit more powerful than the N64, they could have easily used models from Pokemon Stadium rather than animating each part of all 649 (*3) sprites but I digress.

Masuda has already said that sprites are a stylistic choice for them yet you maintain your irrational stance that they're lying. Really?

 

[suppow]

Compulsive, and I refuse to say othewise until the franchise receives the make-over it desperately needs. It floats on brand loyalty alone as of today and simply does not reach the standards of a contemporary video game.

Nintendo showed that they can make graphically-impressive and advanced games in the "Pokemon Format", even on the limited DS - they proved it with Fossil Fighters. I have no idea why that game was "not Pokemon" - its formula features just about anything the Pokemon franchise is currently lacking. For all intents and purposes, the current Pokemon games look and feel like they belong in the early DS era, not "today" - implementing full 3D view in both exploration *and* battle mode would greatly benefit the game. Stale story aside, Pokemon is just "stale at its core" and Nintendo refuses to experiment with the franchise. They are yet to release a 3DS version of the game - if I see the same old top-down view with sprites, if I see the same, uninspired battle system screen with two flat Pokemon that are occasionally animated, if yet again, exploration will take place not in three, but in two dimensions (aka, no jumping, crouching, looking for tiny caverns and secret paths visible only from a certain angle etc.), I will be once again gravely disappointed.

personally, i like the traditional style, and would think twice about playing the next game if it made such changes,
it is actually one of the things that keeps me coming back to the series.
i would much rather they the traditional style for the handhelds with the usual improvements,
and do something like what you are saying on the console, a 3D 3rd person version of the game with interactive batles, instead of just a Battle Revolution.
i always loved the idea of something like that, but on the console.
and though i really liked Pokemon Stadium (more than the newer 3D ones) i always found the 3D battles on it much more boring that the plain battles on the handheld,
i mean they look great animated and all, but the way they were done so detached from each other,
you see only one Pokemon on one side attacking the air, and getting hit by nothing, and the other one the same, it was more boring (and slow) to me than the 2D battles.

also i read somewhere that GameFreaks intended on using sprites and keeping as much of the game 2D for as long as they could,
whether that's an excuse to not experiment with 3D, or if they really want to keep it 2D, idk.

 

[Foxi4]

Masuda has already said that sprites are a stylistic choice for them yet you maintain your irrational stance that they're lying. Really?

Lying is not the right word, I'd say "choosing the easier path". Models would not be as easily importable as you think, they would have to be re-worked to include more bones and additional models would have to be made for the Pokemons that were not in the Stadium games, and Nintendo seems unwilling to do so so-far. It was a stylistic choice in the sense of "preserving the style used now, as it is easier to maintain it than to revamp it", but I'm sure my prayers will eventually be answered.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Lying is not the right word, I'd say "choosing the easier path". Models would not be as easily importable as you think, they would have to be re-worked to include more bones and additional models would have to be made for the Pokemons that were not in the Stadium games, and Nintendo seems unwilling to do so so-far. It was a stylistic choice in the sense of "preserving the style used now, as it is easier to maintain it than to revamp it", but I'm sure my prayers will eventually be answered.

"For the Pokémon characters, one of the reasons we use sprites, at least currently, is because we like to have more of a comical kind of look, like an animation. This kind of visual style is what we want to do for the Pokémon games," he said.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/368932/pokmon-would-lose-its-way-if-it-went-3d-producer/

I already posted it but you clearly haven't read it. Sprites are used for stylistic reasons and not simply because it's easier. Unless, and I'll repeat, you think he's lying.

Personally, I have to agree with him. The full-3D art-style in the home console entries looks much worse than the portable entries.

This lacks much of the charm that this has,

But that's just me.

 

[Black-Ice]

But that's just me.

Its not just you mate. I agree