Not that this is against you, but just the argument in general. I love when people say this as a knock against pokemon (or really any series games thats a roster change and a change into mechanics that the casual viewer either doeesnt see or doesnt care to see. why should Nintendo as a business have to change a model they know works and brings in sales (especially when looking at their financial reports they could use all the revenue they can get in the hopes of it turning over into profit)? Whats their obligation to the consumer outside of putting out games the consumer can enjoy?Falterfire said:...
"Why yes, we are still clinging to the pointless 'two versions of the same game' thing. Isn't rolling around in piles of money fun?"
...
Indeed; Pokemon is TRUE social game in that you actually have to socialize. This isn't just killing people a thousand miles away in a substitute for bots. And as for the console aspect, Gamefreak has repeatedly stated they aren't interested in putting Pokemon on a console. There is no reason that handhelds shouldn't have huge games like consoles do.Dexterity said:There's no point to it though. You can just play the different Pokemon games. Not to mention that Pokemon isn't designed to be a home console game. There's no benefit to a Pokemon game with 60+ gyms, less connectivity while also being so less fleshed out than all of the other pokemon games because the vast majority of Gamefreak's resources went into designing a world that's 10x as big as one game.
Also, Pokemon is DESIGNED to be a handheld game. The foundation concept of the Pokemon games are that children play the games with their friends in schools or whatever, trade their Pokemon and battle each other. This might be an alien concept to a few people here, but the Pokemon games are designed to encourage people to go outside and talk to other people.
You're in luck, that seems incredibly likely given that in the original gen you actually fought a different team depending on what version you got. I could see them extending that out to more of the scenery.emeraldrafael said:I will say though, i would like if I nintendo could do what they did in black and white and have the games have a certain aesthetic difference.
^And this ladies and Gentlemen is why the Pokemon games are so much win.Spartan448 said:But what I'm really looking forward to is the chance to finally return my Swampert home. I still have my first pokemon (a mudkip that is now a Swampert) from when I got my first video game, Sapphire version. Returning him to his rightful home and his rightful crown is going to mean so much to me.
Actually, quite a few people were waiting with baited breath for remakes of Ruby and Sapphire.Falterfire said:"Yeah, we know what everybody really wants is a game that lets you explore all the regions in one game, but that sounds like too much effort."
Unless you have some kind of compulsion to buy both versions (which, with the new online functionality in X/Y, is completely useless), I don't see why this is an issue."Why yes, we are still clinging to the pointless 'two versions of the same game' thing. Isn't rolling around in piles of money fun?"
yeah I know, but the games were still the same. personally I feel gen 3 as the weakest story was and the gen 3 guys as the weakest enemies. I wouldnt have mindd if they did one enemy and then just the region look different.Raine_sage said:You're in luck, that seems incredibly likely given that in the original gen you actually fought a different team depending on what version you got. I could see them extending that out to more of the scenery.emeraldrafael said:I will say though, i would like if I nintendo could do what they did in black and white and have the games have a certain aesthetic difference.
I never liked all the water BS that was forced down your throat. You spend more time on water than you do on land in these games. Which is exactly why I consider Hoenn the worst region.Malbourne said:Hurrah for more cool underwater sections and sunken ships! I'm a little put off by terms like "fresh take" and "epic new" but I can only see this is a good thing.
You mean remake a 10+ year old game?Redworld13 said:I wonder what people would say if Activision or EA did this with one of their franchises? To each their own i guess.
Nonsense! There's plenty of names you can use for the pokemon games.maximalist566 said:I'm curious what will be the name of the 4th generation reboot. Cause it seems to me that they are running out of options. Colors, metals, gemstones, more colors, more metals and gemstones, heart and soul + metals, even more colors, even more colors but with innovative mechanic of numbers, letters and now back to gemstones but with other letters. Guess soon we'll get Pokemon C-nickel-blood-opal-brown, or something like that.
While i would like that, I doubt it would happen. Since soul silver and heart gold are avaliable (although Nintendo/game freak could make them more avaliable) you can explore Kanto and get all of the Legendaries from there, Including Mewtwo in Cerulean Cave. It may not be the same journey but its probably close enough.William Ossiss said:I fully expect a port of Kanto soon-ish.
Most likely. Especially since newer systems become old and obsolete there will be certain Pokemon that would be rendered unobtainable without said Pokemon version. Granted that may not even be the case anymore since Pokebank allows you to store Pokemon up there for future generations to come.michael87cn said:So are they going to remake all of the past games, then? Seems likely. In 5 years are they going to remake all the remakes? And then remake the remakes of remakes? Heh?