Pokémon X and Pokémon Y Break 3DS Sales Records

[The_Echo]

Also, Pokémon is NOT an RPG (not even a JRPG). It's a strategy game.

It's... it's an RPG.

It's the same type of RPG that Final Fantasy is, except your party is bigger and you have fewer attacks for each. The meta-game of Pokémon employs quite a bit of strategy, but that doesn't make it a strategy game. Fire Emblem is closer to a strategy game than Pokémon, and even then its really a strategy-RPG.

 

[templar1138a]

Also, Pokémon is NOT an RPG (not even a JRPG). It's a strategy game.

It's... it's an RPG.

It's the same type of RPG that Final Fantasy is, except your party is bigger and you have fewer attacks for each. The meta-game of Pokémon employs quite a bit of strategy, but that doesn't make it a strategy game. Fire Emblem is closer to a strategy game than Pokémon, and even then its really a strategy-RPG.

It's really not. Read this for my reasoning.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.831164-Pok-mon-X-and-Pok-mon-Y-Break-3DS-Sales-Records#20285486

Off-topic: Progressive can kiss my ass.

 

[templar1138a]

I just hope that for the next few games they start adding more content agin. While i'm enjoying it, the post game content is awfully short, especially compared to Gen 2

Excuse me, but your attempt at validation did not address the two key letters in RPG: RP, which stands for "Role Playing".

You will find that very few games in the genre RPG feature actual role playing. The genre title isn't used in its literal sense by a majority.

Your quoting the introduction to the point I made took it out of context. Most RPGs actually provide a decent level of role playing. The only recent ones that do less of that are those throwbacks that're all over Kickstarter and Greenlight.

Off-topic: Progressive can kiss my ass.

 

[The_Echo]

snip

Your reasoning is based on stereotypical design choices between JRPGs and WRPGs, instead of what actually defines an RPG (and any other genre): the gameplay. Video game RPGs often forgo the role-playing aspect because it's much harder to actually roleplay with the limitations of a video game, as opposed to the near-limitless potential of a tabletop RPG like Dungeons & Dragons. So, the main link between the two, the thing that people use to identify a game as an RPG, is the stat system and character growth on a quantifiable scale.

This is why Borderlands is an "FPSRPG," and why some games include "RPG elements."

Pokémon is a turn-based RPG. If you feel so inclined, we can call it a turn-based SRPG. But however you slice it, it's still an RPG.

 

[Silverspetz]

Also, Pokémon is NOT an RPG (not even a JRPG). It's a strategy game.

Why?

It has the exact mechanics of a classic, boilerplate turn-based JRPG, except your characters are called "pokemon"

Final Fantasy Tactics is a strategy game, Fire Emblem: Awakening is a strategy game.

Pokemon is a turn-based RPG.

Excuse me, but your attempt at validation did not address the two key letters in RPG: RP, which stands for "Role Playing".

It's not a WRPG because you can't make character portrayal choices to fulfill an empowerment fantasy. Nugget Bridge from Red/Blue is a PRIME example. It's only with X/Y that we begin to see character appearance customization options. But then again, you could paint your ships in color sets in Homeworld, and nobody thinks that's anything but a strategy game.

It's not a JRPG because the Pokémon games have all had very weak narrative with little or no character development. That's supposed to be the focus of JRPGs.

You do not play a role in Pokémon. You amass units to wipe out the other units. Therefore, it is a strategy game.

And picking your team, how to play them, what connections you make with other players, that doesn't count as "customization" or "role-playing" to you?

You are playing the role of a trainer, going through a story consisting of many characters with their own motivations and goals. That makes it a JRPG as far as I'm concerned.

 

[templar1138a]

snip

Your reasoning is based on stereotypical design choices between JRPGs and WRPGs, instead of what actually defines an RPG: the gameplay. Video game RPGs often forgo the role-playing aspect because it's much harder to actually roleplay with the limitations of a video game, as opposed to the near-limitless potential of a tabletop RPG like Dungeons & Dragons. So, the main link between the two, the thing that people use to identify a game as an RPG, is the stat system and character growth on a quantifiable scale.

This is why Borderlands is an "FPSRPG," and why some games include "RPG elements."

Pokémon is a turn-based RPG. If you feel so inclined, we can call it a turn-based SRPG. But however you slice it, it's still an RPG.

Here's what defines a game's genre: The core experience and why you're playing it. Not the mechanics.

RPGs have a WIDE variety of game mechanics. To define them as RPGs based on mechanics alone is ridiculous. Here are some examples of games and series. They're all WRPGs because that's what I have the most experience playing, but it's my understanding that JRPGs are played for the sake of experiencing elaborate stories.

Mass Effect (cover shooter)
Neverwinter Nights (isometric)
SWTOR (MMO)
Alpha Protocol (cover shooter/stealth hybrid)
Elder Scrolls (open world)
Fable (hack and slash)
Dragon Age (hack and slash/isometric hybrid)

So what makes all of them RPGs? The core experience of playing a character.

Mass Effect (Paragon, Renegade, or a bit of both? Cooperative with aliens or pro-humanity?)
Neverwinter Nights (D&D alignment and the choices that go with it)
SWTOR (Eight different storylines with MULTIPLE choices that define the character and their story)
Alpha Protocol (When dealing with people, are you subtle? Threatening? Smarmy? Violent?)
Elder Scrolls (Which factions will you join? Whose side will you take on the smaller quests?)
Fable (Mawkish virtue or extravagant malevolence?)
Dragon Age (Which party members do you want to have like you? Which ones are you okay with having the spite of?)

What defines a genre is not the mechanics. It's WHY you play. It's the experience you're going for.

Pokémon does not provide a core experience of playing an RPG. It doesn't allow you to make choices, nor does it concentrate on telling a compelling narrative. The core of it is that you acquire units and ready them to fight other units, using known strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to gain the upper hand. Here are some other games with that type of gameplay at the core (again the ones I'm familiar with, so I won't be mentioning Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics).

Homeworld (Full 3d RTS in space, units produced from a mothership)
Warcraft (Top-down fantasy RTS)
Starcraft (Warcraft in space)
Command & Conquer (RTS on an alternate Earth in which the Cold War was not as cold)
Heroes of Might & Magic (Turn-based strategy in which you build up castles to produce units and/or the resources to buy them)
Total War (Massive, nation-conquering, turn-based overworld with real-time battles)
Shattered Union (Turn-based conquest of the continental US on hex grids)

Still think Pokémon is an RPG?

 

[templar1138a]

And picking your team, how to play them, what connections you make with other players, that doesn't count as "customization" or "role-playing" to you?

Read this for my explanation. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.831164-Pok-mon-X-and-Pok-mon-Y-Break-3DS-Sales-Records#20285706

 

[Dragonbums]

Also, Pokémon is NOT an RPG (not even a JRPG). It's a strategy game.

It's... it's an RPG.

It's the same type of RPG that Final Fantasy is, except your party is bigger and you have fewer attacks for each. The meta-game of Pokémon employs quite a bit of strategy, but that doesn't make it a strategy game. Fire Emblem is closer to a strategy game than Pokémon, and even then its really a strategy-RPG.

EDIT: whoops I replied to the wrong post.

 

[Dragonbums]

Of course they're selling fast! I'd been waiting for a Pokémon game with the features Y has ever since I first played Pokémon Stadium! Game companies pay attention to money, so I hope Nintendo will connect the dots.

Also, Pokémon is NOT an RPG (not even a JRPG). It's a strategy game.

It's an RPG in the very basic sense that you a (presumably) 10 year old kid and four other children are tasked by the professor to find out the secrets and mystery to the Mega Evolutions in the Kalos region.

During the storyline of the game it can be equated to turn based strategy. However post game, it evolves into a team building strategy game since the only thing to really do then is pit other teams against each other on wifi.

 

[lapan]

snip

Yes, if we take the term RPG very literally a lot of what we classify as RPG wouldn't belong into the genre.

However the genre specification has evolved from it's literal definition and includes a lot of games that feature a prewritten narrative without any choices but a stat/level and equipment based character development.

Most JRPGs fall into that group. Even in many of those examples you listed like Fable the choices are very binary and you are still living out the same game for the most part.

You won't find true role playing outside of dungeonmaster programs and real world activities like Pen&Paper

 

[The_Echo]

Here's what defines a game's genre: The core experience and why you're playing it. Not the mechanics.

I'm sorry... what?

No no no no no no no. That's just plain wrong on an objective, factual level. The vast majority of the time, I play a game to enjoy its story. Does that mean that every game I play for that reason is the same genre? Because if it does, then BioShock Infinite and The World Ends with You must both either be FPSs or RPGs.

Commonalities in mechanics are what define and separate genres. Not the reasons I play games.

 

[Teoes]

I've had more conflict over this game than most others in a good few years. I honestly can't make up my mind whether or not to jump on-board! Argh.

As to the above efforts to derail the topic.. it's not wrong to apply the Strategy label to the Pokemon games. However it is wrong to not apply the RPG label. Gathering experience points, leveling up, increasing stats and acquiring new skills is a fundamental aspect of most games that are considered RPGs. Pokemon is no less an RPG than Final Fantasy.

 

[1337mokro]

My goodness Holmes! You cracked the case.

Games people want to play sell hardware!!!

Now quickly apply it to the WiiU so we can take it off life support.

 

[Silverspetz]

And picking your team, how to play them, what connections you make with other players, that doesn't count as "customization" or "role-playing" to you?

Read this for my explanation. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.831164-Pok-mon-X-and-Pok-mon-Y-Break-3DS-Sales-Records#20285706

Seriously? You LINKED to your own comment when said comment is LITERARY the one right above? Are you kidding me?

Whatever. I agree that it is the core experience that determines what genre a game belongs to, but the core aspect of Pokémon that players come for IS the role-playing, or at the very least an aspect of it. It is about more than beating down trainers with a bunch of units, it's about collecting a team, customizing them to your liking. You name them, you train them, you compete with them in other ways than just battling. You trade with other players and form connections. In fact, the creators have repeatedly stated that it is the TRADING, not the strategy battles that is the core idea behind the whole franchise. Hell, even if you disagree about it being an RPG the fact that all these other features exist aside from battles and receive just as much if not MORE attention should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not purely a strategy game.

Allow me to repeat myself:
"You are playing the role of a trainer, going through a story consisting of many characters with their own motivations and goals. That makes it a JRPG as far as I'm concerned."

The players do not come back generation after generation just to beat the champion once again. We come because we like to think of our team as CHARACTERS and because we like to PLAY A ROLE in this fictional world. THAT is what makes it an RPG.

 

[Hectix777]

Oh but of course!

I mean, the amount of people I streetpassed on my campus alone with either Pokemon X and Y is insane.

Don't even get me started on the midnight launch line.

E-shop wasn't much better on launch. Connection issues galore for the first couple hours.

At my campus, the ratio is about 7-8 out of 10 people on average are playing either x or y. Pretty impressive stuff.

So do Pokemon fight alongside soldiers as infantry or are they equivalent of cavalry, artillery, and armored units?

 

[Dragonbums]

Oh but of course!

I mean, the amount of people I streetpassed on my campus alone with either Pokemon X and Y is insane.

Don't even get me started on the midnight launch line.

E-shop wasn't much better on launch. Connection issues galore for the first couple hours.

At my campus, the ratio is about 7-8 out of 10 people on average are playing either x or y. Pretty impressive stuff.

So do Pokemon fight alongside soldiers as infantry or are they equivalent of cavalry, artillery, and armored units?

If we are to go by how it works in Pokemon Conquest, and what Lt. Surge and King AZ described in Pokemon X and Y, along with how the movie described the war, then yes. Pokemon are treated like common soldiers, infantry, units, etc.

However since Pokeballs didn't exist back then often times they would only go to war only if those they respected (ie trainers) were forced or voluntary participated in warefare. It is also often implied that humans started wars. Never Pokemon, so common wild Pokemon would never get involved in those shenanigans. Which usually meant they became accidental casualties when the war- depending on severity came right up to their doorstep.

Since Pokeballs never existed, the more powerful a Pokemon is, the harder it is to gain their trust, so your lowly squire could have gained the trust of that local Mareep that knows how to aim with a thunderbolt, and both would go to war together as soldiers. However in the face of another warrior that managed to gain the trust of a Pokemon like say- an Aggron, or a Garchomp are completely and utterly useless. Chances are, entire wars were decided literally on the basis of which army had the most soldiers that were strong willed enough to get Pokemon like Dragonite to fight amongst them.
In fact I would go on to say that low ranking soldiers are humans with no Pokemon to their name, or soldiers with Pokemon, but they are either average local wildlife like Onix, Noctowl, Feltchling or petty domestic pets like Miltanks, Meowths, Tauros, etc. They can rise in the ranks (they gain exp. points afterall) but that's providing they survive first.

The higher ranking officers can be more soldiers with more evolved Pokemon Charizard, Nidoqueens, Kangaskhan, Skarmory, etc.

While the highest ranking officials like nobles, generals, knights, commanders, etc. Have either trained their lowly Pokemon to amazing heights, or have managed to befriend and gain the respect of Pokemon that are considered almost god like in their power. Those kinds of Pokemon tend to be any fully evolved dragon types, and all other Pokemon that are considered OU in the metagame tier.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Oh but of course!

I mean, the amount of people I streetpassed on my campus alone with either Pokemon X and Y is insane.

Don't even get me started on the midnight launch line.

E-shop wasn't much better on launch. Connection issues galore for the first couple hours.

At my campus, the ratio is about 7-8 out of 10 people on average are playing either x or y. Pretty impressive stuff.

So do Pokemon fight alongside soldiers as infantry or are they equivalent of cavalry, artillery, and armored units?

If we are to go by how it works in Pokemon Conquest, and what Lt. Surge and King AZ described in Pokemon X and Y, along with how the movie described the war, then yes. Pokemon are treated like common soldiers, infantry, units, etc.

However since Pokeballs didn't exist back then often times they would only go to war only if those they respected (ie trainers) were forced or voluntary participated in warefare. It is also often implied that humans started wars. Never Pokemon, so common wild Pokemon would never get involved in those shenanigans. Which usually meant they became accidental casualties when the war- depending on severity came right up to their doorstep.

Since Pokeballs never existed, the more powerful a Pokemon is, the harder it is to gain their trust, so your lowly squire could have gained the trust of that local Mareep that knows how to aim with a thunderbolt, and both would go to war together as soldiers. However in the face of another warrior that managed to gain the trust of a Pokemon like say- an Aggron, or a Garchomp are completely and utterly useless. Chances are, entire wars were decided literally on the basis of which army had the most soldiers that were strong willed enough to get Pokemon like Dragonite to fight amongst them.
In fact I would go on to say that low ranking soldiers are humans with no Pokemon to their name, or soldiers with Pokemon, but they are either average local wildlife like Onix, Noctowl, Feltchling or petty domestic pets like Miltanks, Meowths, Tauros, etc. They can rise in the ranks (they gain exp. points afterall) but that's providing they survive first.

The higher ranking officers can be more soldiers with more evolved Pokemon Charizard, Nidoqueens, Kangaskhan, Skarmory, etc.

While the highest ranking officials like nobles, generals, knights, commanders, etc. Have either trained their lowly Pokemon to amazing heights, or have managed to befriend and gain the respect of Pokemon that are considered almost god like in their power. Those kinds of Pokemon tend to be any fully evolved dragon types, and all other Pokemon that are considered OU in the metagame tier.

Thanks for taking that, I'm not as well versed in Pokemon lore and wasn't sure how to answer.

[sub][sub]Still gotta find/play Conquest, looked awesome.[/sub][/sub]